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

        7 days later

        Dear R.J.,

        I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

        I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

        You can find the latest version of my essay here:

        http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

        (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

        May the best essays win!

        Kind regards,

        Paul Borrill

        paul at borrill dot com