This is a very interesting essay about abstraction. George's frank admission that he considers information and matter to be two sides of the same thing in physics is admirably honest. Of course reality does not have sides because it only constantly maintains one real unique state once. When will physicists learn that it is impossible to build a perpetual motion machine because reality is already in a constant state of perpetual motion once? When will the physicists learn that it is impossible to build a machine that can travel at the "speed" of light because one real Universe is already travelling at one real "speed" of light once? Above all, when will it dawn on the physicists that they cannot build a machine that can "think" about reality because reality is unique once?

    Thanks Joe for reading my essay. When I say two sides of the same thing, I think about the electric charge and electric field as an example. The first is the matter; the second is the information about the matter. You are right, we never will travel with the speed of light, but I still cannot imagine the borders of the artificial intelligence.

    Thanks for the link, I am very glad to see that my thoughts before 40 years finally part of the research plan of physicists and the joint research fields, understanding that information and entropy are both sides of the It and Bit. Funny also that the original article 'Causal Entropic Forces' (http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i16/e168702) published on the same day as our essays of the contest.

    The most exciting chess match of all time was the Bobby Fischer versus Boris Spassky 1972 World Championship. The most boring unwatchable chess match of all time was the Gary Kasparov versus IBM Deep Blue debacle of 1997.

    Jeopardy was a very entertaining show to watch until an IMB computer program named Watson activated the timing buzzer for every answer selection posed by Alex Trebek and easily won pitted against the two most successful human Jeopardy contestants of all time.

    According to a National Geographic televised episode, whereas it used to take one man one long day to pick one acre of corn, there is now a machine that can reap 40,000 acres of corn in one short day.

    3D printers can now produce stuff 24/7.

    Americans no longer have manners. Americans now have mannerisms. Americans no longer socialize. Americans now belong to social networks. Americans no longer do. Americans watch. Americans no longer think. They calmly await the day when the scientifically designed knowledge pill becomes available.

    It is interesting the use of the entropy for the chess game, so that it is possible to include the complexity in the choice of the movement; but this can work for a player like Capablanca that play closed positions (I think that your program PAPA play like Capablanca), I don't think that can be appliable to an opponent like Aleckine (a master of the open positions).

    The endgame is like the thermodynamical equilibrium, with a low number of particles (heat death of the universe: there is not much change in entropy), and the promotion is like a tunneling between stable particles.

    There is an analogy between the annihilation of a particles with capture of a piece: can be true that the elementary rule of the Physics are like a complex chess game.

    This remember me the Feynman idea of the elementary process like a chess game (It from bit?): but Feynman was Wheeler's student.

    I repeat that your article is interesting.

    Saluti

    Domenico

      You must be a very good chess player and understand deeply my model, although I played chess much like in the style of Alekhine than Capablanca and used the Entropy - Information model to select my strategy and moves: http://www.chessgames.com/player/george_rajna.html . By the way Feynman is my favorite physicist, his work helped me to build my 3 Dimensional String Theory: http://vixra.org/abs/1112.0064 .

      I am not a chess practitioner like you.

      I read quickly your theory, and I like the story of the chess, and some legendary characters: I liked, in the past, to read chess game, opening, wold Champioships; I was only an avid fan.

      I like the application of entropy, in all the know forms, and applications; this new application is beautiful; it is not necessary a deep knowledge of the program (which I must deepen), to understand the ingenious idea that led to his programming.

      I understand that the endgame is a limit for the entropy application, because of the limit in the entropy variations; the Alekhine games are, for me, pure poetry (can be the vodka effect).

      Saluti

      Domenico

      Hi George,

      Your essay is really interesting. I have never heard that chess programs have anything to do with entropy! So inspired by you I have started to read more and have found a lot of fascinating stuff.

      Especially important from my point of view is a connection between entropy and self-organized criticality that in turn is connected with emergence and evolution in physics.

      According to Lee Smolin (Loop Quantum Gravity) self-organized critical systems are statistical systems that naturally evolve without fine tuning to critical states in which correlation functions are scale invariant. My own view seems to support the view of Smolin in the meaning that the universe is a dissipative coupled system that exhibits self-organized criticality. http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0026

      I am glad that you see the connection between statistical physics and evolutionary biology. In my letter (vixra) I have applied the theory of Darwinism far beyond its original sphere of organic evolution on Earth.

      Your essay conclusion is ...that information and matter are two sides of the same thing in physics, because the matter is the diffraction pattern of the electromagnetic waves. I would say that the matter is the wave itself but I do not make the same mistake as Schroedinger... My essay explains it very shortly giving directions to references. Maybe you would try to read and comment?

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1609

      I should not comment or rate your essay yet because this area is too fresh for me. I have to study the subject.

      But thank once more for the inspiration.

      Philip gave you a link and I have found very fresh one (rather popular science)

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/04/21/from-atoms-to-bits-physics-shows-entropy-as-the-root-of-intelligence/

        17 days later
        19 days later
        7 days later

        George,

        Fascinating essay (even as a decidedly average chess player). I've always struggled a little with the logic of entropy but you certainly gave me a new more fundamental vision of entropy in practice. Very nicely written, and a nice easy 'density' to read and understand.

        It made me think a bit more clearly about the entropic angle of the infinite hierarchical subset evolution I discuss in my own essay. I also draw a dividing line between two sides, but am rather more radical! I hope you'll read and comment on it.

        Best of luck in the scoring.

        Peter

        Hello George,

        Interesting essay. I like the chess approach. I find your conclusion that "information and matter are two sides of the same thing in physics" to be consistent with my essay conclusion, leading to both It from Bit and Bit from It. I hope you have the chance to take a look at mine - any feedback would be appreciated.

        Best wishes

        Antony

        5 days later

        Dear George Rajna

        The measure your very real and unique.

        You conclude that: "It From Bit and Bit from it! " Is the right answer for "It From Bit or Bit from it?" - Meaning you that is : the bit was self-generated the information ?

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

        17 days later
        15 days later

        Dear George Rajna,

        Thanks for your nice essay, well done

        Information - Entropy Theory of Physics

        Applying this model to physics we have an understanding of the perturbation theory of the QED and QCD as the Information measure of Physics.

        very impressive, anything related to Quantum gravity?

        and from a different point view, my essay may interest you

        Bit: from Breaking symmetry of it

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1906

        Hope you enjoy it

        Regards,

        Xiong

        13 days later

        Dear George,

        As Feynman diagrams on Quantum field theory bridges QED with QCD, the source and the observer of information is demonstrable with these diagrams in particle physics. Observational information on particle scenario is probabilistic as there is uncertainty exists and in conditions with increase of this uncertainty of information for the observer the entropy increases whereas the information for an observer decreases and vice versa, yet asymptotic with relative probability.

        To resolve this uncertainty in observational information, some of the field expressions in Feynman diagrams are adapted to represent particles as physical string-matter segments described in a string-matter continuum scenario, in that the information-entropy relationship is not expressional as the observational information continuum is realistic rather than probabilistic, whereas the fluctuation theorem with nonzero conditions is much appropriate.

        In this paradigm as information is considered as the transfer of mass with energy rather than transfer of only energy as in particle scenario. Thus the gravitational effect in entirety of universe fluctuates asymptotically with nonzero conditions and implies with a Non-inflationary Universe with Homeomorphic Segmental-fluctuations in Holarchical discrete cyclic-time.

        In this aspect, your opinion, "that information and matter are two sides of the same thing in physics, because the matter is the diffraction pattern of the electromagnetic waves, giving the temperature dependent different structures of the matter", is true.

        With best wishes,

        Jayakar

        5 days later

        Dear George,

        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.