Hi dear Kimmo,

Your essay is interesting in many aspects. Particularly I felt that you clearly dividing the abstract information from real source of information. And the real object is indivisible from its real properties/attributes, which we representing abstractly in different ways (particularly as encoded form of ,,bits,, as well) So, for every healthy man must be clear that concept of ,,information,, is a human creation only. Thus, the intention to build something real from ,,bits,, it will be an incredible absurd. I think you can be agreeing with me because this conclusion is follow from your position as well. If you have no objection then I think we are the adherents and just we must support each to other. I am inclined to rate your essay high, if you find that we really have common points. Hope soon get your response. Essay text

Sincerely,

George

    I downloaded your essay and I'm going to read/rate it tomorrow. After two pages what I read few minutes ago it looked very promising indeed!

    Dear Kimmo,

    We are at the end of this essay contest.

    In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

    Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

    eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

    And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

    Good luck to the winners,

    And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

    Amazigh H.

    I rated your essay.

    Please visit My essay.

    Hello Kimmo from Margriet O'Regan !

    As I personally enjoy ideas that challenge the mainstream your essay was a great read for me.

    My own investigations have led me to conclude that 'information' is NOT digits - no kind nor amount of them (including any that can be extracted from quantum phenomena!), nor how algorithmically-well they may be massaged & shunted through any device that uses them.

    Unequivocally they - digits - make for wonderful COUNTING & CALCULATING assistants, witness our own now many & various, most excellent, counting, calculating devices BUT according to my investigations real thinking is an entirely different phenomenon from mere counting, calculating & computing.

    For which phenomenon - real thinking - real information is required.

    My own investigations led me to discover what I have come to believe real information is & as it so transpires it turns out to be an especially innocuous - not to omit almost entirely overlooked & massively understudied - phenomenon, none other than the sum total of geometrical objects otherwise quite really & quite properly present here in our universe. Not digits.

    One grade (the secondary one) of geometrical-cum-informational objects lavishly present here in our cosmos, is comprised of all the countless trillions & trillions of left-over bump-marks still remaining on all previously impacted solid objects here in our universe - that is to say, all of the left-over dents, scratches, scars, vibrations & residues (just the shapes of residues - not their content!) (really) existing here in the universe.

    Examples of some real geometrical objects of this secondary class in their native state are all of the craters on the Moon. Note that these craters are - in & of themselves - just shapes - just geometrical objects. And the reason they are, also one & at the same time, informational objects too, can be seen by the fact that each 'tells a story' - each advertises (literally) some items of information on its back - each relates a tale of not only what created it but when, where & how fast & from what angle the impacting object descended onto the Moon's surface. Again, each literally carries some information on its back. (Note : Not a digit in sight !!)

    How we actually think - rather than just count, calculate & compute - with these strictly non-digital entities, specifically these geometrical-cum-informational objects, in precisely the way we do, please see my essay.

    I did not make the distinction between computing with digits & real thinking with real information, sufficiently strongly in my essay.

    This contest is such a wonderful 'sharing' - Wow - & open to amateurs like myself - Wow. How great is that !!! Thank you Foundational Questions Institute !!! What a great pleasure it has been to participate. What a joy to read, share & discuss with other entrants !!!

    Frankly, I think your own analysis of reality would accommodate 'geometrical-objects-as-units-of-information' particularly well !!!!!

    Very best regards,

    Margriet O'Regan

      Kimmo

      yours was a fun essay to read. I especially enjoyed your tone. You wrote it in a good mood and with a smile on your face ..and it shows :) And yeah, the content was very agreeable to me too (xcept the antimatter in the end, but what do I know)

      Thanks,

      -Marina

        Greetings Dear Kimmo!

        Thank you for support and your interest to my work

        in vixra.org. I am very hope that you will find some useful things there.

        Glad for cooperation with you.

        All the Best for you,

        George

          Thank you Marina!

          Don't mind the antimatter part... its time is ahead of us, not yet.

          I'm currently reading your "Rethinking the Formal Methodology (I):

          Wave-Vortex Essence of the Substance" paper. You should read the latest version of ToEbi here. We have quite similar ideas on nature.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #40

          "Frankly, I think your own analysis of reality would accommodate 'geometrical-objects-as-units-of-information' particularly well !!!!!"

          Mmm... interesting thought, I'll think about it.

          Kimmo,

          I have read and rated your essay. I admire your enthousiasm.

          There is one question, though. In quantum mechanics (QM), the wave function is a primitive notion. If we have the wave function of an electron, then it is not the case that the electron 'is' the wave function: it is merely the case that the wave function contains all information about the electron. If we want to extract that information, then we can perform all kinds of mathematical manipulations on the wave function: this yields statistical predictions about the outcome of measurements on our electron.

          In your theory, however, you say that material objects and information are one and the same (pages 2 and 4: "It is Bit and Bit is It"). Now suppose I have an electron in a box. Then what is the information that the electron 'is', and how do I get to know the information?

          Best regards,

          Marcoen

            I will read Dear Kimmo.

            And I advise you Marcoen's work which is one honestly critical work.

            I hope you will appreciate it properly!!

            George

            I have already read/rated Marcoen's essay and I liked it too.

            I'll give a proper answer to your question tomorrow. There is plenty of information in the case you presented...

            Surely we can say that an electron isn't the wave function but naturally there won't be the wave function without an electron hence bit is it and vice versa. Let's focus on the question you made.

            First of all, we have an electron. Its mere existence is an information. It's an elementary particle. Based on how other elementary particles like photons or neutrinos are created (according to ToEbi) we can say that electrons are created within a high density of FTEPs. Because the great amount of electrons there has been a circumstances where this caliber creation volume can happen, The Big Bang it is.

            Back to the box... because the high spinning rate of an electron it's highly unlikely that our electron is stationary in the box. It's just bouncing around (depending of course on wall material). Each contact with the walls reveals more information in form of photons. By tracking these trails we get a pretty good information on the velocity, energy, spinning rate, spinning orientation and path of the electron, within Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

            Did my answer help at all?

            Kimmo - a provocative essay. Initially I thought ToEBi was a tongue-in-cheek jab at the empiricists in physics, but then as I read more of your paper I realized it was more serious than that. Nice set of ideas; easy to understand high level explanation, but with some potential depth.

            I wonder how you might incorporate the illusion of time in your approach? You can find the latest version of my essay here:

            http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

            (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

            Does it fit ToEBi?

            Kind regards, Paul

              "Does it fit ToEBi?"

              Your essay contains so fine language that it's going to take few moments to comprehend. So I can't answer your question at this point. Anyway, good luck to the final! :)

              Write a Reply...