The Tao of It and Bit by Cristinel Stoica

Dear Cristinel,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Mean while, 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

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

.....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

Cristinel,

Thanks for your kind comments. I will shortly post my comments on your essay.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Dear Cristinel,

I congratulate you on your well written essay in which you have clearly pointed out the defects prevailing in Wheeler's views stemming from his delayed choice experiment.

But, your interpretation of Zero Axiom, I feel, is not right. Because you have said that according to Zero Axiom, the proposition p 'and' its negation -p is always true; that is in symbols it is written as (p&-p). But this is wrong, for (p&-p) is 'always' false. So you should say, (p v -p). This proposition is always true for whatever value you ascribe to 'p'. Hence, you better change the last sentence of your essay which reads "Assuming both propositions p and -p are true, we want to prove q. Since p is true, p v q is true. But since -p is true, p is false. From p v q and -p follows that q is true" to "From the proposition (-p or q) is true, we want to prove q. If p is true, q must be true and the whole proposition (-p v q) is true. But if q is false, p must be true"; where 'must' is logical.

In symbolic logic (-p or q) is written as p > q, meaning 'if p then q'.

[p > q, p, * q; p > q, -q, * p] where * means therefore.

Regarding this, please, consult a 'symbolic logician'.

Wishing you best of luck in the contest,

Sreenath

Hello Cristi,

Reading your essay was greatly enjoyed. When my essay posts; you will see there is broad agreement on the major points. However; my offering is philosophical and non-technical, while yours says some of the same things with precision. An excellent offering overall. I'll probably have more to say later.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hello again,

I wanted to thank you for emphasizing in your essay that It from Bit comes out of the Participatory Universe idea, as a kind of outgrowth of the measurement process. This is something I emphasize the importance of in my own essay, but I did not fully grasp that some of the perspective I recommend was part of Wheeler's original conception of It from Bit Physics.

I think too many assume incorrectly that Wheeler was merely re-stating the digital or computing universe concept, when what he had in mind was probably a little different. I thank you for pointing out the historical relevance of Wheeler's work, and the caliber of his more successful students. Invariably; breaking new ground requires bold thinking, and JAW was certainly a champion of that.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Hi Cristi,

If particles, particle properties (its) are both cause and effect of their interactions, of the exchange of information, of bits, then you cannot have one without the other. If particles, particle properties (its) only exist, are expressed and preserved in their interactions, in the exchange of bits, then the bits are no more fundamental than the 'its' so you cannot have one without the other.

The validity of the delayed choice experiment, whether or not you affect ''the'' past with an experiment depends on whether causality is a scientific proposition -which in my essay I argue it is not. If we understand something only if we can explain it as the effect of some cause and understand this cause only if we can explain it as the effect of a preceding cause and the chain of cause-and-effect either goes on ad infinitum or ends/starts with some primordial cause or event which, as it cannot be explained as the result from a preceding event, cannot be understood by definition, then causality ultimately cannot explain anything. If particles create, cause each other, then they explain each other in a circular way: here we can take any element of an explanation, start from any link of the chain of cause and effect to explain the next link and so on, to follow the circle back to the assumption we started with -which this time is explained by the foregoing reasoning. If we have to discard causality as it one way or the other implies that the universe has a primordial cause, that is, that it has been created by some outside intervention, then this has consequences for the interpretation of c, the 'speed' of light, and hence for what we mean with ''the'' past.

If there would be only a single charged particle in the entire universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. Since it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, for that matter, must be something which is shared by particles, something which only exists, is expressed and preserved within their interactions. Similarly, in the seemingly innocuous assumption of Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) that we can regard the universe as an ordinary object which has particular properties as a whole, an object which changes in its entirety in time, we assume that there's something outside of it the universe interacts with, to which it owes its properties: that it has been created by some outside interference. The idea of causality, that cause precedes effect, only would make sense if we could determine where it is earlier and later, what precedes what in an absolute sense, if we could look from outside the universe in, which BBC, in the concept of cosmic time, wants to make us believe is justified even though we cannot actually step outside of it. To regard it as an object we may imagine to observe from without only would be justified if particles only would be the source, and not also the product of their interactions. The problem of the concept of cosmic time is that states that the universe lives in a time realm not of its own making: as in a Big Bang Universe (BBU) it is the same cosmic time everywhere (ignoring the effects of gravitational fields on the pace of clocks), here it takes light time to move, so here the speed of light indeed must be conceived of as the (finite) velocity of light.

In contrast, if a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside intervention has to obey the conservation law according to which what comes out of nothing has to add to nothing, so as everything inside of it, including space and time has to cancel, it has no physical reality as a whole, doesn't exist as 'seen' from without, so to say, so unlike a BBU, a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) does not live in a time realm not of its own making. It doesn't make any sense to make statements about the content or state of a SCU from an imaginary observation post outside of it. Since a SCU contains and produces all time within, here an (inside) observer sees clocks running slower as they are more distant even when at rest relative to the observer, so here it is not the same time everywhere: the concept of cosmic time has no significance in a SCU whatsoever. As a result, here a photon bridges any spacetime distance (emphasis on 'time') in no time at all. As in a SCU every observer, no matter when he lives or where he looks from sees clocks run slower as they are more distant, here it doesn't even make sense to ask what precedes what, where it is earlier and where it is later in an absolute sense: in a SCU everything is relative. As a result, the observer doesn't see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past, in ''the'' past, but as it is at present, to him, never mind that the galaxy looks different to a near observer. The problem of the concept of ''the'' past is that it presupposes the existence of an objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations, that is, that it is scientifically legitimate to imagine to look at the universe from without, which, as said, only would be justified if particles only would be the source of forces, interactions, and not also their product.

To be continued in the next post.

So the delayed experiment doesn't change the past, nor can it be seen as ''switching in the last moment the web with another kind, while the insect is still heading toward the web'': if with ''insect'' we mean a photon, then it arrives at the web the moment the web is 'switched' on.

If atom A emits a photon which is absorbed by B, a transmission which changes the state of both atoms (and hence affects all particles within their interaction horizons), then A 'sees' B change at the time it emits the photon, as soon as A changes itself so sees a slightly changed world, whereas B 'sees' A change at the time it absorbs the photon, as it changes itself and hence the world it observes. That is, unless we believe that B, after absorbing the photon sends back a message to confirm the receipt of the photon, a thank-you-note informing A that it can, as of this moment, the receipt of the note, start to see B in its new state. While BBC assumes that the emission of the photon by A precedes its absorption by B in cosmic time, in a SCU both A and B are equally right about the time of the transmission, in which case its transmission must be instantaneous. The fact that we cannot experimentally determine whether c must be conceived of as a (finite) velocity of light or as a property of spacetime (a number which says how many kilometer pace distance correspond to one second time distance), combined with the fact that an instantaneous action-at-a-distance would solve most if not all riddles of quantum mechanics like entanglement, the EPR paradox and the double-slit experiment should at least give pause for thought.

Regards, Anton