Daryl,
Thank you. As a topic, defining information is somewhat recursive and it that's how I constructed it, to fold back on the process of thought, because I find the question of it from bit to be more dense than deep.
I'd probably be less grumpy if I was scoring better.
Dear John,
World contests FQXi - it contests new fundamental ideas, new deep meanings and new concepts. In your essay deep original analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas and conclusions. I bet you a high rating.
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
I have only one question: why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY
I wish you success,
Vladimir
Vladimir,
Thank you very much!
Consider that physics explicitly rejects intuition. Ask yourself, what would music be, if it did that.
I'll have to check out your entry. I haven't been able to keep up with this contest.
Dear John,
I saw your comment at Alan Kadin thread and made a comment below on your comment.
I have similar observation. KQID satisfies this simple factual logic that A, anti-entropic bits-waves function of time-future exchanges bits with S, entropic bits-waves of time-past that creates and distributes E, energetic bits-waves function of time-present that maximizing the flow of A, minimizing the flow of S and optimizing the flow of E. You wrote above: "My answer to the time problem is that we experience it as sequence from past to future and physics validates this by treating it as a measure of interval, but the actual process is dynamic change which turns future into past. We are not traveling some dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. tomorrow becomes yesterday. There is only what is physically real and that is what we experience as present. So every action is its own clock." Really excellent statement. I will look at your essay "What is Information" and I shall comment rate it accordingly.
I read your essay yesterday but my mind was not at rest in the late afternoon. I could not penetrate the deep meaning in what you said. So that, I tried again this morning when my mind is more calm and focus. I definitely see the light from the dense cloud. I definitely agree with everything you wrote especially below. So obvious that so many people ignore it. However in their defense, they are under pressure to do things brilliantly under the current paradigm. Jobs, fame and fortune are at stake, in most part to those brilliant mind like great physicists like Frank Wilczek and John Wheeler who actually incorporated what you espoused here and they are able to shine despite of everything.
You wrote brilliantly: "Intuition is not just subconscious impulse and cultural conditioning, but is every individual's accumulated knowledge, as accessed as a non-linear/scalar response mechanism. Intuition for a physicist would be different from others with different experiences, as well as equally constrained by the strictures of the systemic construct. If conceptual errors become incorporated into the framework, they become part of the lens through which further information is viewed and the resulting distortions become natural, ie. intuitive to that mindset." If I may relate it with KQID, KQID sees learned intuition as the voice of our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit who is speaking through us who want to understand the deeper meaning of Existence rather than just living in subconscious world and enjoy life like eating mindlessly a crunchy raw salad to their fullest in their own ways in their own times. Bless them! They are also the Qbit in action. The Qbit is infinite being who is doing infinite things from zero to infinity. However, for us, in order to understand we limit things and we become reductionist who created and distributes scientific knowledge and technological products. In the far end of the spectrum are those who see things as whole. This way we can understand things far beyond reductionists could do but at the expense of science and technological products. We do need both to live well and prosper. As you correctly explain below: "Bias is fundamental to the construct of knowledge, so it needs to be factored into the model. Whether it is a particular perspective, or a generic model or pattern inductively distilled from circumstance, knowledge is a focused distillation of a larger context. Much as a telescope would give us much deeper depth of vision, but also limit the field of view. Thus the very process of definition imposes limitations and introduces further layers of context." Simply brilliant! Then you deduced profoundly: "So we have the classic reality that somehow seems separate from the quantum foundations on which it rests. Obviously the connection must exist, yet there seems to be a missing link. This separation goes more to the nature of knowledge, then of reality."
More below: "Both top down and bottom up are effective ways to consider the nature of the physical,
but there is no middle ground view that effectively encompasses both. Those "bits" are what we know of "it." This is the crux of the question of this contest of ideas. KQID says similarly but bluntly stated that bit = it. Consequently Wheeler's it from bit and bit from it are true and of course under our nose kind of reality, we just don't notice it. It is just too obvious.
Then you concluded with a statement: "As living organisms, we are the result of billions of years of evolution." KQID agrees and more if KQID is correct we are the product of trillions trillions years of evolution from the beginning of Existence until now our Ancestor Qbit, the Planck's matrix of all matter and the Maxwell infinite being with unlimited storage capacity, so that no qbit is ever deleted, thus ΔS = 0 without violating the seond law of thermodynamics has evolved and this Qbit is us in our own finite form but who are able to go back in time from the very beggining and move forward in time to infinity future in just split second in our thought. We can contemplate and feel the power of infinity and the finite. We are so great because we are that Qbit in our finite form. To paraphrase our beloved Carl Sagan's beautifull thought that we are a way for the Qbit to feel, think, talk and make love.
I rated highly this succinct essay.
If you have the time please comment and rate my essay Child of Qbit in time.
Best wishes,
Leo KoGuan
Leo,
You show a very good grasp of my argument, but reading through yours, I think there is one important issue you are missing. That is that nature does erase information. It is just that in this quantized physics, energy is treated as information; the quantum.
What this means to me is that in expressing an idea, being able to edit it as much as possible is necessary. You, on the other hand, have a very interesting and expressive essay, but in some parts, the energy goes more to heat than light, if you know what I mean. There was a time when I was much better at focusing on such works, but at my age, mid fifties, the mind tends to wander very quickly and that is what you have to take into account with your audience.
There were directions I could have taken my own essay, such as that I see the two sides of the brain, the scalar and the linear, as reflective of temperature and time, but that would distract from the basic central point of information as one side of a dichotomy with energy.
There is an old saying, that we miss more in a fraction of a second than we will ever see in our entire lives. Nature is a fierce editor. Always remember that. She will let us go on for a very long time, but when the time is up.....
Hi, John,
I enjoyed your essay, although I really enjoyed your last year's essay more. It shows an amazing amount of common-sensical insight. My only suggestion would be don't push the conclusions quite so much. The physical examples are fine, but it gets a little touchy when you extend them to the brain and respiratory system. Still, it's a fine essay. And I think your concluding sentence (last year) should go down in history: "Neither academic nor religious authority can turn an ideal into an absolute." If only many so-called forefront theorists would take this to heart!
Cheers,
Bill
Bill,
Thank you very much.
From your work and experience, I can understand why you are cautious about pushing conclusions beyond applicability, but I would have to defend it as a risk that has to be taken. As the old saying goes, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." It is a trial and error process of discovering similar patterns in varied context and trying to figure out how much it is due to similar content, vs. similar context, vs. shear coincidence, vs. one's own extrapolations.
As for the example of biology as a billion year experiment reflective of the relationship between information and energy, it is a comparison I've tried developing more extensively in other contexts, such as that essay I linked in my response in your thread.
This also goes to how this contest relates to my argument in the previous. "Energy manifests information. Information defines energy. Since energy is conserved, in order to create new information, old information is erased. This is the "arrow of time," as events come into being and fade.
I have to say, the extent to which physics has dismissed the concept of energy in favor of the concept of information seems quite bizarre to me.
Regards,
John
Dear John
Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech
(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)
said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."
I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.
The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .
Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.
Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.
I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!
Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.
Good luck and good cheers!
Than Tin
Dear John,
I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.
Regards and good luck in the contest,
Sreenath BN.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827
Dear John Merryman,
You have written a very brief article but the points to be understood from it have deep depth and make one to ponder over them. The essence of your argument can be understood if you go through the biology section of my essay, where I have discussed how living organisms came in to existence and evolved and I have discussed the notions of information, knowledge, intuition, mind (brain), environment, consciousness and other related concepts. So, please, go through my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and try to visualize how the theme of your essay follows from it. The distinction between the classical world and the quantum one is clearly stated when you say "there is no middle ground view that effectively encompasses both. Those Bits are what we know of It." There by establishing the relationship between It and Bit. You have rightly pointed out the distinction existing between both worlds when you say "this separation goes more to the nature of knowledge, than of reality"; thus showing of our ignorance of a unified theory. The origin of the concept of Time and its relation to energy is notable. Regarding the origin of the concepts of knowledge, brain, reality etc. is to be understood, I feel, from my essay and then to be compared to what you have said on them in your essay. Feel free to post your comments on my essay in my thread. Since the theme of your essay is based on mine I have rated your essay with maximum honors. Thanks for producing a thought provoking brief article.
Best wishes,
Sreenath
Sreenath,
I have finally found the time to read your essay. It is in many ways, a full course meal of an examination of the topic. Unfortunately I'm one of those people who do more intellectual snacking than really have the time and concentration required to develop and absorb such a multifacted treatise.
This was a problem I have with the topic to begin with; It really did require a broad analysis of the entire subject of information, knowledge and how they relate to reality, to fully respond to the issue.
You have done an admirable job, though a bit too broad for my tendencies.
Dear John,
As I am remembering we already have discussed the time problem.
On this I just want one more time emphasize my understanding of it.
- The concept of ,,time,, are used in physics arbitrary (I mean a priori, without connection of it with the physical objects of study) It means we have accepted the existence some of absolute klock, independ from anything, that giving us the equal/invariance intervals of events. In practice however we are forced to use some local material objects, which have property to give regularly - repeatedly events. The intervals between them we accept as INVARIANT (but we have no any proof for it!) Thus, we must not excluded that these can be not equal i.e. the ,,time,, may be VARIABLE. At last, the analyze of question shows that ,,time,, is directly depend from density of mass/energy. I want mark - this concept becomes justified as per as it WORKS!
I am really appreciate your efforts on this very important cognitive problem and with pleasure I have rated your work on ,,high,, core.
Best wishes,
George
Hello John,
I agree. But obviously not enough «intuitio» and «ratio» to get to the deepest meanings. Constant cutting of the whole into parts direct ratio to the other side of the truth to construct an image of the world as a whole. This is necessary both physicists and lyricists. The ideas of John Wheeler pushes our ratio and intuitio to see the world as a whole in a single symbol, which includes all of the fundamental meanings of the Universe. I'm waiting for you on my forum.
Best regards,
Vladimir
Hi John,
You wrote on my thread - "Given all the major patches to keep it working, from inflation to dark energy, not to mention everything from time traveling wormholes to multiverses springing out of it, it is all bizarre beyond belief".
It being current cosmology. I agree with you wholeheartedly that there are too many patches, and I don't think inflation, dark energy multiverse nor wormholes make any sense.
In fact my model only partly explained with regard to information around black holes,bodes explain things more simply. It partly unifies the four forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony.
My essay doesn't hint at agreeing with any of these classical phenomenon, but does agree with current empirical data.
Best wishes,
Antony
Vladimir,
Sorry about that. Will make it next.
Vlad,
Reading the abstract, I remember why I hesitated. To me, an ontological memory would be a form of platonism and I have issues with the various forms of that. For one thing, given my views on time, past and future are not ontologically real. In this current essay, I do make the argument that perspective is inherently subjective and thus epistemic. There is no such thing as an absolute perspective/"God's eye view." An ideal is not an absolute. The concept of memory simply doesn't apply to the ontological level, because memory is information and the creation of new information requires erasing old information, since the medium of energy is conserved. This effect creates the "arrow of time." Past is erased in order to create present, which is then erased in order to create future. As I point out in the prior contest, the "thread of time is woven from strands pulled from what was previously woven and eventually the past becomes as unknowable as the future."
I will read your entry, but if I find I can't agree with the premise, I can't score it. (I'm only giving high scores to those I agree with and not scoring others, to counteract those fools giving everyone else low scores. )
Regards,
John
Hi John,
I have read your kindly post in my forum.
It is fully enough to say Thank you.
George
Dear Merriman:
I must say that I agree with most of your essay, is excellent with, the exception of the "time" subject.
"This process is what we call time. The presence of the energy is like the hand of time,
constantly moving onto the next configuration, as these forms, as their own units of
time, come into being and dissolve."
"While we have this sense of forward motion through the events, it is the presence of
the energy that is constant, so it is the events forming and receding, going future to
past. As when the unit of time that is our lifespan is over, we too recede into the past".
In my essay I explain that what people call "time" in fact is "motion" and "motion" precedes energy or is energy. "motion" existence needs of something that moves, "motion" is a quality or property of every physically existing thing, and not the quality itself, but the things that moves, change to different configurations and forms. If you mean changing to the next configuration and forms are the "time/motion units" of those configurations, I am not agree time/motion . "Time" probably born as a system to measure "motion" created by men "time units" which I say are "motion units" also were created by men. What I think probably are the same are "motion" and energy, and I am not sure, I don't think is probable but it is maybe possible that energy can dissolve.
There is not forward motion through the events, events usually change and transform in the place were they are. If energy is constant, then would not dissolve. Events always change like everything else. Future and past don't has physical existence they only exist in our minds, when we are considering them. When our period of transformation as living beings finish, this is our duration ,we recede into the past into the minds of living beings.
Héctor
George,
Thank you as well. It does seem as though we are futilely knocking our heads on the wall, but eventually it is one more bubble that will pop and someone has to call these people to task. History will be more kind to our efforts, than theirs.
Regards,
John
Hector,
I think we are very much in agreement on the issue, just looking at it from our different perspectives. Motion creates change and time is a measure of change.
Keep in mind that essay is addressed to the vast majority of people for whom time is not only primary, but primal. The temporal sequence is the basis of narrative and linear logic, which are foundational to humanity. It is no wonder it should be including in theory of elemental nature. Time is as every bit as real as temperature and that is what regulates our bodies, as time forms our minds. People are much further up the scale of emergence than qualities such as time and temperature.
