The Tao of It and Bit by Cristinel Stoica

And you know what? -- it furthers occurs to me that each of those equally likely universes, by your reasoning, allows axiomatically that "zero is a number, and the successor of zero is a number." Very interesting!

Tom

Cristi,

"So, global consistency indeed is primary, because it constrains local solutions, but both global and local consistency have to be true."

Okay, then, we agree in principle! (Now let's talk the additional degrees of freedom needed to make that work.)

Best,

Tom

Cristi,

Pardon me if I seem to have confused the two, but if nothing exists, then wouldn't there be no laws and no need for laws to govern it? In other words, no Platonic realm of math, as it emerges with what it defines. So then Axiom Zero and Zero as Axiom would effectively be the same, where physics and math are one.

Now from that, "the principle of explosion" allows all propositions that fulfill "the principle of logical consistency."

The second principle is math, but what engenders the first principle, if not the potential of infinite possibility?

"But from p and ¬p, any proposition q follows."

...-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3,4....

I think, first, I would have to have is education.Because if we have to talk about insult to intelligence, his essay is the best example.Judge yourself with assertions as false logic and experimentally, such as:"Information is not reality. Information has nothing to do with reality."

Why, according to you the information it has nothing to do with reality. Then, the computer I'm using now and that uses algorithms full of information, not real. Eureka: I'm not real, as the information that has nothing to do at all with reality, then the whole information flow of my neurons are pure junk.A little common sense, sir

What actually exists in your computer is material structure and flows of electrons in the structure, along well-defined and purposefully arranged paths. The flow of these electrons interacting with the designed structure causes switches to open and close changing the paths. You can overlay patterns of ones and zeros on these and you can even believe these patterns are "real" and call them "information", but that is merely your belief, and it is what this essay contest is about! I do not find it insulting for Cristi to question this.

It is not about belief, dear Edwin Eugene. The information is real in the sense that there is outside the observer, even if not Perform observation.Information is, for example, number of particles. The universe is in itself, full of information, for the simple reason, that everything can be measured, counted, etc. are numbers, and the numbers are pure information.Therefore,So, for example, the Bekenstein bound is an upper limit on the entropy S, or information I, That can be contained Within a Given finite region of space Which has a finite amount of energy.

[math]I\leq\frac{2\pi RE}{\hbar c\ln2}

[/math]

The vacuum energy density is a pure numerical value, and independent, its value, the observation process, since the expansion of the universe itself, is conditioned to this numerical value.

I do not believe, observe, make theories to explain the observed phenomena, using an informational process of creating algorithms (equations) that give some outputs, and it then taste numerical information outputs of these equations, or algorithms, with the reality of the phenomenon observed physical, measured.All this is information, not subjective beliefs.If I make a theory, with which using an algorithm or routine (equations, etc.), get the measured value of pure number density of vacuum (0.6931 ...), that is objective and real, and it is information. Everything else is to juggle metalinguistic, which are fine for philologists, but does not help the physicists.

regards

Actually "Information is not reality. Information has nothing to do with reality." is from Joe Fisher's essay

Dear Angel,

I do not dispute the utility of the concept of information, but we do disagree upon the level of reality to attach to this concept.

Yes, Cristi merely says that "There has to be a real solution, for which the bits give true answers." --which I interpret to mean that reality underlies, or at least co-exists with, information, as his Yin-Yang shows.

Cristi,

I certainly agree that out of all possible permutations, only a logically consistent universe would emerge. I'm just making the point that infinity is everything, such that between zero(absolute) and infinity are all possibles, the extant.

I agree that "It from Bit" can't be determined by a quantum binary, or n-ary, algorithmic or axiomatic system. Wheeler talked in these regard to the "choice" we have in determining the configuration of physics or physical law as a participatory universe. He then said that one is unable to frame the laws of physics in a complete axiomatic framework because the acto of observation is self-reference.

My essay hits on this part, where I think "It from Bit" is not formally decidable. I think this is a good thing, for it means there is a new layer of physical principles waiting to be discovered --- or to think in the Wheeler sense maybe "chosen."

Cheers LC

Edwin,

"I interpret to mean that reality underlies, or at least co-exists with, information,"

Isn't that "underlaying reality" energy?

Medium and message are the Yin and Yang.

Good essay! I didn't understand it all, but the last part about Axiom Zero and the creation of any possible universe via the principals of explosion and logical consistency resonated with me. Starting with a single state (Axiom Zero), one can create an infinite space of other states (other possible universes). If each individual state could be considered to be a location in a larger set of states, then an expanding space has been created. Kind of sounds like the Big Bang! I'm going to be writing something along this line in my essay, too.

Anyways, nice essay!

Cristi

The issue is very simple. Observation can have no effect on the physical circumstance, as that has already occurred. Furthermore, the physical interaction of observation which is the receipt of physical input (what happens subsequently being irrelevant because it is not physics) involves a physically existent representation of what occurred anyway. It is commonly known as light.

Once that is understood, then all the 'wierdness' can be seen for what it is, ie attempts to rationalise an incorrect base premise as to how physical existence occurs.

Paul