• [deleted]

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.

  • [deleted]

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

John,

You say "if nothing exists, then wouldn't there be no laws and no need for laws to govern it?"

I guess that if nothing exists, then law also doesn't exist, because law will still be something. But what I said is rather that everything exists, because from "Axiom zero" everything follows. Not only what is logically consistent, but also things that contradict one another. For example, a world in which Euclid's postulate V is true, and another one in which it is false. But then, from all possible propositions, select a set of propositions which are mutually consistent, and you have a universe. This is what I mean by logical consistency principle.

Cristi

  • [deleted]

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

    • [deleted]

    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.

    • [deleted]

    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!

      • [deleted]

      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

        John,

        Thank you for taking the time to explain to me. I see your point now, regarding infinity. Very nice!

        Hi Lawrence,

        Thank you for the visit! You made an interesting point regarding undecidability of it from bit. I partially finished the first reading of your essay, I will have to reread many parts of it carefully, because it is very dense!

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        Hi Roger,

        Thank you for the kind comments. You present a nice interpretation, and I look forward to see your essay!

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        Paul,

        Thank you for the explanations. I am glad you got over the 'weirdness', with this very simple classical picture. For me quantum mechanics is still full of mysteries, and the only way they could make more sense to me was to think them in terms of delayed initial conditions and global consistency.

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        • [deleted]

        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.

        Dear Anton,

        Thank you for the nice comments, and for pointing out the problem with figure 8. I will try to fix it. I see you have an essay, and I look forward to reading it. I wish you success!

        Best regards,

        Cristi Stoica

        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?

          Dear Philip,

          You are right in asking "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?"

          My essay is centered on Wheeler, but I wanted also to bring something new. Wheeler advocated this kind of evolution of laws. Smolin, with his Cosmological natural selection, offered a solution, but to go to baby universes, you have to go through singularities (or at least to "bounce" them, as in LQC). So, this was an opportunity to offer another application of my approach to singularities. This was in the section "Evolving Laws", but later, in "From Chaos to Law", I say "any possible world appears, due to the principle of logical consistency". Hence, I don't actually think this needs evolving laws.

          Now, back to your question "Why can't they just be chosen from the set of logical possibilities?".

          I agree with you, they are just chosen from the set of logical possibilities, but this doesn't mean the choice can't evolve.

          Thank you for the kind comment, and I can't wait to read your essay.

          Best regards,

          Cristi

          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