A Journey Beyond the Material: Exploring Federico Faggin’s “Irreducible”

A Journey Beyond the Material: Exploring Federico Faggin’s “Irreducible”

Srinivas Hebbar

 ...Faggin goes beyond Shannon’s classical information theory, which focuses solely on symbolic information devoid of meaning. He introduces the concept of live information, a dynamic interplay of matter, energy, and information within living systems.

Unlike classical bits, which are static and separable, live information is interconnected and ever-changing, reflecting the constant flow of matter and energy within living organisms. Faggin emphasizes that, “A living cell is not a purely reductionist machine. Instead, it is a quantum-classical dynamical system closer to the quantum reality than to the classical one.” He suggests that this unique characteristic allows life to harness the creative power of quantum physics...

..At the core of Faggin’s model lie seities, quantum fields endowed with consciousness, identity, and free will. Emanating from One, the totality of what exists, seities are the fundamental “parts-whole” of reality, each containing the essence of One and contributing to its ongoing self-knowing.

Seities communicate with each other through live information, their interactions forming the symbolic reality we perceive as the physical universe. Faggin proposes two distinct but interconnected spaces: C-space, the inner realm of conscious experience, and I-space, the outer world of symbolic information. Seities exist within C-space, translating their subjective experiences (represented by pure quantum states) into live information symbols in I-space...

Indeed... what is living information but knowledge, which itself is an discrete encapsulation of meaning and experience? We can then convey knowledge through a common medium of symbols, further abstracting knowledge into information ~ living knowledge being symbol and semantics together. It is only with the advent of computers that we have artificially separated symbol from semantics, with AI salesmen implicitly claiming that semantics are reducible to just symbols, so they can redefine intelligence as being something other than what we used to commonly understand it as. Thusly, they can sell us a false reality, so they can make money.

It is partially what I loathe about the deliberate use of certain metaphors to describe AI, "machine learning",  even the term "artificial intelligence" itself. They are deliberate misuse metaphor with the intent to confuse and so market something that isn't actually happening, creating false and misleading ideas in the minds of the ignorant masses, so that investors with lots of money will buy into manufactured hype, so the marketeers can profit heavily.

It's all rather greasy and slimy, the whole enterprise.

This looks like a potentially interesting book - has anyone read it or does anyone know of a good review of its contents?

David

This looks like a potentially interesting book - has anyone read it or does anyone know of a good review of its contents?

David

I’ve read some of it, not in order.

I think it is interesting, and while the exact terminology and accuracy of the offered quantum mechanics interpretation are hard to judge I do think some the general ideas about the nature of reality seem to align with other accounts.

I also like that the book takes into account the paranormal when trying to present its scientific picture, given some authority from Faggin’s contributions to computer science/engineering.

I’ve read some of it, not in order.

I think it is interesting, and while the exact terminology and accuracy of the offered quantum mechanics interpretation are hard to judge I do think some the general ideas about the nature of reality seem to align with other accounts.

I also like that the book takes into account the paranormal when trying to present its scientific picture, given some authority from Faggin’s contributions to computer science/engineering.

Does he stick with standard QM, or introduce something else? Standard QM purports to be applicable to everything, but in practice it can only be used in toy examples.

Does he use QFT or relativity, of does he just use non-relativistic QM?

I'm really trying to avoid obtaining a book that I can't fully understand!

I wonder if @nbtruthman has looked at it.

David

Does he stick with standard QM, or introduce something else? Standard QM purports to be applicable to everything, but in practice it can only be used in toy examples.

Does he use QFT or relativity, of does he just use non-relativistic QM?

I'm really trying to avoid obtaining a book that I can't fully understand!

I wonder if @nbtruthman has looked at it.

David

From what I've read it's not a formal interpretation that's presented in the book. More of an appeal to the layperson to consider his ideas.

In that it's somewhat similar to other public facing works by scientists. I have [not] read deeply into those parts, but I don't recall seeing any real math in the book.

I don't think you'd have any issue with understanding the text, but maybe look at some of the stuff available on the web regarding his ideas so you don't spend money on a book you may not like.

[Laird]

A Journey Beyond the Material: Exploring Federico Faggin’s “Irreducible”

Srinivas Hebbar

Based on that summary, Federico's metaphysic looks more coherent and appealing than that of a monistic idealism which posits that there is truly only a singular self: Federico seems to accept truly plural selves. I'm wary though of the notion of an "outer world of symbolic information", because free-floating information leaves reality ungrounded, but I might simply be misunderstanding what this means.

Based on that summary, Federico's metaphysic looks more coherent and appealing than that of a monistic idealism which posits that there is truly only a singular self: Federico seems to accept truly plural selves. I'm wary though of the notion of an "outer world of symbolic information", because free-floating information leaves reality ungrounded, but I might simply be misunderstanding what this means.

Yeah I'm not 100% sure Faggin understands all the implications of his position.

But it definitely is more a One<->Many [metaphysics] expressed in his writings that an Absolute Idealism where the Ur-Mind is the one true Subject. (I admittedly am not sure if Monistic Idealism is the same thing)

[Laird]

Yeah I'm not 100% sure Faggin understands all the implications of his position.

But it definitely is more a One<->Many [metaphysics] expressed in his writings that an Absolute Idealism where the Ur-Mind is the one true Subject. (I admittedly am not sure if Monistic Idealism is the same thing)

Re the bit I've bolded in orange: I am not sure either, but I think it is, based on how I define monistic idealism and what I understand of Absolute Idealism (I haven't read Hegel or any of its other proponents in the original), as I explained here.

Yeah I'm not 100% sure Faggin understands all the implications of his position.

But it definitely is more a One<->Many [metaphysics] expressed in his writings that an Absolute Idealism where the Ur-Mind is the one true Subject. (I admittedly am not sure if Monistic Idealism is the same thing)

Re the bit I've bolded in orange: I am not sure either, but I think it is, based on how I define monistic idealism and what I understand of Absolute Idealism (I haven't read Hegel or any of its other proponents in the original), as I explained here.

Absolute Idealism is a branch of Idealism, which is Monistic, per positing a single substance. It's sort of redundant, honestly. There cannot be non-Monistic forms of Idealism, because that sort of doesn't make much sense...