The Tao of It and Bit by Cristinel Stoica

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.

Ok;now I understand to exact their views.

"but we do disagree upon the level of reality to attach to this concept"

Yes, I totally agree that, that part of reality, or what we call reality as mental model, corresponding to algorithmic processes.As you well know, there are numbers, not algorithmically constructibles. You aims high: There is some physical phenomenon (unknown for now) that can not be computed algorithmically?, And therefore we can not speak of it in terms of what is known by orthodox science, and information. That's a great question. Maybe if there are physical "facts" that are not computable. And therefore speak of these "realities" in terms of information does not make sense, to be unplayable for any algorithm. This is another question, very different

regards

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

Cristi,

You are welcome. It ties into a point I make in these discussions, that the absolute(inertia) and infinity are two attributes of empty space/the void. This because a further point I make is that because we are so focused on the effect of time, the sequence, from past to future and physics re-enforces this by treating it as a measure of duration, we overlook the underlaying action, which causes future to become past and duration is only the state of what is present between events. So time is more like temperature, than space. It is analogous to frequency, as temperature is to amplitude.

This then leaves space as the physical and mathematical foundation, with fluctuation as the tension between zero and infinity, eventually leading to these galactic rouge waves, called galaxies.

I'll leave it at that, just describing why it is something I focus on.

Cristi, A well presented and logically thought out essay, unfortunately your figure 8 does not display properly in chrome or firefox (I have not tried IE) but once downloaded Adobe renders Fig 8 correctly. Maybe you should try and fix that and ask FQXi organizers to replace the file.

I concur fully with you, especially the paragraph "The Big Book of the Universe" and your statement that the universe is isomorphic to a mathematical structure. I takes quite some abstract and brave thinking to accept that conclusion; especially the implications that one thoughts , dreams, acquired knowledge, etc are just mathematics at work.

Next, I will read your PH.D. thesis and hoping to find equally brave statements.

Christi, this is an exceptionally clear essay with some very interesting things to say.

You suggest that to be able to choose from different laws the universe needs to evolve. Why can't they just be chosen from the set of logical possibilities? Why the need to connect them in s temporal progression?

I wrote something on my blog http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1625#post_74642 that goes into greater detail. Both of our essays touch on the Wheeler participatory universe conjecture.

Cheers LC

Thank you for that. I think you are wisely keeping your options open. Of course Smolin argues the case that evolution of physics is a necessity to get where we are. With evolution of life we can see roughly how a progression can start from very simple chemical life forms to the more complex animals and plants we are familiar with. If cosmic evolution requires baby universes from the beginning then the starting point is already very complex and selective. Simple universes would not have babies so how did things get going? This would be more a question for Wheeler or Smolin I suppose.

Cristi

Why do you want to presume there are any 'mysteries' . Might it just be that the QM view of how physical existence occurs is incorrect. For example, in your para on delayed initial conditions: "Classically, the state of the universe at any

moment of time is determined by the initial conditions. This is prohibited in quantum

mechanics, because we can only ask whether the system is in a small subset of possible states. It is not possible, even in principle, to know the complete state".

Really? So how does existence occur in this context, how can there be a number of possible existent states at the same time, and what does not occur, but exists, so that its complete state can never be known?

"The observer asks questions, and the universe gives yes/no answers. But the answers

always define at least a possible solution".

Not so. What happened has already happened. And indeed, unless you have an answer to the above, it has happened definitely. Whether or not we have the ability to discern that is irrelevant to the physical circumstance, as to is the act of observing/measuring/etc.

Now the Global consistency principle is interesting, in so far as iot is an allusion to what really happens. That is, it is another one of those mechanisms I spoke of which attempts to counteract the consequences of the flaw in the presumption as to how physical existence occurs. Note: "they have to behave well at infinity (otherwise they can't have physical reality).

It would be a lot easier to just re-visit what has been denigrated as 'classical' and realise that to have existence and difference, physical existence must be a sequence of discrete definitive physically existent states of whatever comprises it. That gives you the 'essence' of what QM thinks it is addressing, but without the impossible presumption that physical existence involves some form of indefiniteness, and the attendant rationalisations that then have to be invoked to keep the theory 'on track'.

Paul