Marina,

"It seems it is precisely the implementation where your major problem lies. Does it?"

What do you mean by this? ETS proposes a radically new form of data representation and its consistency with the (physical) reality has to be verified experimentally.

You probably mean "applications" rather than "implementations".

My area of expertise is related to CS "applications" and some of the reference paper try to address them. By the way, we are in the initial stages in the development of a fundamentally new kind of search engine.

Also, you cannot compare ETS to cellular automata, which do not at all propose a new way of collecting and processing data. So far we have hardly had such proposals as ETS.

Again, Marina, I'm suggesting that you are still missing (wrt ETS) something very basic.

However, thanks again for your feedback. ;-)

You wrote: "ETS consistency with the (physical) reality has to be verified experimentally."

Why wouldn't you give an example of applying ETS to a something well understood?

And what do you mean by verified experimentally? Does ETS give specific predictions? What such an experiment would entail?

1. "Why wouldn't you give an example of applying ETS to a something well understood?"

By "applying" you probably mean in physics.

I tried to very briefly sketch it in Section 5 of the essay.

2. "And what do you mean by verified experimentally? Does ETS give specific predictions? What such an experiment would entail?"

As I mentioned in the essay, take, for example, any fundamental particle, e.g. photon, electron, etc. How do we think about, or interpret, them. So far, we have a very confusing, 'dual' (wave-particle) image of them. On the other and, ETS suggest that each one could be thought of as instantiation of a particular struct, i.e as a sequence of 'structured' pulsations, or pulsational events.

The novel--because we are dealing now with the *structure* of events and not with numbers--experimental setup should try to verify this by capturing the structure of the corresponding constituting events.

Dear Lev,

A nice challenge to conventional informational thinking. Great approach re-structs/ETS. Ubiquitous discreteness was even mentioned, which doesn't shy away from conventional claims, yet you challenge established thinking, which I believe is what the contest asks.

Please take a look at my essay if time permits.

Well done & all the best,

Antony

Hello, Lev,

There is a potentially important relation between your ETS system and my Logic in Reality which sees processes as evolving through concatenations of actual and potential states. It is also a challenge to orthodox physics, but does not require going outside its laws. If you will look at my article, you will see there my critique of "geometry".

Best regards,

Joseph Brenner

    Hi Joseph,

    Thanks for visiting my essay forum!

    Please note that I did leave several days earlier a post on your essay forum.

    The fundamental difference between our positions is that you rely, more or less, on some conventional considerations to conclude "that energy-matter is ontologically prior to, that is, more fundamental than information as digital bits.".

    As I suggested in my post on your essay forum, for me, both "information" and "energy" are too ambiguous to rely on them.

    In my work, I have relied not on the considerations coming from physics but rather on the considerations coming from the reality of classes (of similar objects) in Nature--and hence the need to understand the informational mechanism that allows for their maintenance. I also relied on the centrality of pattern recognition processes which, in turn, must rely on the structure of the classes. So I believe that it is the pattern recognition processes and the structure of the ubiquitous classes that hold the clue to understanding the nature of information.

    Lev,

    RE: "I tried to very briefly sketch it in Section 5 of the essay." -- 'try' seems the keyword here. As I said before, for ETS to be even considered, it has to be not only applied to concrete problems but also shown to obtain otherwise unobtainable results.

    RE: "The novel .. experimental setup should try to verify this by capturing the structure of the corresponding constituting events." -- What sort of setup could capture _the structure_ of the constituting events? Would you mind giving us some idea?

    You seem far removed from reality. But I sense your strong conviction in validity of your idea. Good luck :)

    PS

    and by the way, when I spoke about CA above, it did not mean that I took your ETS in any way even resembling it. It was a practical idea on my part of combining the two together in such a way that ETS would emerge from CA. Because the main problem I see in ETS is that it presupposes a good understanding _of a structure_ of a given phenomenon. But what if the supposed hypothesis is wrong? Would ETS be able to show this, like, say math can. But.. I realize now that this is a superfluous question at this stage. I thought you were much further ahead than you are.

    Dear Lev,

    I have read your essay one mor time

    and I have rated it as one of best in the forum!

    With best wishes,

    George Kirakosyan

    (see my early post above)

      Hi Lev,

      You just keep getting better and better. Your essay deserves a 10 just for the abstract and the conclusion alone. I will ask a question: How do you avoid "mind" when it comes to assigning a class. I though classes were context dependent?

      I took a chance with my essay, which will drive most physicists crazy if they have no familiarity with the Bhagavad Gita. So, be forewarned if you do chose to look at it.

      You are truly fearless, Best of luck!

      Don Limuti

        Thanks, Don! I do appreciate it very much.

        As to the "fearless", I hope that, besides, I'm also sober enough. God knows how much I try: my main energy is drained by the continuous and incessant questioning of my basic assumptions.

        I'll get back to you in your essay forum.

        Cheers,

        --Lev

        Dear Lev, 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 "link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1756] my essay The

        Cloud of Unknowing[/link] please consider doing so. With best wishes.

        Vladimir

        7 days later

        Hello Lev -

        I agree that the mind is not 'outside' anything, and that the ambiguity of information needs to be resolved. Your terminology is helpful - physics is engaged in 'formative processes' in modern times, and we need to revisit our assumptions across the board (and boldly!) if we want to define information usefully, and answer physics' persistent mysteries.

        Your development of non-numerical terminology is probably a very important step in this direction.

        I take a more descriptive and structural approach to developing a uniform treatment of the natural events of nature: I describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer and naturally create a quantum/classical correlation. The evolving observer, I show, is the missing link in many of our quests. I think it is this that impels Physics' expansion into Bio- and Neuro-Physics - and that we must accept that we exist in a Species' Cosmos, and develop the necessary systems to interpret this fact usefully.

        You might find in this a way of further unifying the formative and spatial realms you describe. Of course - like you - I expand the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler.

        I found the text challenging, but engrossing; I have rated the essay, of course, and hope you'll soon have time to look at mine.

        All the best in the competition,

        John.

        Dr. Goldfarb

        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 you have touched some corners of it.

        Regards,

        Than Tin

        Hi Lev,

        It took perseverance, but I finally got through your essay. I think you are saying:

        - It's an enormous transition to go from seeing reality as objects in spacetime to seeing reality as non-spatial information (i.e. a mental thing).

        - The "bits" concept can't represent the true nature of information.

        - The current representational formalisms of physics can't adequately represent an information based view of reality.

        - ETS (evolving transformations systems) is a new formalism that utilizes "structs" to represent time-ordered information streams, formative processes and events i.e. the organisation and structure of Nature

        - A struct represents each object as a stream of interconnected events. Each event represents a transformation of processes: initial processes are transformed to terminal processes - this represents the modification of information.

        - The class is a natural organisational unit of Nature, a Platonic form.

        -------- Objects with similar formative processes or similar structures belong to the same class (e.g. a star would have a different class to a tree). There are also classes of events and classes of processes.

        -------- Events in the same class are given the same shape "primitive" in the struct, and initial and terminal processes in the same class are given the same small solid shapes.

        - ETS has implications for physics e.g. it seems to offer a natural explanation of wave-particle duality and entanglement.

        I particularly liked your section 2. (The unacceptable ambiguity of "information": Information as non-spatial structure) - I made a lot of ticks in the margins e.g. "Our billions of dollars worth search engines do not 'understand' a single word in what they search".

        I take a different approach to you. I contend that: information is subjective experience; from the point of view of a subject the rest of reality represents information - without this type of structure, representation couldn't occur at all; the content of information is categories and category relationships e.g. particle mass and charge are categories of information; the numbers that are obtained when reality is measured are also a type of category relationship - they are "hidden information category self-relationships".

        I think you are engaged in a very difficult and complex task. I wish you good luck with it, and good luck in the contest.

        Lorraine

          Thanks, Lorraine, for your effort!

          I would appreciate to hear about the more difficult points for you in the essay.

          1. "information is subjective experience;"

          According to ETS, there are two sides to "information", subjective and objective.

          The subjective side is related to the fact that the way an agent represent an object depends on its arsenal of events and stored classes. While there is presumably an objective side, which could quite possibly be stored in Nature (on the basis of the actual events and all classes).

          2. "the content of information is categories and category relationships e.g. particle mass and charge are categories of information; the numbers that are obtained when reality is measured are also a type of category relationship - they are "hidden information category self-relationships". "

          This I don't understand.

          Again, thanks for your input.

          Best wishes,

          --Lev

          Hi Lev,

          Re "According to ETS, there are two sides to "information", subjective and objective.": I contend that the "two sides" to information implies that information in reality already has a "subjective structure". I contend that information is not somewhat like points in a plane viewed from a platonic (i.e. objective) vantagepoint; information is somewhat like points in a plane viewed from a subjective vantagepoint. (I'm not claiming that information is actually like points in a plane) Information about the rest of reality (including "self") is subjective experience, but at the same time, the rest of reality "represents" information to the subject. That is, its the structure of information that allows the two sides of information.

          In practice in the above schema, several categories of information would have to be interconnectd, with one category in effect able to "stand in for" or "represent" another category of information, for representeation to actually be effective e.g. symbolic visual information obtained from physical reality like the word "cat" might stand for other visual information obtained from physical reality like a photo of a cat. Its like a type of synesthesia.

          I think some of the above is somewhat similar to what you are saying.

          Re "the content of information...category self-relationships": For brevity, it would probably be easier for you to read sections 4 and 5 of my essay. You'll probably tell me its a lot of nonsense!

          Cheers,

          Lorraine

          Hello Lev - I'm sure you have many essays on your list, as I do. I left you a comment (above) and hope you'll have time to read my work soon. I very much look forward to your insights!

          Best regards,

          John

          5 days later

          Dear Lev,

          We exchanged views on Jun 6. I don't know if you have found time to read my essay. But following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, I posted the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Orsdelivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. You may enjoy it. Thanks,

          Akinbo