3 worlds: Bit, It, Reality by Jacek Safuta

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.

Thanks for the clarification Jacek - I liked your essay - all the best Antony.

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

Jacek,

I look forward to your review...

Manuel

Hello Jacek,

In addition to this summary of the analytical essay, made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, I have read your work vixra:

Safuta J., Spacetime Deformations Evolution Concept. vixra.org/abs/1102.0026 (2011)

Safuta J., Spacetime Deformations Theory. vixra.org/abs/1006.0005 (2010)

Safuta J., A simple spin experiment. viXra.org/abs/1304.0027 (2013)

You did well to reduced svao ideas to the table. Get crisp and clear, in the spirit of Cartesius. The general conclusion: deep philosophical approach to the ground of being, "to grasp" the nature of the information. Most importantly, you are trying to connect the spirit of Hegel and the spirit of Popper. Excellent, the secret of the world - in the triad! I invite you to visit my forum and evaluate essays. We're finding with you in the same mind.

Only one question. Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence».

http:/ / www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

Best regards,

Vladimir

Hello Jacek,

Here is a direct link A. Zenkin SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

I'm waiting for you on my forum.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Hello Jacek,

Short but beautiful is the best way to describe your essay and that is no flattery! Why do I say so? That Table 1, 'Three worlds connection analysis' captures so much of what I did in long words in my own essay. As you showed in answering the question, the Platonic world would be important.

But I am not sure experiment can answer the question 'It from Bit' or 'Bit from It'. I think that question can best be answered by dialectic and philosophical arguments that can resolve one or the other possibility to an absurdity. That was my approach and I think you will like it.

Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, perhaps you will like to view the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT which I wrote after my essay was submitted.

Then, of course if you like my contribution give me a rating.

Thanks,

Akinbo

Dear Jacek,

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.

Jacek,

I read the two Vixra papers and also your essay. Although there are some minor differences, you are correct in that we certainly are speaking of the same concept. All of these are now how I also have come to view gravity and wave/particles, albeit through a different path:

"The reason of the gravity phenomenon is that the gravity force of e.g. a planet is a sum (wave packet) of many tiny spacetime deformations (elementary particles) resulting in far-reaching, but relatively weak interaction (the surrounding spacetime expansion). The gravity is not a fundamental but emergent interaction."

"We assume the matter can be created out of a force field and vanish transforming into the field and we assume not only the matter deforms spacetime. An example: electron - positron pairs are created in (and out of) the vacuum (vacuum polarization). "

"In brief: every particle (spacetime deformation) movement is a wave and every

particle is a wave (wave packet) and not: it only possesses a wave properties."

"In brief: every "massive" object e.g. the earth is a gravitational wave itself. And the

wave is not traveling outward from the source. There is no source e.g. the Earth is a

gravitational wave orbiting the Sun along the geodesics."

"The mathematics we need is partly existing and ready to use for decades because GR

and QM math are probably only special cases of the spacetime deformations theory

(being only the concept today)."

This last quote is how I view the move from Nordstroem's original equation, into the a flat metric (and its perturbations along with the Cosmological Constant problem) and then into the Area Calculus modification:

Nordstroem:

[math](-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_0^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2})\phi_{Newton}=0[/math]

General Relativity:

[math][/math]

[math]g_{00}=1-2\phi_{Newton}[/math]

[math]\Lambda g_{00}[/math]

Nordstroem modified through Area Calculus:

[math](-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_0^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2})(\Lambda-\Lambda 2\phi_{InvertedNewton})=0[/math]

The first doesn't seem to predict gravitational lensing, the second seems able to describe the geodesic motion of a positive density "particle" whereas the third would seem to be almost a mirror image of the second but instead describing the geodesic motion of a reduced density wave, just as you have described. I have given you a top rating, and I hope you will also see the merit within my essay.