It From Bit or Bit From It? by Kimmo Rouvari

"The essence of information depends solely on ones perspective"

But in science we are not interested in perspectives, just one reference, ie what exists, as far as we can know.

"Obviously there is reality for us human beings, which, in fact, is a

very broad and complex one. For a simpler life form, reality is something else..."

Not so. The perception of reality is different, not the reality.

"What makes realities different for this simpler life form and a plain rock?"

Nothing, the reality is the same. The rock just cannot process physical input received into any form of perception, ie it has no form of awareness of reality.

Paul

Kimmo

It would be a better term. The point being it is not the reality, there is only one.

Paul

This is a very well written essay about abstract information. Unfortunately, the essay dwells too fondly on the perfection of invisibility. Invisible fabricated particles behave flawlessly in assembling in such a cogent fashion; fabricated electronic instruments can easily detect and record all of their intent. Why certain electromagnetic chemical reactions would willingly choose to modestly operate in a simple life form solely for the perceived purpose of placating the curiosity of a different bundle of electromagnetic chemical reactions pulsating away in the brain of a physicist is not adequately explained.

Kimmo, nice essay, hope you do well.

So It and Bit are the same thing in your view. Does that mean that neither is fundamental, or that both are?

Hello, Kimmo,

Yes, you're absolutely right: Drawn conclusions are just totally wrong.

You have a very interesting, non-trivial view of reality, its structure and the nature of the information. I wish you success, Vladimir

Kimmo,

See also my essay. You see, maybe something in common. I am sure that the new information age requires new concepts and new constructs to build a unified picture of an essentially sound worlds for physicists and lyrics. Vladimir

Kimmo,

Fascinating essay, original and very 'real'. I also think I may have actually employed something like the Rouvari effect to great effect in my own essay!

I particularly agree; "interaction is stored in form of rotation frequency and rotation axis orientation changes, into the interacting objects."

I certainly also derive and apply the rotational axis, and, adding translation on the axis, also discuss the 'helix' described. This proves important in resolving the EPR paradox. I think your;

"In case of two, same spin, particles meet in appropriate conditions they process that information by precessing until they have reached parallel rotation axis orientation. End state of this process is a stored information in form of new spinning rates and spin axis orientations of particles involved."

Is a very good description. I also extract some implicit subtleties of 'charge density'. Then I was really impressed with your phrase consistent with my 'information channel' from 'detector' to 'processor' (brain);

"when receptors in an eye process photon information with certain energy, it releases a small current into a ones brains. Brains receive the information in form of electric current but how the brains store that information? Only option is to change brains structure and that's really happening when brains store information."

But of course brains also "process", so analyse and derive conclusions. Which is where I suggest it all goes wrong!!

Long live reality! Good bit of ripping down nonsense curtains. I think it deserves to be higher up the list and have you marked down for a much better score. Have you given a definitive concise definition of your 'effect'? I hope I've helped rip down more of the curtain some areas so hope you can read my essay. I'm pretty sure is resolves the EPR paradox! But reality doesn't seem yet entirely in fashion.

Well done and best of luck

Peter

Hi Kimmo,

I like the use of the word curtain and the fact you talk about observation. You may (or may not be) interested in my essay which also looks at observation at and beyond event horizons. We may have some common ground?

I think you have paid good attention to the essay guidelines in your different sections - making it very relevant.

Best wishes,

Antony

Kimmo,

If information and particles are the same, what is the role of consciousness. That would mean that humans are information and atoms.

Jim

Dear Kimmo

Your image of a ripped curtain behind which the truth of a new physics is revealed is wonderful (even Hitchcock used it in his movie "Torn Curtain" also involving pohysics!). In my fqxi essay I used the image of a Cloud to show how we make mistakes in observing reality and making theories about it.

Your essay is based on your interesting ToEbi which I also looked at in vixra. Your theory has some interesting similarities to my own 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory also found here where the basis is the exchange of angular momentum in an ether lattice. There are differences too, because there is no 'collision' in my model. In either case I know how difficult it is to convince mainline physicists to start thinking along new lines. I wish you the best of luck

Vladimir

Kimmo,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim