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

    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