"When the map becomes the territory". Recursive Self Modification: A Universal language of Reality Ontogenesis?

If I were to tell you that reality is a kind of book that is writing itself, you'd probably declare me bonkers. If I were to tell you that there are even scientists, who seriously contemplate this surreal idea in the form of a self-processing sentient language that creates reality by modifying itself, you'd probably get the hell out of my vicinity as fast as you could. The fact that I even dare to mention these unicorn fables, will probably make you put away this article at this very moment.If you still continue reading, you might have a sense of humour or curiosity to see how people end up contemplating such rubbish. After all, language is a high-level phenomenon. Surely these people mistake the map and the territory. Or maybe you find it fascinating that someone came up with the bizarre and unrealistic idea to unify the ontic and the epistemic under one banner.But if I tell you there are certain subtypes of a molecule called ribonucleic acid (RNA), which almost hit all the marks to qualify as real life representatives of this concept, you might be willing to lend me a listening ear. After all such a concept might have technological applications in biotech or in artificial intelligence in the form of an algorithm that can create complexity by recursive self-modification to generate a more dynamic version of the computer program called "game of life".RNA is the nucleic acid molecule that preceded the better known nucleic acid carrier of inheritable traits called DNA in evolution. Certain viruses, proto-life forms, do not have a DNA but an RNA molecule instead. RNA is also present as an essential constituent in the cells of every life form. Nucleic acids are like a code with four symbols, which are present in the form of two pairs of complementary molecular motifs called nucleotides. They encode proteins. The code can be read by other nucleic acids that dock to the code if they have the complementary code. This can then trigger the assembly of proteins from amino acids. It can also result in the further assembly of a complementary nucleic acid strand, which is a form of copying the code. So basically nucleic acids function as a kind of cellular computer, which takes other nucleic acid molecules as input and provides proteins or nucleic acids as output.Certain types of RNA can fold back on themselves and have stretches of their nucleotides pair, so that you get a kind of lariat form. Where did I see this before? It reminds me of the alchemical symbol of the Ouroboros, the snake that bites its own tail and thereby gets to know itself. An ancient symbol of the self-reflective nature of consciousness. Image of OuroborosSource: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/common... certain RNA molecules can process i.e. modify themselves when they interact with themselves. Often this results in cutting of a part of itself (self-splicing), but it can also result in extending itself. Image of self-splicing RNASource: dm5migu4zj3pb.cloudfront.net/manuscri... other words, these RNA molecules constitute a kind of code or language, if you wish, that recognises and reads itself and modifies itself as a consequence thereof. The only aspect which a priori appears to be missing from the earlier mentioned concept of a self-processing sentient language that creates reality by modifying itself, is the "sentience" aspect. You could argue that the molecular interactions that lead to the mutual recognition of the motifs are sensed in a certain way; it is not merely the fitting of pieces of a jigsaw puzzle: electronic charges attract and repel each other and hydrogen bonds are formed. If we accept this as a form of primitive sentience, this molecule hits all the marks to qualify as an instance of the previously defined concept. When it comes to RNA maps can be territories simultaneously. So a self-processing sentient language that creates reality by modifying itself might after all not be such a surreal concept.In the last decades some idealist-type ideas have been suggested by outsiders with respect to philosophy, who suggest that virtually everything in reality is the result of such a "Recursive Self-Modification" of a code. In view of the RNA example, perhaps they do merit our consideration, if not for philosophical reasons then at least for the potential technological relevance or as an aesthetic enrichment of the human epistome (i.e. the complete collection of all that is known in imitation of terminologies such as genome and proteome).Many of these ideas find their origin in a branch of physics called digital physics. Not energy, but information is considered to be at the root of reality. But this introduces a problem, because information implies meaning conveyed by symbolism and requires a mind or at least consciousness to recognise or make sense of the meaning. And this brings us back to the age-old problem of the Cartesian Mind-Body dualism. So if information is at the root of the manifested reality, consciousness must somehow be present at a deeper non-manifested level.In this essay I will show you how a number different scientists and garden-variety philosophers have come up with a suggested solution to this problem, the common denominator of which is the notion of Recursive Self-Modification. I will give an overview of a number of such contemporary "mind=reality theories", which consider reality as the product of a cognitive self-processing language. I will discuss a number of similarities between Langan’s Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), Irwin’s Code Theoretic Axiom (CTA), Kaufman’s Unified Reality Theory (URT), Tsang’s Brain Fractal Theory (BFT) and Deli’s Science of Consciousness (SoC). I will also discuss the idiosyncrasies which makes each of these theories unique. Aspects as neural networks, fractals, category theory and the Yoneda Lemma and their implication for sentience, self-reference and self-processing will be discussed. Finally, I’ll try to suggest how these different complementary frameworks can be integrated in order to evolve towards a Theory of Everything, with the ultimate aim of providing a sound metaphysical basis for physics without the usual paradoxes that arise from the underlying self-reference.Although I do not take most of these theories seriously over their whole scope, it is neither my intent to use this essay to systematically undermine each of these theories, nor is it my intent to defend them against criticism. Rather, I'd like to review them in order to distil useful notions worthy of further exploration.Langan's CTMU
Let me start with the most controversial of these theories, which has the most far reaching claims. It is the so-called Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) by Chris Langan (i). Langan, who has been described as the smartest man in the world in the media because of his impeccable scores in IQ tests, is an outsider in the field of philosophy and academia. Nevertheless, reading his work reveals he has a deep knowledge of mathematics, physics and metaphysics.Langan has tried to formulate an all-encompassing theory of everything (TOE), the claims of which seem a priori impossible. He claims to have solved the problem of what caused existence to become manifest, the notion of free will and the Cartesian Mind-Body dualism.The essence of his theory is the Mind=Reality equation or in other words, reality as a whole is a kind of cosmic conscious mind, not unlike in cosmopsychism or the views of ancient Hindu and Buddhist mythology. For idealist philosophers this notion per se is of course not problematic.What follows hereafter is my interpretation of Langan's work and I'd like to add a caveat here, that due to the convoluted language full of neologisms used by Langan, it may well be that I have misunderstood certain aspects, the explanation of which does not conform to Langan's own understanding of his theory.What is extremely remarkable and unorthodox about Langan's theory is how this Mind is brought about. It's perhaps in a sense comparable to John Wheeler's self-excited circuit. Reality in Langan's definition includes everything which can influence reality, which excludes external causes. As "nothing shall come from nothing" (in Shakespeare's words) excludes a spontaneous creation from nothing, there must be a third option, suggests Langan. Unlike (in)determinacy and (a)causality, Langan proposes self-causality and self-determinacy as the origin of reality; as an ontological precybernetic feedback, which he calls "telic feedback". This telic feedback takes place between the state of reality and the functional rules that govern its behaviour upon input. Langan calls these rules a Syntax. This feedback retroactively applies a generalised utility function (a kind of optimisation; maximisation) by means of atemporal communication between past and future. I figured that this may correspond to Visan's (ii) self-referencing, a looking back and forward (looking back at its state and looking back at its looking back etc.) kind of activity, by which time can be generated from memory. As I understand this, reality takes itself as input, which results in looking back at itself, which then creates a feedback between the looking and the state of self. (In my humble opinion this amounts to saying that reality was always there and that manifesting itself is a kind of self-perpetuation). What results is a kind of energetic universal system of rules to act upon the information and rules that establish the system. Or in other words, a kind of language - a mathematical control language through which nature regulates its self-instantiations. Langan calls this a "Self-configuring self-processing Language" (SPSCL), which is both cognitive/conscious and informational.Another way to show that the conscious energetic processing that makes up reality is a form of language is his "principle of Linguistic reducibility" or "Syndiffeonesis". Says Langan "Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same".The difference between A and B is the "difference relation" between A and B. In order to be related this difference must have a medium and syntax which are common to A and B, according to Langan. You can express a difference in energy or information, but you can also express it linguistically, which has the advantage that it does not only take into account structure but also function.If A and B are Mind and Reality, respectively, and we would test if there is a difference in the sense that Mind is cognitive and Reality is physically embodied information, then the relational difference between Mind and Reality would need a common medium and common syntax to make them interact. This common substance Langan calls infocognition, which is the SPSCL he previously referred to.(I personally think this type of reasoning is flawed as it does not take emergence into account. This however does not invalidate the theory per se).Although it does not fall within the framework of this essay to discuss the 56 page long CTMU paper of Langan in detail, there are a few peculiarities which are worthwhile mentioning:Langan see the universe as a holologically organised system, with a fractal like similarity at many - if not all- levels. He claims that CTMU logically establishes that the universe is indeed a holographic self-simulation. Whereas there is a single main consciousness in the form of the infocognitive protean principle, his telic recursive feedback principle results in a degree of polymorphism: The system multiplies itself into multiple instances of itself, which are called Telons or Telic entities, and which in turn do the same and so on. According to Langan, the infocognitive monism thus results in what he calls a "stratified panpsychism", but I think he meant "stratified pantheism", because there is no concept of consciousness arising from the sum of sublevel conscious entities in his theory. To qualify as Telic entity, it must have "sufficient mental coherence and complexity to internally model the relationship between self and environment".In Langan's model there is no cosmic expansion, but rather a so-called "conspansion". Everything is shrinking, which gives the impression of expansion.The quantum mechanical collapse of a wave into a particle is caused by the mutual observation of the wave in question and a wave or particle from the detector or screen.Langan (iii) claims in a later paper  that physics and the scientific method cannot explain physics itself. For that metaphysics is needed. To explain physics as object language a metaphysical metalanguage is needed, which includes physics as a sublanguage and which is mathematical in order to be able to explain the mathematical manifestations observed in physics. Using syndiffeonesis as relational structure of reality and having inherent cognitive nature SPSCL is such a language according to Langan. In other words Langan claims to have unified the ontic and epistemic in a single (meta) language like entity/process called infocognition, which can operate as both object and subject, as both map and territory, depending on which part of the Ouroboros we are looking at. Tsang's Brain Fractal TheoryBy now you probably had your share of wasting your time and tossed this article away as a bunch of nonsensical mumbo jumbo, as I did with CTMU in 2012. In case you are still reading: five years later however I came across the Brain Fractal Theory (BFT) by Wai H.Tsang (iv).Tsang has a degree in computer science and artificial intelligence from Imperial College in London. In his book Brain Fractal Theory, Tsang shows that there is a perfect functional mapping between the genetic realm and the neuronal world. Tsang develops his ideas about universally occurring binary trees to a true recipe intended to generate artificial general intelligence which may reach and even surpass the human level of intelligence. The combination of divergent and convergent forward and backward chaining which result in an intersection where they meet is not only a heuristics technique in present day AI, but is developed further in the framework of Tsang's binary tree mapping process as the mapping means to select successful candidates. What is extremely interesting here is that Tsang describes a recursive self-modification algorithm, in which the process takes itself as an object and maps this. Image: Recursive Self-modifying loop by Wai H.Tsang.Source: http://www.iawwai.com/FractalBrains/FBTPaper.htmlWhere did we hear or see something like this before? The RNA molecule? Langan's SPSCL?So even if it turns out that Langan's portentous ideas cannot live up to their promise, at least the notion of "recursive self-modification" has a promising application in the form of a genetic self-sustaining algorithm. Perhaps only for this reason, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.In mathematical category theory, if a category is like another category, there is a mapping between the two categories; a meaningful mapping that preserves the structure of the category when mapping it to another category. Such special structure-preserving mappings are called "functors".The mappings from A to B can also be considered as the way A relates to B. The relation between A and B could then be considered as the sum of the maps from A to B and the maps from B to A. According to the philosopher Wittgenstein there are no things or objects in reality but only relations. It is the interplay between these relations which create the illusion of localised objects, where there are none. In fact quantum mechanics shows that everything is in fact a giant interference pattern of vibrations and vibrations are essentially non-local. Moreover everything is in a constant state of flux; there is no phenomenon that is exactly identical between two moments. Or as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said: Panta rhei, ouden menei: Everything flows, nothing remains and "no man ever steps in the same river twice".In category theory we call mappings morphisms. Mappings show the maps between "objects" (characters, strings, mathematical objects, sets etc.). A special functor in category theory is the Yoneda functor. Whereas functors normally map objects, the Yoneda functor takes morphisms (mappings) themselves as objects and maps these into a set, which is a new object. (A map of maps so to say). This is the notion that Tsang uses to come to his recursive self-modifying algorithms. In a correspondence, he wrote me that he seriously considered the possibility that this type of mapping activity is indeed involved in our cognitive processes.Kaufman's Unified Reality TheorySteve Kaufman (v), author of "Unified Reality Theory" has a liberal arts degree as well as a medical degree, but is an autodidact as regards physics. He describes the ontogenesis of reality as a repetitive and progressive process of self-relations. If consciousness as singular absolute existence engages in a relation with itself (or metaphorically folds upon itself) the parts that now touch each other become a kind of relative existence, This dualization process can result in the creation of so-called reality cells of relative existence. It's like a cell division process, which result in the fabric of space: A vast 3D array of reality cells optimally organised in a closest packing establishes a relational matrix. The cells can expand, shrink and interpenetrate. A kind of quantum foam, if you wish. Light is created if distortions arise and propagate through this matrix. When a cell is distorted it has a value 1, when it is not a value 0, leading to a kind of binary substrate, propagations through which can also be interpreted as a code or primitive language. As this is all made out of consciousness, such distortions are sensed too. The system is sentient. When distortions meet each other, due to the rules inherent to the structure of the medium, the distortions start to circumambulate each other forming a so-called compound process, which is how a particle is formed from pure energy in Kaufman's model. Noteworthy, Kaufman disagrees with the notion of curved spacetime in Einstein's general relativity theory. Gravity is caused by gradients of radial distortions emanating from a linearly propagating distortion. Distortions attract each other more if the reality cells they propagate through are more distorted. This creates gravity. Thus he claims to resolve the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity. There is also no need for a "graviton" particle.Similar to Langan, wave collapse into a particle is thus also achieved via the mutual observation of waves. Experience arises, when the unified existence is obscured and existence becomes defined in relation to itself, in a folding back on itself kind of relation. What is experienced, is just the part of existence that impacts itself.Again this Ouroboric tailbiting, again a self-modifying, rule based self-relating process. If one is an instance, two a coincidence and three a pattern, we must conclude that we are starting to see a pattern in the above mentioned theories.Irwin's Code Theoretic AxiomAnother author Klee Irwin (vi), founder of Quantum Gravity Research and co-founder of Kurzweil's Singularity University, comes with a similar idea, which he has baptised the "Code Theoretic Axiom". At the Planck scale Irwin suggests the fabric of reality might "operate according to a geometric language with syntactical freedom". He attributes a quality of freewill and cognition to elementary particles, based on the idea that we must have inherited our freewill from the lower levels (Freewill? I am being commanded to write this article by my Muses!).He quotes the whole club of physicists and in particular digital physicists, who argue that nature is "information theoretic". In particular he mentions the "self-dual error correcting codes" physicist James Gates Jr. (vi) found embedded in the supersymmetry equation network that unifies all elementary particles and all forces other than gravity.As information is meaning conveyed by symbolism, this implies the presence of choice and consciousness as well. Discarding the simulation hypothesis because it implies an external causation, he postulates a "self-organised-simulation, where symbolic code is simultaneously the hardware, software and the output - the simulation." Again reference is made to "physically realistic syntactical rules how an abstract code self-organizes". Freewill action is the expression of syntactically free steps.Irwin sees reality at this level as a neural network based code. Neural networks may not only find their expression in the nervous systems of animals; the symbiotic network between plant roots and mycelium also appears to qualify as one. Moreover the structure of stellar clusters in the universe is eerily reminiscent of neuronal structures. Irwin suggests that the pan-consciousness also leads to consciousness in emergent sub-systems. Again a kind of stratified pantheism in a self-actualised neural network.Typical in Irwin's theory is that he refers to self-referential geometric symbols (e.g. a triangle representing a triangle, a square symbol representing a square) as ingredients for a natural code: quasicrystals can fulfil that function as a kind of first principles occurring in nature.This finally leads to the "principle of Efficient Language". A neural network with binary trees (as we saw in Tsang's theories) allows for a maximisation in the generation of meaning whilst ensuring the least amount of action (as well as the least amount of symbols and simplest syntax) to achieve this. It also allows for the expression of binary syntactically free choices inherent in the underlying consciousness. Meaning comes first geometrically and numerically at the fundamental level of reality but its readout becomes transcendent thereof in higher neural networks, whilst still being built on and emergent from these geometric/numerical structures. Not unlike Buckminster Fuller's (vii) geometry of thought.Deli's Science of ConsciousnessThe last Theory I'd like to address actually does not belong to the list of selected authors. After all, Eva Deli (viii) is a physicalist. She does not speak about a self-configuring, recursively self-modifying language. Nor does she consider consciousness to be all-compassing and/or foundational to reality. Eva Deli is a scientist with a degree in cell biology. As regards physics she's an autodidact. I still included Deli in this article because she does describe reality as a self-regulating system with an inherent organising principle, which according to her necessarily converges towards the emergence of an intelligent mind. She does describe a kind of fractal theory of mind like structures, but a bit the other way around: Minds, nature and reality at large behave like fermions and have a similar structure in her opinion. Deli presents a kind of alternative unorthodox proposal for a "theory of everything" (T.O.E.) in which spacetime is separated into orthogonal spatial and temporal fields. Insulated Calabi Yau manifold toruses of elementary particles, fermions in particular, can interact therewith or not, based on their spin-down or spin-up status. The universe is considered a polarised construct in this model, the poles of which are "information saturated black holes" and "free energy based white wholes". Complexity of the material construct of existence as we know it arises somewhere in between. Deli claims to resolve the incompatibility between general relativity theory and quantum mechanics by separating time and space as orthogonal constructs.The mind is presented as a temporal fermion itself and its emotional behaviour is shown to have interesting parallels to the behaviour of the particulate fermions we know from physics. Most interesting I found the notion that increased attention for detail (i.e. information saturation) is associated with higher brain activity frequencies whereas relaxation is associated with lower frequencies. The brain tries to maintain a constant level of activity, which is warranted by the so-called Default Mode Network activity and increases in frequency are balanced by decreases in frequency over time. Depression can be compared to quantum spin-down states, whereas equanimity and relaxation are compared to spin-up states which are more in tune with the freedom of a manifold torus unbound by a field. Whereas I see these maps as interesting analogies, the author presents them as if they are facts. Fortunately at the end of the book, she admits that it is a hypothesis needing verification.The book is also about evolutionary biology and provides a similar map as the second part, but now between evolutionary processes and Deli's physics. In a certain way Deli shows that a same pattern is present in macro and micro dimensions, in spatial and temporal dimensions and in mind and matter dimensions. Such a unifying fractal pattern may indeed be included in a future T.O.E. However in the absence of solving the hard-problem of consciousness IMHO it does not qualify as a T.O.E. yet.Integrative ConclusionWe have seen the notion of a recursive self-modification code or language as a principle that a number of 21st century authors consider to be at the root of manifestation in reality. A code, which gives rise to fractals and neural networks as ultimate tools for self-representation and self-regeneration. Although we cannot deny the occurrence of the principle of recursive self-modification in specific instances in nature, there is no a priori reason to assume that this property is universal. The authors, all of which are outsiders in the field of philosophy, have arrived at their conclusions via deductive or abductive reasoning or via reasoning by analogy. Whereas the classical deductive method may have been highly valued in the time of Aristotle and whereas it cannot be denied that the deductive method can sometimes yield results that can be verified experimentally afterwards (as was the case in Einstein's relativity theories), it is nowadays not regarded as a preferred way to acquire knowledge. After all -unless they are mathematic - the axioms of deductive reasoning usually have their basis in an inductive grounding. The impossibility (as of yet) to empirically verify most of the tenets of the above mentioned theories, makes that for the moment -even if they can sometimes be tautological onto themselves- they cannot qualify as a serious epistemological method. Rather, they are speculative heuristics at best, some of which do merit further investigation.Of these Tsang's application of recursive self-modification in the generation of computer algorithms is the most promising. If he is successful, he might create a kind of "Game of Life" program, which is capable of creating higher degrees of complexity than the existing primitive computer program called "Game of Life". Such a game has potential in modelling chaotic and complex systems and to explore how such "dynamical fractals" can give rise to symmetry breaking and form plus function diversification. Notions of mapping processes in neurosciences can also be "mapped" further themselves, in order to explore a new conceptual theory. It may also provide an avenue to explore the possibility of creating an artificial mimic of consciousness. After all, recursive self-modification can be considered as a higher level of phenomenology of the self-referential nature of consciousness described by Cosmin Visan(ii).It is however my gut feeling that these authors can complement each other in interesting ways: Kaufman and Irwin could compare their ideas to see which geometry of the quantum foam is more likely. Langan might learn about the exact nature of his syntactic rules by paying attention to Kaufman's and Irwin's geometric considerations. Deli's notions about information saturated black holes and fermions at different scales can be evaluated in the light of digital physics, but may also help in the appreciation of the possibility of a cosmic consciousness, for -as Irwin convincingly argues- information does not make sense without a consciousness to interpret it. Information cannot be fundamental.Kaufman and Deli's approaches to overcome the incompatibility between general relativity theory and quantum mechanics certainly merit a closer look.Langan and Kaufman's quantum collapse as mutual observation upon proximity co-occurrence is perhaps a notion, which could inspire scientists to perform additional experimentation to help us further in understanding the double slit experiment in physics. And guess what, in the branch of artificial intelligence called "Latent Semantic Analysis" statistical relevant proximity co-occurrence of terminologies is crucial to the attribution of meaning.Perhaps, if the gaps and contradictions between these theories are resolved, and if we do find empirical ways to verify the validity of the resulting theory, we might end up with a basis to develop a serious Theory-of-Everything, which includes both consciousness and information.From an artistic point of view the bizarre surreal notion of unifying and even transcending the ontic and epistemic can be inspiring as well. This reminds me of the story "Del rigor en la ciencia" by the Spanish author Borges (ix), who wrote about an empire with such an exact science of cartography, that only a map of the exact size of the empire sufficed. Of course this leads to the recursive necessity to include a map of the map as well and so on ad infinitum...References:(i)  C.M. Langan, “The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory” Progress in Complexity, Information and Design, 2002.(ii) Cosmin Visan, The Self Referential Aspect of Consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research 8 (11):864-880, 2017.(iii)  C.M.Langan Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 13, no. 2, pp.313-330, 2017.(iv)  Wai H.Tsang, The Fractal Brain Theory, Lulu press, 2017.(v)  Klee Irwin, Code Theoretic Axiom, http://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/The-Code-Theoretic-Axiom-02.17.17-final-KI.pdf(vi)  S.J.Gates in http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0051, 2008.(vii)  R. Buckminster Fuller, “Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking”, Macmillan, 1982.(viii)  E.K.Deli, The Science of Consciousness, Nadir Video, 2015.(ix)  J.L.Borges, 123: Narraciones (Letras Hispánicas) Tapa blanda, 2005.by Antonin Tuynman, author of the books "Is Intelligence an Algorithm?", "Transcendental Metaphysics" and "Technovedanta"