The Intelligent Bit by Peter Jackson

sridattadev kancharla

Dear Peter and All,

Enjoy the absolute truth of the self. Thou art that.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Zoran Mijatovic

Hello Peter,

After your generous comments on my essay I tried very hard to get to grips with yours. I must say that much of it was beyond my technical abilities, nevertheless, you seem to take a serious approach to differentiating between what is real and what should and should not be considered axiomatic for the purposed of maintaining the integrity of formulations; and that is a big plus in any scientific field. I look forward to seeing how the professional judges rate your essay.

Regards and good luck.

Zoran.

Peter Jackson

Zoran,

Thanks. I'm sorry for all the complex empirical stuff, but I do believe in providing evidence to support theory. I agree integrity is everything.

I'll also be interested in the judges views, but after two years finishing 7th in the community scoring and overlooked by the judges I have little confidence in their willingness to depart from familiar doctrine. Some say they just support their peers. They do have other pressures but I don't think they give in to them that readily. We'll soon see I suppose.

Thanks for your comments and best wishes,

Peter

Conrad Johnson

Hi Peter -

I admit I initially passed over your essay because the Abstract was so dense, and seemed way above my level... but since you indicated in your very kind comments on my essay on evolution that our viewpoints were similar, I tried to overcome my sense of inadequacy and give it a shot.

So far as I can judge, what you say may well be right, but I don't feel I've understood any particular point really well. Even the argument about A=A confused me, though it didn't involve any technical issues. I suspect you may be exaggerating when you say "Aristotle = Aristotle" is false; I think what you meant is that there's no class of physical entities that are identical? And yet since that doesn't seem to apply to the case of atoms and molecules (which I suppose are identical except for location, which may be relevant?) - I wasn't able to follow the meaning of this for fundamental physics.

I'm glad to see your work is well appreciated by many here. If you were writing for people at my level, though, you'd need to choose one or two of your many points and elaborate them at greater length. It's a basic fault in my own writing that I try to explain each of my idiosyncratic notions by moving on to expound yet another one. This is probably a difficulty for any original thinker, that our ideas make sense to us because we've developed the context for them, in our own minds, though it's not a context available to many of our readers.

Thanks again - Conrad

Peter Jackson

Michel,

There is almost infinitely greater IQ in the IGbit. The bit is a bit of 2D wave either UP or DOWN. Th Qbit may simply have a choice of those 2 vectors ('degrees of freedom').

The IQbit has (as described by the Born Rule) another entire dimension, so has the potential number of vectors of a (Bloch) sphere. But the angular momentum of light also uses the additional dimension, so as a helix not as a wave.

The qubit language may be usable, but with infintely many iterations in layers reducing to gamma as id decodes the noise in the Shannon Channel to facilitate passage of the additional information. These additional spaces are analogous to both Kalusa spaces and the evolving fractal structure of chaos theory.

The consistency of uncertainty in Bells inequalities experiments is improved as von Neuman wanted, at the same time as removing any need for FTL communication! I think this stunning new finding has been largely missed (well it stunned me a bit at first anyway!)

I have read your essay and thought it well written. I don't think matters like agreement with a thesis should influence scoring.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter Jackson

Conrad,

"I suspect you may be exaggerating when you say "Aristotle = Aristotle" is false;"

No, in fact I'd go further! Even two pictures or representations of Aristotle will not be precisely identical in nature. It's a fundamentally new concept, but for correspondence there must be TWO things, so A=A is fine for maths but NOT true for nature, i.e. physically. The apparently subtle difference is as important as any truth in physics or logic!

"I think what you meant is that there's no class of physical entities that are identical?"

The fundamental new truth extends to 'classes' too. It resolves the issue in logic of 'what is a 'heap.'' Nature is non-commutative.

I'm sorry if I was too technical, I think all theory should correspond to findings. At least I tried to avoid all the jargon. I hope I largely succeeded. You may also not have noticed that QM and SR emerge unified?

I understand your problem. All nature is connected. I believe it's only disjointed in teaching and the professions.

Best wishes

Peter

Than Tin

Hello Peter

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Good luck!

Than Tin

Peter Jackson

Than,

I'm very grateful you think I have touched some corners of reality. you and others have too. If only we could combine them I think the whole shape of answer is here.

peter

Michel Planat

Dear Peter,

I asked the question because you don't refer to a precise mathematical definition of the intelligent bit.

Apart from qubits (2-level systtem), one has the qudits (q-level) systems.

The paper below gives some results one can get by taking tensor products of qudits. But may be it is not relevant here.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1009.3858

also

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1005.1997

which touches the Klein foundations for dessins d'enfants.

I agree that the discussion iq what matters here.

All the best,

Michel

Chenxi Guo

Dear Peter

I go through your essay roughly. You have contributed a creative viewpoint for searching the realities. It deserved a high rating.

Best Wishes

Chenxi

Akinbo Ojo

Hello Peter,

Just for clarification. I am taking advantage of this forum to ask this of professional physicists, of which I am not one!

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Peter Jackson

Akinbo,

I think that's typical of just about every shortcoming in our understanding. It derives from using the wrong starting assumptions.

Ergo; Assuming space is 'a nothing' is entire nonsense with no evidence to support it and pretty overwhelming evidence against (see my last years essay).

If it leads to suggestions like the above it seems I can probably lay my case.

Yuri Danoyan

Peter

"Studying physical entities afresh it becomes apparent, if surprising, that for

sizes at observable scales no two physical entities are identical"

Question:

Two events have occurred in the same place and at the same time how you can different it?

Peter Jackson

Yuri,

Excellent question. That's why I specified 'at observable scale'. However. There is other evidence:

Consider for instance stem cells. Absolutely identical as far as we can observe, and each divides to make more 'clones' of themselves.

But of course they can't! Each stem cell produces a different part of a physical entity, and a DIFFERENT physical entity each time as well!

I propose we then have a reducing 'octave' based but evolving 'fractal' sequence of 'sample spaces' or 'higher orders'. Al lie between the cardinalisations 0,1 of the 'next scale up'. Decoding these stage by stage will then reduce the 'noise' limiting (Shannon) communication channel capacity and massively multiply that capacity each time. And each time more of nature is revealed.

So there are many ways to 'observe', but it's the 'processors' that interpret the observations that have failed us so far. Does that sound sensible?

I have your essay on my list as I recall last years was very good. I apologise for being behind, but I'll now make it in time to score, and have just promoted it in the queue.

Good to hear from you, and very best wishes.

Peter

eAmazigh HANNOU

Dear Peter,

I'm sorry I have not had much time this past week.

Excellent essay, which is why I would like to ask you a little question:

In physics, or elsewhere, what you identify as 0 and 1, if you think that reality is based on information.

I gave you a note to the extent of your excellent essay.

And good luck.

Please visit My essay.

Peter Jackson

Amazigh,

Thank you. Frankly I think the Pagan mysticism of stringing symbols together and expecting them to adequately describe nature and the universe in any faithful way seems self delusionary and even arrogant to the extreme. I pointed that out for the most popular quantification system, Arabic 'numerals' (The Mayan system was more descriptive but destroyed as pagan by the conquistadors). But the point is as valid for the symbols we use to represent 'sounds', and the concepts they carry.

i.e. Any greater being with an understanding of the universe would learn what we assume by 'information' and 'reality' and just smile or laugh. That is why I took a mechanistic approach in my essay. What we 'call' what we observe means nothing, only what it DOES tells us of nature. So let's explore so we can better evolve our symbolism.

Thanks for your kind words. I was very pleased to read comment on and score your own essay (upwards) recently.

Best wishes

Peter

Helmut Hansen

Technically challenging and philosophically deep - very few papers meet both. This is one of them.

For me the most important statement of it is: "..in this vast excluded middle

ground lies most of nature." This thesis reflects the courage to apply principles of fuzzy-logic to deep physical problems. I hope this astonishing paper finds many many readers, especially among theoretical physicists: It is groundbreaking.

Peter Jackson

Helmut,

Your words give me great strength, much needed in the task ahead. Thank you.

The DFM belongs to nature not me, so anyone with any skills can explore, adopt and and use any aspects they resonate with, though citations are always helpful. I suspect no one person will change doctrine, however close to Wheelers 'simplest of ideas' the realization is.

The model opens the floodgates of solutions, so covers range well beyond that of this essay and the last 3 here). A number of papers are here for anyone interested; Discrete Field Model. Academia.edu Papers.

Do also tell all your freinds! The last 2 essays both came 7th but were overlooked by the judges. A higher finish may help. Who knows?

Very best wishes.

Peter

Michel Planat

Dear Peter,

I now gave you a good rate but it has little influence since you have so many good votes. I just looked at the Wikipedia chapter about preintuitionism where I found some background about the law of excluded middle you refer to in your essay.

Good luck,

Michel

Antoine Acke

Peter,

I enjoyed reading your essay. Excellent work. Congratulations.

Antoine.

« Previous Page Next Page »