Gravity and the Nature of Information by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thanks for your replies above Ed,

FYI, professor Vishwakarma is now responding to comments. And in private correspondence, he noted that the current work is indeed an outgrowth of the research in the lecture I attended.

Please note that I have no wish to debate here further the relative value or Platonism or lack thereof. It it pleasant that we can debate and explore the edges of the subject in an academic way, without locking horns.

Perhaps, though I took the attitude in my new essay that Math is integral, the same principles apply if it is emergent instead. You noted after reading my draft, that most of my points stood without that connection. Didn't I say the same about your paper above?

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Dear Eugene,

Thank you for asking me to give my opinion about your essay. I will do it in the coming days.

As an invited editor at the journal Neuroquantology I have some interest in this kind of topics although, as many sientists, I do not have a clear opinion about the deep nature of gravity and the information it contains.

Approaching the subject probably needs quite sophisticated mathematics. I just tried to think about the perception of time

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0403020

and found afterwards that the formalism relates to Riemmann hypothesis as well

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1012.4665

You received many comments on your essay, and I will try to contribute.

Best regards,

Michel

In a conversation with Gerard 't Hooft during FFP10, when I inquired about the calculational mechanism for a computing universe (Planck sized space atoms perhaps?) he said it wasn't necessary, because the laws of nature do the calculating for us. Perhaps by calling them that, any dispute between us is avoided, because the same 'natural law' can have its expression in either Math or Physics - depending on what kind of knowledge we seek, concrete or abstract.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi Edwin

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry, I misunderstood then. You are talking about the linear approximation of GR. Ok, I'll be looking forward to seeing the results of your nonlinear treatment as well as the predictions. I can see that there is a lot of work to do. Good luck with this.

You: I don't recall this particular argument. Is it new with you? It is very effective.

Well, it is not new with me, but it is new in the sense that I invoke it as an argument in my essay. Most physicists are aware of this but it seems that the majority overlook its relevance.

Best regards

Israel

Dear Edwin (or Eugene),

I have now red your stimulating essay and tried to get some hints on your reasoning, especially about the 'awareness" of gravity, for a possible coupling to my own research. The challenge would be to put mass on diagrams decribing the wholeness of quantum observables (such as the dessins d'enfants created in my essay). May be at a further stage it will be possible to convert the bits attached to the measurement space (there the Riemmann sphere rigidified at three points) into invariants having the meanig of mass. I still don't know.

Thanks for reading my essay and good luck.

Michel

Dr.E.E.Klingman,

I'm yet a bit slower to enter lately into your marvelous essay. So far I'm yet realize, I think, there is same left and right or mirror image questions to resolve the 'It from bit' or 'bit from it', we have almost similar opinion. In my submitted essay, "It from bit' equally 'bit fro it", is nothing but a same statement written on a mirror and it depends on stands of observer.

Best wishes

Dipak Kumar Bhunia

Dear Edwin,

I thought your essay was very original approach, but simultaneously it is very logical and nothing is in there I disagree with. Physics does require many constants to make certain areas work, so the elephant example was an excellent illustration.

Suggesting gravity is self aware as the only true field makes sense if we ever want to unify the four forces, and I suspect that Einstein was correct when he suggested that certain configurations of space-time incorporate the effects of electromagnetism. An area of particular interest to me.

I've opted for an approach that thinks about how information can pass between Observer & the Observed within curved space-time. Hope you get time to read it.

Best wishes for the contest - great essay!

Antony

Hi Dr. Klingman,

Your essay is very fascinating, and I really enjoyed how you explored the deeper connections between physics and mathematics, and the art of physical theory itself. Also your use of the references was great - in particular your application of Smolin is very enlightening. I'm inspired to read your other works (such as your PhD thesis), and also probably will pick up Smolin's Time Reborn.

Thanks again,

Steve Sax

Hi Eugene,

I enjoyed your lively style and use of entertaining and explicative graphics! :)

I enjoy and agree with your statement: "...Wheeler's "absence of a clear definition of the term 'bit' as elementary unit in establishment of meaning" imply awareness, since there is no meaning absent awareness. He believed in a Participatory Universe..." It does seem to me that the "it from bit" concept breaks down without some sort of reciprocal relationship between the measurer and the measured.

I am fairly new to the argument that gravity is "anti-entropic" although I also encountered the concept recently in the book "Time Reborn" by Smolin.I'm still thinking about how I relate to/interpret this approach. Have you read much Ilya Prigogine or much of Barbour's works on the principle of maximal variety?

"From Oppenheimer's deep interest in Zen, to Cristi's Tao essay, physicists are fascinated by the idea that unity underlies an apparent surface division of the world into related and correlated entities. Yet Zen koans remind us how terribly difficult it is for brains that have mastered the skill of partitioning and relating systems to reach mindful awareness of undivided Nature: the 'Not two' aspect of reality" -- Indeed!!! Bit logic isn't able to convey koans. I definitely feel a comradery in your appeal to zen. My use of the phrase, "Is Bit It?" came about as a sort of koan--is bit "it" (made from the stuff of the universe), or is bit "it" (all there is at all). ^_^ The "superposition of states" (I am using this non-literally) experienced by a human mind processing a couple ways of interpreting a koan or a haiku may represent something fundamental about the nature of the universe.

Cheers, and thanks again for putting forward intriguing and fun ideas and for sharing ideas on my thread,

Jennifer Nielsen

P.S. Are you familiar with the idea of Roger Penrose that gravity and mass is what causes decoherence? Was wondering how you would interpret his ideas.

Thanks,

Jennifer

Hi Edwin,

Of the things I understood in your essay, I find nothing to disagree with worth disagreeing with, but that leaves many references, your math and hence most of your essay opaque to my understanding. I leave it up to you to see elements of agreement or disagreement in the following observations, none of which are meant as criticism.

When philosophers considered space and time as continuous and independent of each other, the notion demanded everything in space be recreated from moment to moment. And while that was tenable for a time, it could not stand in a large complex universe. Most things are obviously discrete (granular) and some things continuous (smooth), but debate about what was divisible and indivisible was heading in one direction only because discrete was winning at every observation. Those who could extrapolate, extrapolated a discrete universe made from dimensionless points, and those who stopped short of extrapolating to infinity and beyond saw the universe as being comprised of very small granularities. But that led to a conflict between philosophy and dogma. For the complexity of a large continuous universe full of very small things to be recreated from moment to moment required a God infinitely more powerful than anything previously imagined, i.e. God*, that is, God to the power of infinity.

Einstein united continuous space and continuous time, i.e. space-time, and what he got for his troubles was a block-universe, and when infinitely small slices of time accommodate a universe of small things frozen relative to each other, no argument could explain how observations could be made from within this frozen universe. Observation must then be the purview of something or someone beyond space-time. The product of Small-Things* and Small-Slices* equates to a God**, otherwise slices containing incomprehensible complexity can not be created one after the other; and not just this, but this time God must be removed from space and time. And while this did not upset dogma, it is not a reasonable proposition. You can not unite space and time via math without continuous time; time is up, the gig is up as they say. The reason physics persists with things continuous is because mathematics doesn't work well in a universe of discrete entities. And the math falls over completely the moment time is not continuous, the best mathematicians can do is a symbol for an increment in time which can be infinitely small (but never zero because that exposes the error in reasoning). To move forward I choose explanations where derivatives are transparent, I choose a granular universe where everything which exists has extension in three dimensions. I say it's time philosophers took philosophy back from scientists, and in that effort I propose that "Law from no Law" be rephrased "Law from things Predictable".

When I think of space itself as comprised of discrete elements, i.e. granular (pbit), and time as a function of not just the elements of space, but the fabric of space made possible by the self organization of predictable elements, I am compelled to explain why elements and fabric exist in a symbiotic way, and for that I must explain purpose. For those who say gravity must be explained also, I say the elements of space are the elements of gravity, and the purpose of space, time and gravity are all concerned with appreciating the persistent material of the universe. In other words granularity need not be recreated from moment to moment, only appreciated, and appreciation requires observation, and observation is a complimentary measurement; that is, observation is a concurrent measurement of one thing by another and visa-versa, and that means both things must be changed by each others "structured measurement" if the instantiation of a momentary "observer" is to be actual.

I hope this helps, and await your opinion as to the relevance of my observations.

Best Regards.

Zoran.