Formation-by-Information by R.J. Michie

I don't know if the "turtles" story was fabricated or not. But the phrase is catchy. It has nothing to do with old ladies but rather with the concept of recursion. In that sense, the "turtle" metaphor is quite profound. It means that we can split the hair mighty thin but no matter how many times we split it, there is always something underneath that's inexplicable.

That alone is a huge problem in present-day physics.

For example, what are quarks made of? If we find out we can split them into mini-quarks, what would mini-quarks be? And so on, forever. The moral is, the properties of anything we discover are just information to us, and ultimately they are just information. We could speculate that quarks are made of cheese if we want to, and this speculation would be equally true as any other.

I think that all arrogant and ignorant people (regardless of skin color) have the right to think deep thoughts, even if not given a kind consideration by everyone.

But, again, about the bits: my theory has nothing to do with modern information devices. I keep saying that. It's worth repeating. The reason why you see similarities is because Nature is informational, and that propagates all the way to our daily lives. If you need something to affirm this, just think how arrogant would it be to think that Nature follows our lead. No, we follow Nature's lead.

I didn't get the comment about "uniqueing". I try to remain concise and use clear axiomatic notions when it comes to informational reality. Once it goes into personal views of reality, as I have already said, it's the realm of spirituality, religion and philosophy. While those are worthwhile pursuits, I don't focus on them in my work. I focus only on the scientific approach to reality.

You raise questions that perfectly exemplify the present world-view, or a paradigm if you will.

In this paradigm, there are two parallel worlds: one of "real stuff" and one of its "properties". For example, an electron is "real" and its charge and spin are its "properties". This is considered so, even if we can't say absolutely nothing about what an electron really is. We can only say what its properties are ("properties" meaning information about it). We were never able to explain what "matter" is, other to find out a number of informational facts about it. We will never be able to truly explain what "matter" is, if we keep insisting that "matter" and information that describes it, are two separate things.

Think about this: how does electron "know" how to behave? It is because it follows "laws"? Forgive me for quoting galore. Our representation of Nature follows the parlance of social laws: we have players and we have laws. It's just like societal laws. We find it comforting.

But at the same time, we accept that nothing other than random outcome can happen if there is no information. A blindfolded person will chose a random direction. A gambler in Vegas knows this better than anyone. Yet when it comes to basic elements of Nature, we presume they just "know" how to behave and how to "account" for the environment they are in.

Why is that? Why do we think Nature itself needs no information to operate? Isn't this akin to assuming supernatural qualities of Nature?

This is where the notion of information being a "description" of something "real" falls apart. What I am saying isn't even counter-intuitive. It's just on some level frightening to suggest that information exists on its own. It doesn't need "stuff" to make it be. We can't know what "stuff" is. So it's only natural to get rid of it. Even though it may feel as if the world itself lost substance. It didn't of course.

Information we observe is called "discernible". Information used by basic constituents of Nature if called "fundamental".

Fundamental information is consumed by elementary entities in order to create you. Yes, you. And me to. It is the information that electrons and protons use to move, to form atoms, to form the current. A small derivative subset of that fundamental information is what we observe, i.e. discernible information.

These concepts are profoundly important. They contain, in the most elegant form, a generalization of the concept of information as it is espoused in traditional physics. In that (traditional) sense, all you said about observables and the physical world is correct. But you need to change the paradigm. You need to ask yourself: what do you think the observables are? The answer is: they are the source of information. Much of this information is consumed before you and your instruments are even borne into existence, so that you (and me) can have this chat.

Think about it. It does make sense. Even if in the framework of traditional physics we were thought not to think that way. But that's all it is.

Here is the reply to the second part of your post. It refers to the cause and effect combined to application of force. I think the crucial question you pose here is how is information used across space, so that force can exist? Correct me if I misunderstood your post.

The answer, in short, is that information originates in a single point in space, but it exists everywhere, instantly. The density of information declines with the square of distance. There are very good reasons for this. They are explained in the book. If every book, or even a paper, could be compressed into an essay, and then as random comments about it, everyone would be writing essays. I hope you understand this. I am sorry if you find my mention of the book as an attempt to monetize on it. If you are an Amazon Prime member, you can borrow it for free.

Everything I say here must sound incomplete and kind of off-handed. I understand that. Again, read the book and things may clear up for you. If you don't want to, that's your business.

And finally, a comment on "previous" and "current" information.

I am not trying to describe any algorithm whatsoever. Not at all. But I do know what framework Nature must use for information processing. I do know why certain aspects of information use must be the way they are. My work is in the much broader context that looking at some clever algorithms as a hammer, and everything in physics as a nail. That would be naive. I hope you are not suggesting that.

One of the questions is: what are the minimum requirements for reality to exist, so that it has any virtue of memory whatsoever? If you can remember your post, the reality you live in has a virtue of memory. A memory of any kind cannot exist unless at least two information snapshots can be used at the same time. This is a very important question that's covered in the book in the great detail.

There are many other questions that are not posed in the essay or these comments. They, and the accompanying answers, paint a much clearer picture. Yes, the book.

I do understand that traditional physics has a lot of charm to it. For example, Einstein was able to present his postulates of Special Relativity in very little space. That's lovely.

But no one knows why these postulates work. They are purely based on observations. They are a band-aid on a gaping wound that is open in our body of knowledge. I know that by far most physicists understand this. Presenting a viable alternative is much harder to accomplish. I offer that, and it will stand the test of time. I offer formation-by-information and I present a deduction of facts we had to accept as such. Why is the speed of light constant? Why light exists in the first place? What is mass? What is gravity? Why is there uncertainty? Why time apparently slows down in some cases?

If you think I can answer all this in an essay and a few comments, then I bow to your optimism, even if the math I used is mostly high school grade. If reading the book is that hard, then perhaps you should wait for the movie.

Good points, Sir. I have talked in the book much about these "tricks" Einstein used. I called them out for what they are: cheating. However, don't get me wrong. Einstein was my childhood hero. I consider him a genius. What he had done for his era was astounding. But I got over it. And so will everyone else, eventually.

Now, I will mention one important result of my theory: the speed of light is constant "c" relative to a dominant source of information. In the case of all of us, living here on Earth, it is the Earth to which the speed of light is relative to, for all the experiments performed near it.

Away from Earth, for example, close to the Sun, the speed of light is "c" relative to the Sun. As a photon approaches Earth, it becomes "c" relative to Earth. This is easy to substantiate.

If so, then explaining Michelson Morley is trivial. A photon always moves at speed "c" relative to the dominant information source, which in case of Michelson, Morley, and all other diligent experimenters since, is Earth.

One more interesting tidbit. It turns out that the speed of light (300,000km/s) is the slowest of all possible maximum speeds.

The maximum local speed can be many different values, and the value of 300,000 km/s is the lowest of them. It can be shown in no uncertain terms that a much larger mass can accelerate past 300,000 km/s, when away from large bodies.

Again: the speed of a photon is the slowest of all possible maximum speeds. The math to show this is in the book.

Basudeba,

here is the answer to your discussion about waves.

I understand your analysis. Einstein eliminated the "medium" in order to justify his postulates.

However, if an informational approach can produce what's known as "time dilation" equations, and if this approach doesn't presuppose the postulate of light speed, and if it doesn't preclude the existence of medium, then what do we have?

We have a theory where:

1. "relativistic" effects can be explained without even a notion of light, let alone contrived postulates about it

2. a medium is allowed

3. a wave in it is allowed

Think of it this way: if I can explain why there are "relativistic" effects by using "computers", and if "computers" can comprise a medium, then light can propagate in this medium and all the classical and "relativistic" qualities of it that we know are true, simply emerge.

My theory shows, in clear mathematical terms, that it is so. There is no ether, there is no need for dubious postulates. There is an axiomatic informational reality.

I suggest that neither ether nor relativistic approach are correct. After a 100 years, I hope it's clear both are dead ends. Only the informational physics and the Fundamental Information Theory (FIT) provide an answer that doesn't need magic and a heavy dose of authority applied to it, to produce a good answer. I don't argue that Relativity works (at least so far). But so did Ptolemy's geocentric system, and it did so splendidly for over 1400 years.

I just hope we aren't stuck with Einstein's beliefs for so long. In fact, I don't think we will. Because if we do, we will never achieve practical FTL travel, and we will be likely wiped out long before that.

I have already hinted that my theory allows for a practical FTL in some cases, while reducing to Einstein's equations in others, all the while staying strictly in agreement with experiments. This is important for any serious scientific theory in order to make any new bold claims, such as the possibility of true FTL travel.

Indeed, properties must exist in isolation. It is the only way that those properties would not be forever tied to something we can never know. "Matter" (or many other notions in physics) exist only as their properties. It is only our imagination that makes up the substance behind them.

No, causality cannot be the reason why electron moves the way it does. Evoking causality implies reason, and reason implies information.

As for quantum fluctuations, FIT explains quantum effects without presupposing Heisenberg's principle of Uncertainty. This principle can be derived from scratch. In traditional physics, Uncertainty is taken for granted. It is just one more sign of the decaying house of physics that 20th century has brought down upon us.

Think about it this way: if there is information available, but the storage isn't enough to hold it, what must happen? The answer is: some information must be lost. This is the reason for Uncertainty, and the exact form of Heisenberg's principle isn't hard to derive. Of course, I am shortening the argument here, but you get the gist of it.

Regarding the concept of memory, the past and the present information must exist in some form at the same time. Otherwise the information cannot be used. Because of this, prior information must be stored for the processing in the following instant. There aren't many ways to use information, and in this case, this is the ultimate and the simplest rundown of what the framework must be.

The first axiom is that nothing specific (i.e. non-random) can happen without the use of information.

This is, by itself, axiomatic unless we consider present-day physics where specific things are said to happen because of a physical law. It is in fact, a non explanation. The very foundation of law-based physics is a giant postulate, and an impossible one to accept by reason.

It's a peculiar human condition where declaring a 'law' seems to turn critics into believers, just because this law works out mathematically. This isn't enough. You can reverse engineer many things and the math works out, but you still have no idea how it works. This simple conundrum somehow escaped the physics community for centuries.

I am driving home the idea that nothing, not even Nature, can escape the reach of this axiom.

RJ

JM,

information composes stuff.

We are presented with inherent inability to know what stuff is. We can only know some facts about it. If you think about it, if you have a conceptually unknowable entity mingled with information, all you really have is information.

Even the very existence of any specific information can be tied to the lack of information about whether such information should exist or not.

I talk a lot more about this in my book. In a nutshell, an axiomatic case can be presented that solidly props information as the only foundational and truly the final aspect of any reality.

It is a big shift in physics, but one that is inevitable.

The argument that something material causes the emergence of properties avoids the question of what the "material" is.

Ultimately, it is a tautology: we define information as a reflection of the material world, but at the same time, the concept of information is the only way we have to know the material world. This is so not only in the broadest epistemological sense, but in the deep sense that the "material" is fundamentally unknowable, aside from the information it possesses.

Your argument is good as long as what I said here is not accounted for. In fact, many such arguments can be made and they are all ultimately tautologies.

The approach of FIT (the Fundamental Information Theory) can explain concepts of mass and light (for example) without presupposing them. It can also explain the Uncertainty without presupposing it.

Thus, there is no reason to consider mass as a separate entity. It's Occam's razor at its finest.

Sorry, I don't have a good answer to this. It's a question that goes beyond scientific (and ultimately axiomatic) and crosses over to the realm of faith and conviction.