It from Bit and Bit from It by Alexei Grinbaum

Dear Alexei,

Thank you for clarifying your position. It is more neutral than I assumed. I believe you have achieved a remarkable accomplishment, illuminating the essential arbitrariness of what is given and what is derived, when one is stuck only with logic. Fortunately I'm not stuck only with logic but possess awareness, experience, sensations, and knowledge. I can understand your goal, and find absolutely no fault with it. In fact I strongly approve it. But I have a different goal, which has been (for over half a century) to understand reality (to the extent possible). From my perspective, your development satisfies each of our separate goals.

I fully understand that different loop cuts are possible, but I must cut the loop in the place it makes sense, based on my life as I have lived it. Others, it is clear, will make different sense out of it. You rightly proclaim that it is not (currently) amenable to a scientifically justifiable choice. From my perspective we will not find mathematics capable of making the choice, and not just because of Godel, but because math is an abstraction, unless one is a Platonist, which, as you point out, is not claimed or supported by your essay.

From the perspective of the institution of science, which is inherently third-party, you show a scheme which does not fix an order of precedence. From my perspective, which is inherently first party, it is obvious what the precedence is. A win-win situation!

Thank you again for your delightful essay. It should place highly in this contest.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Alexei

Why? Leaving aside any 'adjustments' that are proved to be needed (eg an effect on light), we have nothing else. That is the point, physical existence is what is potentially knowable to us, which is the result of a physical process. Which is why your response to Joe "science does not warrant claims about what is real; at best it tells us what is not", is wrong. The reference for scientific validity is correspondence with what is potentially (we may not realise that potential)knowable, not any alternative possibility that can be conceived. It is therefore possible to know what is real. Real being what is real for us, not what might occur but there is no evidence (either direct or hypothetical) that we can have any knowledge (ie awareness) of).

Paul

Dear Alexei,

"I support the attempts to analyze the connection between physical theory and observer-dependent point of view - in a scientific way. We lack mathematics for that, but I am hopeful that such mathematics will be found."

I consider a seemingly lacking mathematics already found. In order to explain my different position, let me use the chicken-egg metaphor. You and most of the other contemporary physicists are treating it as a loop. Of course, one can cut the loop arbitrarily. After abstraction from reality, one cannot distinguish between a chicken and its ancestors.

Being an old engineer, I prefer to rather attribute repeating features of reality to a spiral. This implied that I had to look for related flaws in loop-based models. I tried my best to summarize some topic-related ones here. Any serious criticism might be helpful and is welcome.

Unfortunately, Pentcho Valev declared himself in "Faster than light" too exhausted as to take issue.

Best,

Eckard

Dear Sir,

You have beautifully analyzed the foundations of physical theories. Most of it are in agreement with our essay published on May,31.

However, regarding reconstruction, you must not forget that mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics. Further a mathematical structure is not the same as a physical structure.

Mathematics measures only the numbers of steps in an interaction, the distances involved including amplitude, wave length, etc and the quanta of energy applied etc. Mathematics is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph - the so-called mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space.

The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance - linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation.

As you also agree, if multiple runs of experiments on strictly identical systems or different measurements over space and time of the same system return the same result, the underlying commonality is real. This commonality has three characteristics: it exists over time and space, it is measurable and the result of measurement communicable to other observers. The last two are different aspects of perception: the first restricted to the mechanism of observation and the second universal to all observers. Thus, this definition is free from any bias. Measurement is a process of comparison between similars, one of which is called the unit. The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. Thus, perception, a characteristic of the observer, is time invariant. This differentiates the observer from the observed, which is subject to time evolution. In this view, the human body is not the observer, but only an observable or instrument of observation.

It is true that there is a split between the observer and the observable, which are linked through observation. But both exist independently. While the observable exists and evolves on its own, the observer only reports its state when observed. Without observation, he cannot know the "present state". Since the result of measurement is used at other times while the object continues to evolve in time, the result of measurement is given a label as a concept and is given a name (word). The meaning assigned to the concept remains invariant in time. When the observer gets a result similar to the concept, it identifies the object with that concept. This is perception.

The concept of measurement changed with the problem of measuring the length of a moving rod. Two possibilities suggested by Einstein were either to move with the rod and measure its length or take a photograph of the two ends of the moving rod and measure the length in the scale at rest frame. However, the second method, advocated by Einstein, is faulty because if the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to his formula. If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift.

According to the Church-Turing principle, every piece of physical reality can be perfectly simulated by a quantum computer. But there is difference between Reality and its simulation. Formulating a Theory of the observed (or potentially observable) events means building up a network of input-output connections between them. In a causal theory, these connections are causal links. In computer-programming language, the events are the subroutines and the causal links are the registers where information is written and read. In physical terms, the links are the systems and the events are the transformations. The computer does not function naturally, but we design and write the algorithm for the computer to function. Hence it will be a creature of our ideas and limitations - GIGO - garbage in garbage out.

You are welcome to read our essay and comment on it.

Regards,

basudeba

Alexei,

Excellent analogy of the complexities involve with our current understandings of how effects (it) cause effects (bit). You hit it on the nail with your "loop views"! To me Figure 1, describes effectual causality and Figure 2, describes causality. Very insightful essay I must say.

I too have found the stepping back of the whole argument fruitful in my experimental findings which unify gravity with the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministic force. What I have learned from these findings are reflective of your loop analysis which I discuss in my essay. I hope you will have a chance to review it.

Hi Alexei,

I was wondering what theory of truth is compatible with your views on the nature of science. It looks like the correspondence theory would be problematic for you. Are you a coherentist, or something else?

Dear

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

.....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

Dear Alexey,

Your judgements is really excellent, but I think we can perceive the topic question some more lightly, as a good joke only! The elementary morphological analyze of the question is enough to be understand contentless of it. The main argues of most people is politically by essence - "Weller says something in his time!" This up on his responsibility whatever he say, but I want thinking by my own brain!

I hope my work will interesting for you - as philosopher!

I will thankfully to get your opinion.

Sincerely,

George

ESSAY

Alexei,

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 Alexei,

Thanks for writing an enjoyable essay to read.

I think your Loop Cut diagrams to sum up an interesting and intuitive idea. This diagram, is a clear and concise way to sum up the essay contest's question, so top marks for being relevant. Also I found your arguments interesting and well explained.

Also, observers as informational agents was well thought out. I wonder if we might find common ground - please take a look at my essay if you get time.

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear Alexei,

I think you are helping to bring about a consensus for a new paradigm. you bring about which I also espouse that nature is infinite that covers from nothing to infinity. No finite law can tame nature and restrict it to behave accordingly. Nature is infinite and it does in infinite ways or covers yes and no and all in between. An observation localize what he/she observed temporarily. Nature has been known to give this observer what he/she is looking to find. In brief, I agree with you that it must be circular or ouroboros way like a snake eating its own tail. i use this metaphor to express KQID Ouroboros Equations of Existence: Ξ00☷ = ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) = KbΘln2 = hf = pc mc^2 = p^2/2m U(iLx,y,z) = 4πGρ- Kqid(ΑΘ-ΘS)gμν = (8πG/c^4)Tμν - Kqid(ΑΘ-ΘS)gμν = Τμν = E = A S ⊆ T.. You wrote that I concur: "Each way of cutting the loop fixes one part of the loop in the position of derived concepts, or results, of a theory, while the other part becomes a given, i.e. it belongs to the domain of this theory's meta-theory. If the loop is cut differently, these two parts can exchange roles: explanans becomes explanan- dum, and what has been explanandum becomes explanans. Cutting the only allowed operation, while the form of the loop is preserved; its geometry can- not accommodate the reduction pyramid that descends from less fundamental to more fundamental theories with "stronger postulates". This new schema is circular, which may raise suspicion; however, this circle does not contain a contradiction. On the contrary, the relation between theories becomes that of mutual illumination rather than reduction. Parts of the loop taken as a given for the purposes of constructing one theory become results and derivative con- cepts within the framework of another." Great contribution to science. Please review, comment and rate my essay Child of Qbit in time.

Thanks,

Leo KoGuan

Dear Alexei,

I have read your essay and appreciate it as one serious attempt

to bring in consensus the modern physics and philosophy.

Unfortunately, nowadays physicists have recognized two things only;

the experiments and calculus, and main analytical tool - i.e. the logic, they inclined to see as some empty/anachronic occupation for people who are very far from actual questions of ,,high,, science. I have deeply opposite view on this issue that are narrated in my work.

I find a lot of common points in your work, that is why I am inclined to rate it on high score. I am very hope my work may deserve to your interest, despite it written in different style and the stated

task also on some different direction. Es

I hope get your valuable comment in my forum.

Sincerely,

George

Alexei,

nicely done. This is a good clarification and a good step in making precise the problem. I myself tend to have a more easily naturalistic position, but I appreciate your perspective, and it may be unavoidable. ciao, carlo

Hello Alexei

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

Good luck and good cheers!

Than Tin

Dear Alexei,

An excellent philosophical submission. In my opinion philosophy takes precedence over physics theory, even though both are related. Recall that old name for physics was 'natural philosophy'.

My essay too has some philosophical content you may view. Then, a question for you: is existence/non-existence an information and binary choice?

Regards,

Akinbo

Hello Alexei,

I read with interest your analytical essay made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt. There is a little essay, which provides underlying philosophy. I respect your position and the way «epistemological modesty». I have yet another look at the problem of ontology and philosophical foundations of physics and mathematics, axioms, and the axiomatic method. But I respect your position and your way of research.

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counter-revolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence».

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

You gave a very good quote the conclusion of Husserl. My favorite quote that helps me to "dig" to the most remote ontological meanings:

"Only to the extent, to which in case of idealization, the general content of spatio-temporal sphere is apodictically taken into account, which is invariant in all imaginable variations, ideal formation may arise, that will be clear in any future for all generations and in such form will be transferable by the tradition and reproducible in identical intersubjective sense".(Э.Гуссерль «Начало геометрии»)

Please read my essay. I think we are the same in the spirit of our research.

Best regards,

Vladimir