The Tao of It and Bit by Cristinel Stoica

You are Correct Cristi,

Thank you for such a nice discussion. I also mean to say one can not produce matter from thinking.

That's what I also said...

Best wishes for contest..

Best

=snp

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

I'll summarize here.

There are several points of strong agreement between your essay and my own (yet to be posted), which figure into my current line of research. To enumerate...

There is an interplay between 'it from bit' and 'bit from it' roles at work.

There is a realistic middle ground which global consistency assures.

The deep structure of Math is unavoidably influential on natural law in Physics.

Of course; the second point may be true largely because regularities in Math existing outside our spacetime conceptions rule when there is nobody looking, nor any form to influence. What seems not to be grasped is that rather than imposing a strait jacket which dictates a single outcome deterministically, the deep structure of Mathematics assures that there will be sufficient degrees of freedom for realistic outcomes to emerge.

Recent forays have examined projective geometry as the determiner of object/observer relations, and of course this ultimately leads to an explicit connection with the octonions. Does Math like that predate our discovery thereof? I think it's reasonable to assert that; in some way, all realistic possibilities arise from the deep inner structure of Math.

Regards,

Jonathan

Already something more..

Not feeling like I said enough, I'll mention that part of what disagrees with me - about the common conception of 'It from Bit' - is the sense that either/or choices are enough to determine anything. Wheeler was pretty crafty, with his variation on the 20 questions theme, and it's interesting to see how this introduces a kind of telescoping element that later gets reduced down, but allows a flexibility of interim definitions. This allows the process of determination to be playful. I really like that aspect of the story.

But this description allowing ranges rather than values is fundamentally different from what's normally employed, and is instead more constructivist, heuristic, or lateral thinking oriented. The idea of considering all possible trajectories from A to B requires a non-verbal approach and encourages one to suspend beliefs, in favor of ideas. Something to ponder.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Dear Cristinel Stoica

You did a great job, I found your essay very enlightening and well structured. I agree in many points with you. What I could notice is that you open several topics and I'm afraid they cannot be addressed in a small essay. In particular, what drew my attention was your discussion of the mathematical universe due to Tegmark since I have also discussed a bit about it in my essay. I do agree that maths are logical relations and that finding the right mathematical structures that describe the observed data is relevant to quantify and model nature, however, what "worries" me is that from mathematical structures one cannot extract intuitive and tangible explanations of the phenomenology. This is the problem that we have, for instance, with quantum mechanics. The theory has been written in a mathematical language such that most people are uncertain about whether the theory is telling something about reality or it's just a prediction machine.

From my view, the formulation of physical theories in terms of pure math (without baggage as Tegmark put it) can only give mathematical (or logical) "explanations" of the world but not descriptions of physical phenomena in the intuitive language that we all humans understand. This is in part what I discuss in my essay. I hope you have the opportunity to read it and leave some comments, I'd appreciate it.

Best regards

Israel

Dear Cristinel

I'm also glad that we have some opinions in common. I'd like make some comments on your previous reply.

You: Having a deeper understand of QM (and GR for that matter) would be helpful in trying to unify them. But ignoring anything but outcomes, by applying "shut up and calculate", would not allow us to go beyond these problems. Those saying that we should "shut up and calculate", claim indeed that QM is complete, because mathematics works and makes the predictions.

Indeed, shut up and calculate implies that you know what you're calculating, but when there is no picture of what would be the calculation about, this approach looks to me as throwing rocks to nowhere expecting one day to hit the target.

You: I am not sure I understand why would be like this. For instance, 1/2 spin, which is elementary and simple, as compared to other things in physics, is well described mathematically, but how to explain it to the "lay man"?

I'm working on this part, we just have to reformulate the notion of particles, this will eradicate the wave-particle duality and the mysteries of QM will fade away. After the make up, QM will look like classical mechanics, highly intuitive.

You: On the other hand, I think that human brained is a tool for understanding mathematics. Maybe the need for survival made our ancestors search for patterns, make abstractions, make deductions.

Yeah, but according to some studies, there is one hemisphere dedicated to logical operations and another for intuitive ones. So, the whole brain doesn't work with pure logic, intuition, inference, analysis, irrationality, etc, are processes that play a fundamental role in the generation of knowledge.

You: I think that in learning math, one should keep anything that can help, but after that, get over it in our thinking.

I agree, sometimes it is necessary to renew our thinking and get rid of everything that is useless. I'll take a look at the paper you cite.

Thanks for your comments on my essay, they were very stimulating.

Best Regards

Israel

Dear Cristi,

I very much enjoyed reading your well-written and lucid essay, which provided me with food for thought. If I understand you right, you appeal to Wheeler's delayed choice experiment and observer participance to start with a case for it from bit, and law without law. Along the line though, you make a case for objective realism and a global consistency principle, and end by concluding for the necessity of an underlying it, so that the bits do not contradict. To quite some degree we are in agreement about the final conclusion.

However, I have always been puzzled by the significance and interpretation attached to the delayed choice experiment. Does it tell us something new about the conventional view of quantum theory, which we already did not know without this experiment? For instance, if we could strictly conclude observer participance from here, would it not rule out `observer independent' reformulations/modifications such as Bohmian mechanics and GRW? But we know that these latter two theories are still in the reckoning. [You might enjoy looking up the proceedings of the recent Bielefeld conference `Quantum theory without observers' available at http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/bielefeld/videos.html ]

In any case the above is a point for discussion. I admire the courage and passion with which you have written your essay and wish you all the best.

Tejinder