It from Bit or Bit from It? Maybe, It Doesn't Matter by Roger Granet

Dear Roger

Yes - It from Bit or Bit from It? Maybe, It Doesn't Matter - it is important that true nature of them.

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

Hi Roger,

Nice essay. I can see that we have a similar way of thinking, keep it simple and start with a bottom-up approach.

I also started my theory with the simplest thing I could find (for me, it was a bit of two states: existence/non-existence). But if you consider this bit as a sphere and just add simple spheres around the first sphere, your world looses coherence if you suppose that all the spheres are the simplest thing (you can't apply the 4PiR2 formula anymore because your R is now 2). I have found a solution to that problem in my theory.

I think that you will understand what I mean if you read my essay. If you like my ideas then you might want to read my 3D Universe Theory.

Cheers,

Patrick

Hi Roger,

just to let you know I've read your essay, teeny tiny text wasn't helpful : ) Felt a bit like you had thrown the towel in by calling both information and material an existent state, before the match had really begun. You could have concluded it there, with 'don't bother about it any more'. Nevertheless read it to the end and found it an enjoyable,comprehensible, not too long read. Good luck, Georgina

Roger

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

Dear Roger,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments. Perhaps, the biology section of my essay interests you.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

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

Dear Roger,

Thanks for your brief but lucid essay and in which you are thinking of building a model of the universe by figuring out what the properties of a generic existent states are. So in this model the priority between It and Bit is only of secondary importance and this approach you call "philosophical engineering". In this very terminology, "philosophical engineering", according to me, everything is contained which can be used/ applied to build the model of our universe. This is good thinking as you are trying to unite fundamentals of our philosophical thinking with the technology to achieve the above goal. If this technology is bio- technology, for me it looks good because our mind/ brain is an off-shoot of this bio- technology in a broad sense. This sort of explanation also satisfies you too, for you are a molecular biologist.

Have you developed a simple physical-mechanical model of an expanding space that displays symmetry breaking and energy creation?

You don't have to be a cynic in your life but on the contrary be always optimistic just the way I am till we achieve the goal we have set up for ourselves is reached and in reaching that you find happiness in your life.

All the best in your endeavor,

Sreenath

Hi Roger,

Good to see you here again. The first part of your paper reminds me a little of another entry, written by Sundance Bilson-Thompson. His is also very short.

I can see that your example with the packed spheres you are trying to construct a model for an existent state with a minimum of assumptions, but somehow the model still seems a little contrived, in fact I was reminded of your professional background where I imagine one frequently sees models similar to the one you mention as representations of molecules. However, I commend you for sticking your neck out and making an attempt.

To me, the question of whether or not something exists is incomplete, because it does not specify where it is that the thing's existence is asked about. It is natural for us to assume that everything exists in spacetime, but is it not possible that that in assuming that we are making the same mistake as our ancestors, who 500 years ago thought that the earth was the center of the universe? You may find this paper interesting, which is not my contest entry but a paper that might be in tune with your lifelong interest: Do photons exist in spacetime?. If this idea has any merit, then your Wittgensteinian approach to ontological questions may need to be differentiated some more.

Anyway, I wish you all the best

Armin

PS: Are there any new developments on your idea pertaining to infinities, which we discussed last year?

Dear Roger,

A couple of quick comments:

"The idea of the sphere as the shape an existent entity would be when there's no information provided by the entity about shape provided seems to make sense to me."

This is exactly an example of the central principle that I mention in my entry as underlying quantum superposition e.g compare a sphere specified only by r=3 with one given by the double integral [math]9\int_{0}^{2\pi}d\phi\int_{0}^{\pi}sin\theta d\theta[/math]

I am glad to see that you have already arrived at the essence of this insight yourself.

"If these spheres were totally inflexible and didn't move at all, I can't see how there would be any time."

I think the central lesson of relativity is that space and time are on an equal footing, though of course they manifest themselves differently. What distinguishes massive objects from massless energy is a finite proper time, and proper time is proportional to the four-dimensional interval.

That you can have time even in a spacetime with inflexible solids which do not move with respect each other is, I believe, due to a deep connection between proper time and gravity (Since gravity in effect a manifestation of the deviation from distances in flat i.e. Minkowski spacetime). Specifically, each of the solids still sets up a gravity field that propagates outwards at a finite speed. This is in effect a clock because you can distinguish the shape of spacetime before and after the gravity field has reached a given region that is a certain distance from the solids.

Pertaining to your question, yes, I was supposed to graduate last term but couldn't decide whether to continue on in philosophy or in physics, so I decided to stay a little longer. Too bad about Ann Arbor, but if you do happen to know that you will be coming up here let me know, my email is armin@umich.edu.

All the best,

Armin

Dear Roger,

I welcome your essay that written in attractive - readable style (as the good essay and no else!) And you came to a healthy-realistic conclusion. The color of cat is not so important, but important is - is he hunting the mice? (I think this is Russian parable!) I will read your work one more time to say something more important. And I offer you my work ESSAY hope it will in your test then we can exchange opinions. I will wait you in my forum.

Good wishes,

George

Dear Roger,

I have re-read and rated your essay as very likely for me work (then only!)

I hope we will continue contact on further (my email in my essay)

Best wishes,

George

Dear Roger,

I think you are asking a very sensible and logical question here. I too think that the nature of "existent state" is most important. I formulated a geometric scheme that partly unifies the forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. From this theory, my essay entry came. I concluded Bit and It were equally fundamental, but actually your existent state would be an equivalent result from what I find around the Fibonacci sequence and entropy.

Well done - great work! Nice read and very interesting!

Best wishes,

Antony