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

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

Lev, I wasn't thinking in terms of nodes and labels. If you say " ...the 'signal' appears to be transferred instantaneously. It is transferred in the informational rather than in the spatial domain ..." then network connectivity implies correlation between separated events independent of time measures (the spatial domain), and therefore makes time identical to information, which we have previously discussed and agreed.

Tom

Lev, I think one or the other of the terms is superfluous, not both. When one treats time and information separately, one cannot obviate the spatial (spacetime) domain in favor of an independent information domain. If they (time and information) are the same phenomenon, then the bounded event space is identical to the information domain, and the results of a measure are without bound; i.e., changing events carry temporal information only to the limit of the information boundary. Isn't that in fact what you mean by instantiation?

Tom

Lev

Although the notion of spacetime is incorrect (because physical existence occurs in one spatial state at a time in sequence, timing being the calibration of the rate at which change occurs), I do think some context, ie spatial position and time of occurrence, is ultimately necessary.

This is because physical influence cannot 'jump' physical circumstance. That is, something cannot be a cause, unless the effect and it are not 'next to'. And in terms of timing, the states need to be consecutive. Only direct cause/effect must be considered, as everything is ultimately interrelated, so without this limit it is meaningless, the 'butterfly flaps its wings' syndrome.

Otherwise, as said previously, there is a danger of abstraction taking on a 'life of its own'. From the 'information' perspective, weight, size, shape, texture, brightness, noise level, colour, movement, temperature, etc, etc, etc, are not physically existent. All are manifestations of something else, ie what is actually occurring. Why, especially 'out of context' is organisation/structure special?

Paul

Lev,

Regarding Fig. 6 and in the Conclusion "If this structure will be experimentally corroborated, ...": Are you offerring something that goes beyond a representation and suggests or introduces answers about properties that do not belong to theoretical physics? I recognize that theoretical physics is incapable of explaining the most important effects of the universe. What I am wondering is if you are proposing that your structural representation reveals new properties or offers new explanations, outside the purview of theoretical physics, for the causes of unexplained intelligent effects? I could be asking more questions, but I want to understand the purview of your system.

James Putnam

So fig. 6 depicts an event that casn be viewed both from the mechanical viewpoint and from your new structural viewpoint. What is it about the class that changed? What is it that goes beyond the mechanical viewpoint? It seems that the figure and your explanation could be interpreted as another mechanical explanation. I am certain you intended it to represent more than that. Are you introducing an intelligent property in fig. 6? This probably seems trivial; however, I am looking for the clear break with the mechanical perspective.

Is it your position that entanglement cannot be explained by mechanical means? I look at the figure and think that it could be depicting mechanical forces and their effects. I don't believe it is intending to do only that; but, your separation between mechanics and intelligence is not yet clear to me from that figure. Your use of the words 'interacting' and 'modifying' leave me wondering exactly what do they mean?

I have been interested in your work since I became aware of it. I do not doubt that we must go far beyond the mechanical perspective or the spatial perspective. I am looking to understand that clear break in your work. It appears to me that your structural representation could be applied without explaining the means of the 'interactions' and 'modifications'. It is probably my fault, but, I don't see the explanation of the means with regard to your presentation of fig. 6.

Here you make the point that, "...the vague appeals to "self-organization" and "top-down causation", nothing short of a fundamentally new scientific language will do." I am asking what here goes beyond the language? I am not wondering if information is flowing around. I am wondering what is it that you are saying is making use of it? Is it an intelligent property that understands the meaning of the information?

I don't mean to be misrepresenting your work, just saying what it looks like to me. In this passage it it appears to me that you are conceding that the development of recognition, the intelligent use of information, could have evolved substantially on its own: "In fact, the proposed organization is supposed to explain why an organism endowed with the capability--inherent in the entire Universe--to construct the representations of some classes in its environment (e.g. of the class of snakes) is then able to recognize members of those classes not encountered previously (new snakes). It is most unlikely that such highly nontrivial informational capability could have evolved fully on its own, especially considering the independence of the structure of (evolving) classes in an organism's environment." How much could have evolved on its own? Is it your position that you are adding the means by which recognition exists or are adding something new that is a catalyst that extends the means?

I will end my questions with these. Sorry for dragging it out. Thank you.

James Putnam