Dear Akinbo,
You wrote an intriguing and compelling essay about monads. In the quest for understanding the universe, we are all beginners, and it is great that from time to time curious minds follow roads not taken.
Best regards,
Cristi
Dear Akinbo,
You wrote an intriguing and compelling essay about monads. In the quest for understanding the universe, we are all beginners, and it is great that from time to time curious minds follow roads not taken.
Best regards,
Cristi
Akinbo
I am not bothered who else said this. It is a fact, that is how, generically, the physical existence we know must occur.
Now, you raise the right question, but it is not a challenge, it is very easy to explain. Well, generically anyway (as per my essay). How this actually manifests in our existence is very difficult to establish, and that is what physics is supposed to be doing.
Based on the physical input we (and all sentient organisms) receive, we know that that form of existence has two fundamental characteristics;
-what occurs (ie exists), does so independently of the mechanisms which detect it
-it involves difference, ie comparison of these inputs reveals that there is difference, and therefore alteration.
Hence the apparent conundrum (or illusion as you say). On the one hand for existence to occur there must be something definitive. But on the other hand, we experience change thereof. The resolution of this lies in a proper understanding of sequence, and the abandonment of the incorrect ontological concept of 'it changes'. A difference is a difference, not the same with a change, which is physical nonsense.
So the existence we can know is existential sequence. Whatever comprises it can only exist in that sequence in one discrete, definitive, physically existent state at a time, the predecessor must cease to exist so that the successor can exist, and so on. That last phrase is critical, and physically correct, but is the opposite from how we fundamentally conceive of reality, with 'things' and 'changes'. Whilst it is obviously important to understand what comprises reality, substantively, and causes difference, the concept of physically existent state is crucial. Things do not exist, a physically existent state does.
To put this simply. Take any thing around you. There is a cup of coffee here. Now, that appears to be an existent thing. But we know that if we wait long enough, we will see alteration. We know that if we put this under an electron microscope, we will see alteration. And we know if we could subject it to a more detailed examination, we would see more alteration. In other words, the question becomes, when is that cup of coffee a cup of coffee. And the answer is never, or once, depending on how one wants to phrase what is actually happening.
From one point in time to the next it is not the same. What is happening here is that we are conceptualising physical existence (reality) from a higher level than that at which it occurs, physically, via certain superficial physical attributes, which are not actually existent. And we deem this 'thing' to remain in existence whilst those attributes pertain. Indeed, we then rationalise alteration by conceiving that it has changed, which, physically, is nonsense, because if there has been alteration then something else exists.
In sum, there is no 'cup of coffee'. It is, physically, a sequence of occurrences, one at a time, which bear a superficial resemblance. These occurrences being the physically existent state of whatever is involved. Each of those states being a reality. That is, there is no degree of alteration within a reality. That alteration is what differentiates one reality from another in the sequence, ie one physically existent state from another.
Paul
Judge: Well then, at the moment I will not take you up on technical terms like homeomorphic, conformally flat, isotropic, etc.
First, I put it to you that your testimony that spacetime is continuous (i.e. relational) is conflicting by definition with testimony that it is "not imaginary, actual, real", (i.e. spacetime is substantival).
Second, if you say it is actual and real (substantival), where does the "elastic" spacetime situated between you and the wall opposite go to when you walk from your end of the room to the wall opposite? Can you push it out of the way? I put it to you that that elastic spacetime has gone to that Platonic mathematical world in your table since you already gave evidence in your essay that this world and the Platonic one are connected.
Third, if you recant (despite being under oath) and say spacetime is infinitely divisible, even beyond the Planck limit, you must let us examine Zeno's Dichotomy Argument against you, which you can view hereand here and which will give you the headache that in moving you cannot take a first fractional step to your goal talk less of leaving your place. There are other evidence which you can view in the Judgement delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT on this blog.
As you refuse to plea bargain, you may update your defence by viewing this review on absolute and relational views of space and finitism in geometry.
Fourth, just like Plato did, take note that in your essay, you announced publicly to everyone's hearing that Physical can come from Platonic, which is not different from physical monad (binary state 1) arising from platonic point (binary state 0). I therefore hope you wont incriminate yourself in this case?
Best regards.
Pls. you have a right to remain silent as any comments could be taken as evidence against you :)
Akinbo,
You missed my response and question (below June 8th post) above ref Dark Matter and the erroneous assumption it can't be baryonic. Saw you on the cusp, and the good news is that I hadn't addressed your points. Situation now remedied. I trust you'll double check too.
Thanks, and very best wishes for the final cut.
Peter
Akinbo - an interesting essay, but a little too philosophical for my tastes. However, I did appreciate your extended discussion of monads, which I think certainly shows some unique insight.
Good look in the contest.
Kind regards, Paul
In summary what you say boils down to:
"sequence", ..." existent state at a time", "the predecessor must cease to exist so that the successor can exist", "From one point in time to the next it is not the same" VS. "there is no degree of alteration within a reality".
Thanks Paul for expressing your position. Appreciated.
Regards,
Akinbo
Dear Cristi,
Thanks for your kind encouragement on this lonely road. As I informed on your blog and stated in the judgement above, there actually seems to be a bridge linking the roads, which I have called, "Wheeler's Bridge". In summary, Points and Monads are the binary states that space can occupy. Look forward to more cooperation in future.
Best regards,
Akinbo.
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