Dear R.J

All of current theories are not sure, it is not the truth. Must be the Truth is Absolute?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

    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.

    14 days later

    R. J. Michie,

    If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

    Jim

    10 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #28

    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

      RJ. Auto-logout strikes again! That was me; "The Intelligent Bit"

      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

        Antony, I really appreciate it! I will look at your essay too!

        5 days later

        Dear Michie,

        I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

        Regards and good luck in the contest,

        Sreenath BN.

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

        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

        Write a Reply...