After the Transition “from It to Bit”: Is This the Science Formerly Called Physics? by Lev Goldfarb

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

Hi Lev,

Thanks for a thought-provoking essay and your clear perspective. You wrote:

> Moreover, since 'information' is most likely our last scientific frontier, we have no choice but to demand from a candidate representational formalism, even in its initial form, the clarification of both the basic nature of the 'mental' in the Universe and the basic underlying structure of 'reality' itself.

I wholly agree with your call to address the presence of Mind in the world. The way I approach this is with what initially seems a step away from it: that is to say, embracing the simulation paradigm. In my essay Software Cosmos I explain how a simulated world might work, and show the evidence that the world we inhabit works that way.

I think that the implication of the physical world being a simulation is that the world must work as you describe in your essay. In my view, a computational cosmos leaves room for processes to be operative below the level of the physical. This is at variance to the conventional view that the physical is the "ground of being" and life and mind are (somehow) emergent.

Once you show that it is reasonable to model the cosmos with discrete computations (as I hope I do) then you can ask about lower layers of the architecture. These could operate according to the principles that you lay out in your work. I hope you get a chance to look at my essay, as I think it may be looking at the same idea for the cosmos from a different vantage. (Mine from above the "material reality" architectural layer, yours from below). Together, I think, they make a compelling argument.

Hugh

Must have gotten logged out there... this post is just to sign this thread.

Hugh

Dear Lev,

I wish I have read your essay earlier, it is just so wonderful. We are not only co-passengers of earth timeship but also co-mindsharing as well. It so wonderful to have "comrade in arms" wanderer so to speak just in jest!

You wrote: "However, as never before in the history of science, the pragmatic question is this: Since it is the spatial considerations that for several millennia have fully guided the development of mathematics and physics, how many physicists are prepared to start the development of physics more or less anew, on top of such or similar informational structure (as opposed to the present 'safe' flirtations with the bits)?

KQID: Qbit is all things; all things are Qbit. Qbit is that dimensionless at absolute zero temperature objective meaning in itself as Planck's matrix of all matter and Maxwell's infinite being that has unlimited storage capacity thus, no bit/qbit needs to be deleted, thus no entropy per Laudauer's principle will be generated.

I love this statement: "The above informational hypothesis is a generalization/extension of the biological organization and might be considered as a modern version of Plato's and Aristotle's views of Nature as the instantiation of Forms, which are actually the (Greek) root of the Latin verb informare = "to in·form"."

You wrote: "... I wish to draw your attention to the simple but overlooked fact that both physics and mathematics are built almost exclusively on the basis of spatial consideration, and this includes the way we treat time in physics."

KQID answered your plea: KQID relativity ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) Multiverse has time centric flexible c-timerod that measures distance, area and volume in terms of time. Time contracts so does length contracts. Time has inverse relationship with mass and energy, time contracts, the mass as well as the energy increases.

You wrote: "But the main reason for the above discussion is to prepare you for the sobering thought that, for the first time in the history of science, the transition we are apparently faced with (to the information- based physics)--if indeed the informational reality is primary--must be non-incremental, or put simply, we will have to start more or less anew." Yes I whole heartily concur.

Again KQID embedded with this hypothesis as true: "To get at least some physical intuition, think of an elementary particle as 'specified' by an ETS struct, and compare this view (see also Fig. 6) with the view expressed by John Bell: "For me, it is so reasonable to assume that the photons in those [Aspect's et al.] experiments carry with them programs that have been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave."

I agree with your conclusion about Bob and Alice exchanges bits and modified the whole reality in question: "Figure 6: Possible mechanism behind the quantum entanglement. The dashed arrows and the roman numbers represent events and their temporal order: (i) generation of the class and the emission of particles from that class (ii) Alice is interacting with the particle and this modifies the (non-spatial) class representation, which, in turn, modifies the class members so that (iii) Bob is now dealing with the particle from the modified class."

Yes, KQID has "holistic picture" of Existence and has done the theorical framework just to do this.

KQID has contextuality through KQID Ouroboros Equations of Existence that combines Newton, Maxwell, Planck, Boltzmann, Lorentz,Einstein, Laundauer, Wheeler , Feynman, Ssusskind, Hooft, Wilczek, Bousso and others. The Ouroboros Equations mean each interpretation involves every beginning to every ending. Similarly, everything we do involve the Ouroboros action or totality of any action. Nature is such unbelievable phenomena that we are just now starting to peek into its secret that is shockingly simple in the beginning but infinitely complex in the ending that per KQID every absolute digital time ≤ 10^-1000seconds. Interestingly, the mechanism is also simple. See my essay Child of Qbit in time.

First, KQID Qbit is (00,1,-1) which is singularity Qbit Multiverse in zeroth dimension at absolute zero temperature that computes and projects Einstein complex coordinates (Pythagoras complex triangles or Fu Xi's gua or Fibonacci numbers!) onto the 2D Minkowski Null geodesic and then instantaneously into the 3D in Lm, our Multiverse timeline to allows Existence to move around 360 degree and its arrows of time as you described below. As per Landauer's principle, no information is ever deleted. See my essay Child of Qbit in time. KQID is the only theory out there that can calculate the dark energy of our Multiverse ≤10^-153Pm/Pv and the minimum bits as the lower bound ≥ 10^153 bits in our Multiverse. KQID is the only theory that I knows here that proves bit = it, and KQID calculates Sun lights into Sun bits; calculates electron, proton and neutron in terms of bits; set up equivalent principle of bits with energy and matter. Therefore, Wheeler's it from bit and bit from it. Correct me if I am wrong. Furthermore, KQID is the only theory in this universe has the mechanism on how Holographic Principle works. Also answer the mother of all questions, the why, how and what Existence.

Pythagoras famously summarized: "All things are numbers." KQID rephrase it that all thing are one Qbit: Qbit is all things and all things are Qbit. Thus, Wheeler's it from bit and bit from it because bit = it.

Outlandish statement and may be self serving, but I humbly with all humility, I respectfully submit that KQID is based on the primary of "informational reality". KQID has developed from Creation story and mythology to TOE that covers philosophy, physics, law, economics, etc. that no other theories that I know has done so far. Please gives KQID a chance to be looked at under the bright Sunlight or Sunbits.

Yes, I share your conclusion and would like to add it to my essay Child Of Qbit in time. Hope you can comment if you like it, please raise its ranking because it is now under the water.

You are definitely a powerful original thinker. You are influential out of the box thinker, and let us share our thoughts. We shall change the world of space into bits.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Hello Lev,

Your essay is quite original and I have rated it accordingly.

There are some striking similarities between your essay and my own work, in which I also use a process approach. I did publish a fundamentally new language for physics in my Annalen paper, but it applies only under a specific condition. There is also a link with mental causation, although that is only to be found in my PhD thesis.

Anyway, good luck with the contest!

Best regards,

Marcoen

Dear Lev - what an interesting essay.

I enjoyed your approach to finding new tools to describe and formalize physics, and gave it an excellent rating.

Your Seth Lloyd inspired comment about "are all bits truly equal" is an interesting point, and reminds me of Mermin's contextuality.

It also made me think about Landauer's principle which sets the lower bound for erasing information as KT ln(2) where K is Boltzmann's constant and the erasure occurs at temperature T. If we interpret this as a single bit, then a bit is a bit is a bit, as far as energy is concerned. However, its context can create an entirely different result: in the vast majority of cases these elements of energy come and go in the swarm of quantum events. However, if this happens to trigger a click in a Geiger counter, which triggers the electromagnet to push the bottle of poison off the table and kills the cat ...

I like your approach to pictorial depictions (e.g. Fig 2) but am concerned that it may have some limitations. For example, you say that the two primitives are not temporally ordered, but it seems to me that they are: by the inputs and outputs to other common elements (primitives). Also, your formalism (as it is at present) appears static, making it difficult to deal with evolution of links and primitives.

Thus, while I find the concept encouraging I am concerned that it really does not capture the true nature of 'temporal' stream of interconnected events. In a nutshell, I would like to see you express the concept of reversibility and dynamic evolution more fully in your formalism.

The only form of "Mathematics" I know of that can represent dynamically evolving predecessor and successor relationships is Agent Based Systems (ABS) [1]. If you (any other readers) know of tools that are capable of dealing with situations where order is not definable, or is dynamically evolving, I would love to know.

You may also enjoy Lucien Hardy's work on Reformulating and Reconstructing Quantum Theory [2].

Kind regards, Paul

[1] P. Borrill, L. Tesfatsion. "Agent-Based Modeling: The Right Mathematics for the Social Sciences?" http://www.econ.iastate.edu/research/working-papers/p11674

[2] Hardy, Lucien. "Reformulating and Reconstructing Quantum Theory." 1104.2066 (April 11, 2011). http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2066.

.

Dear Lev,

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.

Lev- there are certainly limitations -- see the comments on my web page about the difficulty of expressing this pictorially (with other than Feynman Diagrams).

As for your essay (which I truly enjoyed):

"Paul, the ETS formalism suggests that there is no such thing as reversibility: you cannot undo the events that have already occurred, even though some of the "parameters" may coinside."

My point precisely ;-)

Kind regards, Paul

Lev,

I came across your essay only after the end of the competition. Nevertheless, I want to tell you that I very much enjoyed reading your essay, because it meets many of my own thoughts. You are touching a couple of essential points. Let me comment only some of them.

On page 3 you quote Gell-Mann asking Seth Lloyd: "... But is there a mathematically precise way of quantificance of a bit?" When setting up "a fundamentally new scientific language" it can be helpful to see how linguists handle a language: They would refer to a bit as a "symbol". A symbol does not have any specific meaning. To give the bit a meaning we have to add the "semantics". A bit then may have the meaning of up/down, when referring to a spin, or particle/antiparticle, when referring to a particle. On page 7 of your essay you essentially say the same: "... each bit by itself ... is not meaningful without the question to which it provides a binary answer."

In the text above you suggest "to informally associate the term (information) with both "organization" and "structure". I am following a similar idea in my essay, where I describe "informational structures", resulting from bits that are described in a "covariant" way with respect to transformations of the semantic frame of reference. I think these structures correspond to what you call "a representational formalism," because "all data is being collected and processed in that form."

"This brings up the key question: How can we plan an experimental verification of the ETS formalism?" If you agree that my "informational structures" are somewhat similar to your representational formalism, then I can in fact offer you such an experimental verification.

"Finally, some of the other big questions are: How are the structs stored and retrieved in Nature, and what is the physical nature of instantiated events?" You will find a tentative answer to this question in my essay.

I very much hope you will have a chance to look into my essay and tell me your opinion, because you seem to be the only author in this contest who pursues similar ideas.

Best wishes,

Walter

Lev,

I did not intend to anonymously post my comments, but somehow my login was lost. My full name is Walter Smilga.

Walter