3 worlds: Bit, It, Reality by Jacek Safuta

Dear Jacek,

I like your essay, short but useful. I would say that Popper's third world, Penrose and you call it reality, has something to do with the contextual world of quantum mechanics. I should think more about that, contexts refer to what is compatible with the questions we ask and it is certainly related to the third world of culture. But quantum mechanical contexts may be quite far from philosophical categories, in QM compatibility means commutativity of the observables.

Best wishes,

Michel

Hi Jacek,

Thanks for going through my essay. I will comment on your essay after I go through it.

Best wishes,

Sreenath.

Dear Jacek,

I went through your short but lucid essay with enthusiasm. As you have said in your post, it is true that we agree in our final analysis on the triangular nature of reality. You have also talked of 'New quantum geometrodynamics with a new universal metric' and such a metric you may find in my 2012 fqxi essay contest in my paper on QG.

I will soon rate your essay.

Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath.

Jacek,

"We can never in any sense, 'directly access' reality." Are you saying that we each have our own reality? If so, what is yours?

Jim

Hello Jacek,

I found your essay interesting and bold, and this for two reasons. I find it interesting because of the manner of presentation, i.e. tabulated. But you haven't mentioned where the meaning of "bit" originated, that is, in computer science, and so I suspect its original meaning is swept under the rug by most because it doesn't suit anymore.

Secondly, and if I got this right, you suggest that all fields of force should be thought of in the same terms a gravity, and I quote:

"**from Albert Einstein we know that gravitation is not a force field but a manifestation of spacetime geometry (only our perception causes that gravitation seems to be a force). Why not apply the same concept to the rest of known "force fields" i.e. electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear?"

In Wheeler's universe it seems we are all required to jump in one direction or another. Here I find myself jumping in the opposite direction to you, and Einstein, that is, in Hierarchical Space-Time gravity has a particle-wave duality not unlike those of the other forces, moreover, centripetal gravity doesn't even start at the centre, and if I am right all the calculation in the world which depend on there being a "centre of gravity" will miss the point by this (' ') much.

Zoran.

Jacek,

I believe you will appreciate my prediction concerning the relationship between the diameter of a black hole's even horizon and its gravitational attraction, but we may have to wait a few years to see how that turns out.

Yes, there are a lot of entries, and more to come I believe.

Zoran.

Jacek,

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

Hello Jaceck

I am very intriguing about you experiment and it is a very good idea but I can not agree with the definitions of the concepts and conclusions. Information and computation are physical concepts no mathemathical. Most people take historical roots of the concepts as an element to label the concepts but it is not correct. Information and computation depend on the universe in which we are living. If we were living in a different universe, information and computation would be different. However, transfinite numbers are independet of the universe where we are living because they are mathematical. I wrote an article talking about this "Nature from the bit and beyond" if u want to read it.

Best regards,

Sergio

Dear Jacek. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

Hi Jacek -

It is interesting to consider how we might define It, But, and Reality in terms of an evolving observer, one who makes decisions at every moment, and over a very long period of time, during which his relation to the physical world - his own biological configuration, if you will - is continuously altered.

If evolution affects us at every moment (and it is impossible to argue that it doesn't) then It from Bit is true: We live in a Species Cosmos that is being evolved from ourselves. However, it can and should be countered that we do seem to possess a certain objectivity - that Bits appear to be founded upon a reality greater than the continually evolving Species Cosmos - a reality where our logical and scientific parameters are less applicable, and often not applicable at all.

You might be interested to see how I treat this evolutionary argument as a realist interpretation of the field of reality, thus expanding the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler.

I believe my perspective provides a structure you might find useful.

I have rated your essay, and wish you all the best,

John.

Hi Jacek,

I simply loved your "Three worlds connection analysis"! Although you have a different approach to information than I do, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit.

Good luck in the competition!

Manuel