Thanks Chidi for looking through my window!

Best regards,

Akinbo

Thanks Daryl for your frank comments. "Time" and "Space" are indeed enigmas yet to be fully subdued. I guess that is why most FQXi essay contests focus mainly on these two, or even as some hold a union of both.

Your position that "...a continual passage of time is fundamental, and prior to any particular thing existing" is understood, although it comes with its own baggage. For how long then was there non-existence before existence? How can this be ascertained in that who is keeping the time in the realm of non-existence since such a realm where time runs must exist? And from that last sentence can a situation where time runs be said not to exist? These I believe are questions to be argued by dialectic and not by equations so I understand that until those arguments are comprehensively done and resolved one way or the other to absurdity, those who harbor views like yours must be allowed to EXIST! This I fully support.

I think the question whether time is digital or analogue, continuous or discrete or a simulation of both is the fundamental issue. As I have proposed, the nature of space is both continuous and discrete. You may also view the Judgement above.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

Dear Paul,

Thanks for looking in and sorry for the philosophical taste of the essay. The essay topic I think can only be resolved by argument and not by mathematical equations per se. For instance can you give the mathematical equation for 'it' or that for 'bit'? The essay is an attempt to rise to Wheeler's challenge that "...space-time derives its very existence entirely - from ...binary choices, bits". If that were so, what are the binary choices from which space can derive its meaning? I doubt if these can be determined by mathematical equations.

So apologies for the philosophical content. Perhaps the Judgement that followed on this blog may have more relevance to today's physics (see Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT). You may view.

Best regards,

Akinbo

    Jacek: I refuse to plea bargain.

    First: Give me, please the definition that says the continuous spacetime stays in conflict with its reality.

    Second: When you walk from your end of the room to the wall opposite you do not push the spacetime out of the way. You are made of the spacetime. You are a wavepacket travelling within the spacetime just like e.g. a photon.

    Third: Zeno's paradoxes are simply mathematical problems for which modern calculus provides a mathematical solution (e.g. Boyer, Carl (1959). The History of the Calculus and Its Conceptual Development. Dover Publications. p. 295. Retrieved 2010-02-26. "If the paradoxes are thus stated in the precise mathematical terminology of continuous variables (...) the seeming contradictions resolve themselves."

    ------

    Many thanks Akinbo. This is very interesting dialog. It gives me a hint what could be a possible problem in my concept.

    Best regards,

    Ah, I see that I was to careless with words. When I type "prior" into dictionary.com, I get two definitions of the adjectival sense:

    1. preceding in time or in order; earlier or former; previous

    2. preceding in importance or privilege.

    I meant the second one. Sorry for the confusion. No, I don't think a continual passage of time took place before anything existed. I just think continual passage has to be a prior if things are to exist, and not the other way around, which I find incoherent; i.e., I just can't make sense of the position that time passes because things exist.

    I do accept your best regards, and I hope you accept mine, too! I appreciate your insight and your willingness to discuss these important things.

    All the best,

    Daryl

    Dear Akinbo,

    I found your essay an interesting read and I have rated it accordingly.

    Some comments:

    1) On page 6 you write that monads can exist in two states, which you refer to by the numbers 0 and 1. I understand what you want to say, but the 0 designates nothingness resulting from the monad's annihilation. So the 0 does not denote a state in which the monad exists, since upon annihilation it ceases to exist. Therefore, the monad cannot exist in two states: it exists only in the state refered to by the number 1. Or how do you see it?

    2) On page 6 you write that monads can change spontaneously. Is that property mentioned in the literature, or is it your own addition?

    3) Suppose I have an object A and an object B that are separated by 8 monads, analoguous to the situation in figure 1. Their distance is then 8. Now one of these intermediate monads changes state spontaneously: as a result, the distance between the objects A and B is then 7. Is there then any way of finding out which monad has annihilated? In other words: do we have to see the monads as particles so that we can say we have this monad here and that monad there, or do we have to see them as quanta that merely aggregrate (like digital dollars in a bank account: if you withdraw a dollar, it is senseless to ask which one of the 8 dollars on the account has been withdrawn)?

    Best regards,

    Marcoen

      Thank you Marcoen. I knew to expect good and objective commentary from you.

      1). Your observation is correct. Indeed, following additional insights gained from FQXi community I have improved my argument. You may read that in the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT and posted above. With that I think my position becomes stronger. That state designated 0 is the Platonic point. It has no dimension, it does not exist but yet in Plato's words it is not a geometric fiction! This satisfies Wheeler's contention that Space must derive its meaning, function and existence from Bits. It also satisfies Newton's desire for a space that can act and be acted upon. In short, Points and Monads are the binary states of space.

      2). That property is not mentioned in the literature. However, if we are to make room for some indeterminism, it must occur occasionally. This will allow for free will, intuition, etc in a digital universe.

      3) Excellent comment. I don't think there is anyway we can find ut which dollar is annihilated. The best we can observe is that a length has shortened or lengthened by some phenomena.

      Very grateful for these comments.

      Best regards,

      Akinbo

      Akinbo,

      About the state designated by 0 not being a geometric fiction.

      For non-negative integers x and y, I introduce the notation | x, y > for a physical system consisting of x monads in the state 0 and y monads in the state 1.

      Now consider the systems | x, y >, | 2*x, y >, and | x, 2*y > for any positive x and y. It is obvious that the last system can be physically distinguished from the first two, as it has more monads in the state 1: this system should thus have more spatial extension than the other two. My question is: if the state 0 is not a fiction, then how are the systems | x, y > and | 2*x, y > physically different?

      I am interested in your answer.

      With best regards,

      Marcoen

      Dear Marcoen,

      First let me correct my sentence in 3) above. The moment you mentioned dollars, monad annihilated from my brain! It should read, I don't think there is anyway we can find out which monad is annihilated. The best we can observe is that a length has shortened or was lengthened by some phenomena. At the kind of size we are talking about no measuring instrument can detect a monad other than by reductio ad absurdum arguments and encountered paradoxes if their presence is denied.

      Then regarding your question, your assessment cannot be faulted, state | x, 2*y > is physically distinguishable and more extended than | x, y >, | 2*x, y > and there is no doubt at all about that! If we however wish to build a bridge across the theoretical physics divide with as little resistance as possible from the Platonic school, it may be better as the Judge did in my blog post to hold that even though the Point is of zero dimension and so it does not exist, since an existent state can arise from a non-existent one, it may in some sense be acceptable that that 0 state is not a fiction. Just a play with words really but in my opinion a small concessionary price to pay so that our physics can move forward in a reconciliatory mode. The alternative is to be asked to physically present a monad before any ground can be yielded on the nature of space (i.e. whether relational or substantival).

      Best regards,

      Akinbo

        Dear Akinbo,

        We are at the end of this essay contest.

        In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

        Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

        eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

        And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

        Good luck to the winners,

        And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

        Amazigh H.

        I rated your essay.

        Please visit My essay.

        Dear Akinbo,

        I answered one of your fundamental question if the beginning of the big bang or KQID bit bang is bit or it. See my reply to Michel in my blog.

        Good Luck,

        Leo KoGuan

        Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I've Read

        I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented your essay in what follows.

        Of the nearly two hundred essays submitted to the competition, there seems to be a preponderance of sentiment for the 'Bit-from-It" standpoint, though many excellent essays argue against this stance or advocate for a wider perspective on the whole issue. Joseph Brenner provided an excellent analysis of the various positions that might be taken with the topic, which he subsumes under the categories of 'It-from-Bit', 'Bit-from-It', and 'It-and-Bit'.

        Brenner himself supports the 'Bit-from-It' position of Julian Barbour as stated in his 2011 essay that gave impetus to the present competition. Others such as James Beichler, Sundance Bilson-Thompson, Agung Budiyono, and Olaf Dreyer have presented well-stated arguments that generally align with a 'Bit-from-It' position.

        Various renderings of the contrary position, 'It-from-Bit', have received well-reasoned support from Stephen Anastasi, Paul Borrill, Luigi Foschini, Akinbo Ojo, and Jochen Szangolies. An allied category that was not included in Brenner's analysis is 'It-from-Qubit', and valuable explorations of this general position were undertaken by Giacomo D'Ariano, Philip Gibbs, Michel Planat and Armin Shirazi.

        The category of 'It-and-Bit' displays a great diversity of approaches which can be seen in the works of Mikalai Birukou, Kevin Knuth, Willard Mittelman, Georgina Parry, and Cristinel Stoica,.

        It seems useful to discriminate among the various approaches to 'It-and-Bit' a subcategory that perhaps could be identified as 'meaning circuits', in a sense loosely associated with the phrase by J.A. Wheeler. Essays that reveal aspects of 'meaning circuits' are those of Howard Barnum, Hugh Matlock, Georgina Parry, Armin Shirazi, and in especially that of Alexei Grinbaum.

        Proceeding from a phenomenological stance as developed by Husserl, Grinbaum asserts that the choice to be made of either 'It from Bit' or 'Bit from It' can be supplemented by considering 'It from Bit' and 'Bit from It'. To do this, he presents an 'epistemic loop' by which physics and information are cyclically connected, essentially the same 'loop' as that which Wheeler represented with his 'meaning circuit'. Depending on where one 'cuts' the loop, antecedent and precedent conditions are obtained which support an 'It from Bit' interpretation, or a 'Bit from It' interpretation, or, though not mentioned by Grinbaum, even an 'It from Qubit' interpretation. I'll also point out that depending on where the cut is made, it can be seen as a 'Cartesian cut' between res extensa and res cogitans or as a 'Heisenberg cut' between the quantum system and the observer. The implications of this perspective are enormous for the present It/Bit debate! To quote Grinbaum: "The key to understanding the opposition between IT and BIT is in choosing a vantage point from which OR looks as good as AND. Then this opposition becomes unnecessary: the loop view simply dissolves it." Grinbaum then goes on to point out that this epistemologically circular structure "...is not a logical disaster, rather it is a well-documented property of all foundational studies."

        However, Grinbaum maintains that it is mandatory to cut the loop; he claims that it is "...a logical necessity: it is logically impossible to describe the loop as a whole within one theory." I will argue that in fact it is vital to preserve the loop as a whole and to revise our expectations of what we wish to accomplish by making the cut. In fact, the ongoing It/Bit debate has been sustained for decades by our inability to recognize the consequences that result from making such a cut. As a result, we have been unable to take up the task of studying the properties inherent in the circularity of the loop. Helpful in this regard would be an examination of the role of relations between various elements and aspects of the loop. To a certain extent the importance of the role of relations has already been well stated in the essays of Kevin Knuth, Carlo Rovelli, Cristinel Stoica, and Jochen Szangolies although without application to aspects that clearly arise from 'circularity'. Gary Miller's discussion of the role of patterns, drawn from various historical precedents in mathematics, philosophy, and psychology, provides the clearest hints of all competition submissions on how the holistic analysis of this essential circular structure might be able to proceed.

        In my paper, I outlined Susan Carey's assertion that a 'conceptual leap' is often required in the construction of a new scientific theory. Perhaps moving from a 'linearized' perspective of the structure of a scientific theory to one that is 'circularized' is just one further example of this kind of conceptual change.

        Akinbo,

        Thanks for your reply. I already understood that I had to read 'monad' where you wrote 'dollar'. Your insistence that we must view the states denoted by 0 as some kind of entity introduces, as I see it, a metaphysical (i.e. unverifiable) element in the theory. But that is not necessarily an argument against it.

        In my own work, by the way, I attempt to model 'space' as a semi-continuum, this is neither a continuum nor a discrete entity. The simplest one-dimensional model would be set of real numbers, together with the set of all open intervals (x-1, x+1) where the number 1 represents the Planck distance. These open intervals are then physical 'bits of space', somewhat comparable to your monads: together they form the one-dimensional space. This model is an oversimplification but it shows the principle of how space as a substance is built up in a semi-continuum.

        Best regards,

        Marcoen

        Hello Akinbo, from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder !

        I'm so cross with myself for leaving it too late to discuss your essay properly, as there is quite a lot I would have liked to have said.

        I did not know that Wheeler said - as you quote in your essay :-

        Wheeler was in the forefront of a grand scheme to reduce physics to geometry.

        This he called 'geometrodynamics' [13]. It was his dream to obtain mass from the massless,charge from the chargeless and field from the fieldless. To him, "what else is there out of which to build a particle except geometry itself?" [14]. If we follow Wheeler along this road, we infer that 'it' is from 'geometry'. A literal interpretation of the same Wheeler's 'it from bit' is then that

        'geometry' and 'bit' must be strongly related, if not same.

        WOW !! But it is a defining feature of 'my' geometrical objects that they are real, albeit completely powerless to 'do' anything. Let alone create all that stuff - mass !!! charge !!! force fields !!!!

        Although I'm not a religious person, I still 'believe' in 'a creator' as I simply cannot bring myself to believe in something from nothing. Which is what Wheeler patently hoped for. I know, I know my position solves nothing - I just find it easier. Although it scares the hell out of me (to coin a phrase) because if we are to judge the creator by its works ???!????!!!! - heaven help us - to coin yet another a phrase !!

        I digress.

        My point is that what we's got is wot we's been given - or put more pedantically, both hard solid matter with their geometrical objects stuck onto their surfaces, as they are, is what we've got & we've just gotta deal with it. And I feel again, very strongly, that the creator gave matter all of the power to do stuff, information none - but matter uses information to guide & direct its every move.

        Further, my own investigations have led me to conclude that 'information' is NOT digits - no kind nor amount of them (including any that can be extracted from quantum phenomena!), nor how algorithmically-well they may be massaged & shunted through any device that uses them.

        Unequivocally they - digits - make for wonderful COUNTING & CALCULATING assistants, witness our own now many & various, most excellent, counting, calculating devices BUT according to my investigations real thinking is an entirely different phenomenon from mere counting, calculating & computing.

        For which phenomenon - real thinking - real information is required.

        My own investigations led me to discover what I have come to believe real information is & as it so transpires it turns out to be an especially innocuous - not to omit almost entirely overlooked & massively understudied - phenomenon, none other than the sum total of geometrical objects otherwise quite really & quite properly present here in our universe. Not digits.

        One grade (the secondary one) of geometrical-cum-informational objects lavishly present here in our cosmos, is comprised of all the countless trillions & trillions of left-over bump-marks still remaining on all previously impacted solid objects here in our universe - that is to say, all of the left-over dents, scratches, scars, vibrations & residues (just the shapes of residues - not their content!) (really) existing here in the universe.

        Examples of some real geometrical objects of this secondary class in their native state are all of the craters on the Moon. Note that these craters are - in & of themselves - just shapes - just geometrical objects. And the reason they are, also one & at the same time, informational objects too, can be seen by the fact that each 'tells a story' - each advertises (literally) some items of information on its back - each relates a tale of not only what created it but when, where & how fast & from what angle the impacting object descended onto the Moon's surface. Again, each literally carries some information on its back.

        (Note : Not a digit in sight !!)

        How we actually think - rather than just count, calculate & compute - with these strictly non-digital entities, specifically these geometrical-cum-informational objects, in precisely the way we do, please see my essay.

        I did not make the distinction between computing with digits & real thinking with real information, sufficiently strongly in my essay.

        This contest is such a wonderful 'sharing' - Wow - & open to amateurs like myself - Wow. How great is that !!! Thank you Foundational Questions Institute !!! What a great pleasure it has been to participate. What a joy to read, share & discuss with other entrants !!!

        Margriet O'Regan

        Akinbo - no need to apologize. This is my bias, not your problem. At a fundamental level, I believe that we make better progress when all the disciplines are first class citizens in the conversation.

        Kind regards, Paul

        Hello Margriet,

        Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

        If you come out every evening for 7 days and gaze at the night sky, on the first night you look up and see the moon, then you go back in and write 1, the next night you do same and write 1 again. On the third night you gaze again and there is no moon, then you write 0, etc until you have 1100011...

        So when you say, "each literally carries some information on its back", what is carrying the information on its back on those nights when no moon was sighted?

        Can a friend who was not with you on those nights, seeing those digits not know the information of those days when there was a moon and when there was none? That is why Barbour says as I quote in my say that though the digits are abstract, they must stand for something concrete... Just some more food for thought for you

        Stay blessed!

        Akinbo

        Congratulations Akinbo!

        I see it's now official - according to Brendan's contest blog - you are in the finals. Good luck! I hope the expert reviewers are kind.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        Akinbo,

        Congratulations, I was watching your bumpy roller coaster ride nervously. It must have been exhausting! Looking forward to working with you. We need to catch up on each of our papers as I think the whole may be stronger than the sums describing the parts!

        Best of luck in the final judging.

        Peter