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

Lev

OK, but I expect some proper two way dialogue once I have read this and presumably comment on it. Which is another way of saying I am not sure why you cannot address the content of what I am saying now, rather than suggesting I read a book first.

Paul

Lev

Given your comments in the thread which announced this essay competition, I could hazard a guess at what you are alluding to, but do you want to spell it out? I think those of us who took the time to write something, and those who then make an effort to generate proper debate need an 'insider's' view, and if necessary a change to the rules. I made a comment in response to your post, ie that very little in the way of debate would ensue, mostly 'nice essay, by the way in my essay...'. There is another fascinating correlation you can follow, which is ratio of posts to ratings.

Paul

Lev

Hmmm, this is estimated to take a month to ship.

Paul

Lev

I guessed that from the title, I thought commenting on it might illuminate what I am saying. Frankly I do not expect it to enable any improvement on what I already know, but I thought it was disrespectful to ignore your suggestion (the last one was Ray Munroe & Whitehead). The point is that I have developed a generic statement on the logic of physical reality (somewhat obviously, given my posts). It is easy, especially without 'baggage'. It can be expressed succinctly in a page and certainly does not take more than 15 to encompass all the angles.

I must stress the word generic, ie a logical statement of the physical circumstance. I am not interested in philosophy. And obviously what actually manifests is physics.

Paul

Hello Lev -- There's nothing intentional happening, so if there's a bug, we should try to fix it. Can you explain more what you mean---what list exactly are you looking at?

Lev,

Your essay is certainly food for thought. The connections between these I think call for a type of mathematics involving systems of differential forms. These differential forms compute quantum numbers or ∫_aω = ∫_vdω = n, where a is the boundary of v. The differential form is evaluated on a basis of elements. However, these elements could be more general, forming the connections in these circuit diagrams between these "primitives."

Cheers LC

This idea I spun off was nothing serious, but something that seems parallel. Your "cirucit diagrams" that connect this primitives appears similar to some representations of tensors and components of differential forms.

The one point where things seem most uncertain in your essay is with your discussion on quantum mechanics. Of course your presentation is rather brief, so I suppose there are some deeper elements to this.

Cheers LC

Nice, Lev. Is there perhaps some way that the information domain ties into Strogatz graphs and small world network effects?

Best,

Tom

Lev

Not sure I am happy with the notion of 'domain'. If you are depicting what occurred conceptually, ie taking a certain aspect and representing that outwith its overall context, then fair enough. But there is a danger of reification here. For example, colour is a physically existent phenomenon. We could decide to categorise physical existence in terms of that, so anything red is similar...

Paul

Lev

One answer, as per my response to that question on my blog, is really because people keep using this concept! Personally, I have no interest in it, it is a fallacy (and I have said that before in a post). It chimes to me of yet another rationalisation to try and extricate from the contradiction which occurs because incorrect presumptions about the very nature of physical existence were made from the start. So, in crude terms, 'let us now separate reality into 'information' and, presumably!, non-information, then the flaw might be overcome and the theory work'. In that sense it is nonsense.

There is a reality. We can only have knowledge of it. If we get that right, then it is the equivalent of reality. Reality does not occur in terms of information, it occurs. Anything that we establish did occur gives us information, obviously. And equally obviously, often what we establish is often the manifestation of something else.

Another answer to your question is I do presume "real things", or validity. It says so in the introduction to my essay. That is, whatever one wants to do with this label, it is presumed that we are concerned with validity and not information which is incorrect, ie does not correspond with reality.

So, if people want to use this term, then the only meaningful definition there can be of it, ie in the context of reality, not some pointless philosophical discussion, is that it is that which is representational of something else (validity is taken as read). It may or may not exist, as such. Light exists, and is an effect in photons based representation of what occurred. A circle may be a valid representation of a reality, but it does not exist. Certain events may be valid and certainly not 'created' by us (as per circle or number)but they do not physically exist as such, but are superficial manifestations of something else, we need to ensure we differentiate that. Or more precisely, discover it as we move forward with knowledge. People can label that information if they want, but it seems to me like a pointless exercise.

Paul