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.

Dear Sir,

Your view about two parallel worlds may be acceptable, but can you separate both? Are they not like two sides of the same coin? Matter must have properties to be perceived and properties cannot exist in isolation. This also explains what matter is: that which is physically perceived as invariant among changes in its state. Regarding meaning of perception, please read our essay.

Is there any proof that "electron "know" how to behave?" Can it not be attributed to simple causality? Neither the blind folded person nor basic elements of Nature follow random pattern. While the blind cannot see, his other sensory faculties develop sharply to give him necessary inputs to sharpen his instincts, which are nothing but interactions of quantum fields around him. The same also guides basic elements of Nature.

Information is always about "something". It is a concept expressed through language depicting some object or changes in it depicting its state. Thus, it can only be as fundamental as the object it represents. Thus, the question of density of information does not arise.

A memory of any kind cannot exist unless at least two information snapshots can be used, but they cannot be at the same time. They have to be in sequence. The memory registers the first time and becomes referral thereafter.

We do not follow traditional physics and in our essay you might have noted that we have refuted length contraction and re-interpreted time dilation. We have also questioned the inference of the double slit experiment and given a different interpretation to dark energy. All your other queries we have replied in various posts. Light slows down in certain cases because of the refractive indices of the different mediums through which it passes - like the Earth's atmosphere and the beyond. We have also explained that gravity is a force that stabilizes the orbits of two bodies against a common barycenter.

Regards,

basudeba

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.

4 days later

Dear Sir,

Your statement: "properties must exist in isolation" can be viewed from two different perspectives. First let us define property. Since everything has come from the same primordial stuff, there must a commonality in all, which is not directly evident. That means, during recombination, the same stuffs combined in different proportions due to inertia and conservation laws (we have shown the detailed mechanism elsewhere), which shows a particular combination as different from other combinations. We label such different combinations and call it property. In that way, we can label different properties, which are concepts that can have independent existence of its own without linking it always to material objects. But when we look at any object, we always link that concept to the observed behavior of the object. In that case, properties cannot exist without objects.

When a property exhibits itself, it implies a specific combination of mass and energy that is locally stable, but really unstable. It is because if it is absolutely stable, then it will not interact - not even radiate - to be perceived. If it is locally unstable, then we cannot label it. This combination of stability-instability leads to its interaction with other bodies.

In your earlier post you said: "how does electron "know" how to behave? It is because it follows "laws"?" Only causal particles follow laws. Electrons always follow laws: confine positive charges of protons, which is the reason. Thus, its "knowledge" regarding how to behave depends in a mechanical way on the information on positioning of positive charge, which is nothing but causality. Only conscious agents have free will to violate causality, though the effects of such actions are deterministic.

Uncertainty is inherent in the functioning of Nature, because while we have freedom of action, the results are always deterministic based on the totality of forces acting at "here-now" and is not limited to our action alone. However, this concept has been thoroughly misinterpreted and its mathematical format is wrong.

Regarding memory, we have discussed its mechanism in detail in our essay posted on May 31. You are welcome to see it.

Regards,

basudeba

R.J,

Nice read. Definitely reminded me of the premise of my essay at its core when you wrote:

"Not even electrons or protons can display any specific behavior without the use of information"

But I must ask, and I have toiled w/ this question a bit as well, does information 'compose' stuff or just 'guides' stuff? Can one truly precede the other?

Take care.

JM

    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.

    14 days later
    10 days later

    Dear RJ,

    A fascinating and nicely argued case for, in some ways, the logical conclusion of Wheelers proposal. Slightly unexpectedly I did find, at one level, great agreement with your argument. Certainly all we 'see' is information, which consists of quantum fluctuations. As 'matter' also only ultimately consists of quantum fluctuations then there is certainly an argument to put, which you did well.

    I certainly find your conclusions such as; "that time does not slow down, only the rate of physical processes vary" agreeable, but would suggest that also 'apparent' time periods derived from information emitted by a clock in co-motion can be changed, giving the false impression of the clock running slower or faster. Then simply Doppler shift of the 'wavelengh' containing the information.

    I use slightly different definitions to distinguish it from bit in my own essay, but indeed can't see any fundamental grounds for insisting there are 'lumps' of 'stuff' distinguishable from complex 3D fluctuations at the smallest scale. I've previously characterised this as simply 'change' or 'motion', but of course that is anyway the foundation of the bit. I certainly also agree there is no reason to preclude a 'medium', or 'condensate' as I prefer to call it to distinguish it from condensed 'matter'. I've also shown only the 'absolute' quality had to be rejected, not the Local) background itself (last years essay).

    I think too many just score on what they 'agree with', which misses the point. Consistent and well argued 'out of the box' thinking deserves encouragement per se. I hope you agree mine, though quite different, also uses that approach. I believe I find some important truths. You also make some interesting further claims, including FTL, which I've also derived as both apparent and relative, but not as a propagation speed. I look forward then to perhaps looking over your book once I've recovered from all this essay reading!

    Best of luck.

    Peter

      Dear R.J,

      Nice essay - I really enjoyed it! I like that you have attacked this from a very original and logical direction. Information being most fundamental because there is nothing without it. Great theory!

      It made me think about my conclusion again, and I think rather than mine disagreeing with yours, I think that you may be right that all we have is information. This wouldn't contradict my essay. I still would say that information and reality are equal, but we need information to know about reality, but can't have one without the other!

      Brilliant - thanks for some excellent thoughts - very interesting and relevant!

      High rating from me!

      Please take a look at my essay - hope you like it.

      Best wishes,

      Antony

        5 days later
        8 days later

        Hello RJ,

        You didn't comment on my earlier post. No matter as you may have been busy. Can you take a look at my essay. Also following my exchanges with other essayists on this forum judgement was delivered in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. In that judgement points and monads turnout to be the possible bits. This may have a bearing on your theory as space becomes a "something" rather than a "nothing" which you also tend to support in your promising theory.

        Best regards,

        Akinbo

        RJ,

        Hope you do get to read and comment on (and score!) my essay, which is better framed if you can look over my previous 2 (both 7th in community - but not prizewinners!). I'm now sorting out scoring an am pleased I still think yours should be well above it's current position, so glad to assist. Best of luck in the run in.

        Peter