It from Bit and Bit from It by Alexei Grinbaum

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,

I found your comments relating to Figure 2 of your essay to be relative to the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded.

Please review my essay to confirm if my findings validates your suggestions as to how to move forward. I believe my findings may have provided the experimental validation of your premise, see:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Best wishes,

Manuel

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

Dear Alexei,

Thank you for your beautiful essay! Your phenomenological approach brings much clarity to the "It from Bit"/"Bit from It" conundrum. I wonder if you would consider your loop to be, in fact, an hermeneutic circle? Also, why not resist the temptation/compulsion to cut it; rather consider it as a whole and inquire after its characteristics?

Sincerely,

Charles Card

Dear Alexei,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments. I am glad to know that ours areas of research are same.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

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

Alexie,

Yours is one of the few essays mining down to the deepest fundamentals to expose hidden assumptions and analyse observation. This seems to be in the 'lost triangle' between particle physics, optics and QM.

Reconstruction is a very original and interesting concept, but I spot a flaw. Does not Mathematics also; "rely on certain principles", such as commutativity and the "excluded middle", both of which may be much in question.

Does not the simple case of Pi itself demonstrate a limit to ultimate precision? Of course perhaps recursive sets may largely overcome such issues, and your point on processor preconceptions is good. I have to say this as I make it myself in defining each element including your 'cut' itself.

Thank you for a very interesting read, well set out and with clear well argued points, deserving of a high mark and better placing. I hope you may read mine before the deadline and give your thoughts and advice. Do ignore the dense Abstract and go by the blog comment; "groundbreaking", "wonderful" "remarkable!" etc. But do give me your own views.

Very well done for yours and thank you.

Peter

Dear Alexei,

As mentioned above I like your essay - please read mine if you get chance. As you seem to be one of a few or perhaps the only person who has really looked at the FROM part of the question I give you top marks, which I hope helps in your rankings.

Wishing you all the best for the contest,

Antony

Dear Alexei,

It is good to know that you have given equal priority to both It and Bit and this priority is just relative from the 'loop point of view'. From one side it appears as if It is more basic than Bit and from the other side it appears as if Bit is more fundamental than It. So you have concluded that "both It from Bit and Bit from It are acceptable--but not simultaneously". You have come to this conclusion from 'your epistemological considerations'. For this you have developed your own theory of epistemology based on your scheme of "reconstruction". It is defined as "reconstruction consists of three stages: first give a set of physical principles, then formulate their mathematical representation, and finally rigorously derive the formalism of the theory". According to you if this method is followed in science, especially quantum mechanics (QM), "it gives supplementary persuasive power: established as valid results, theorems and equations of the theory become unquestionable and free of suspicion".

I appreciate your effort to solve the problem of measurement in QM from your own point of view for which you have given substantial logical proof but it needs to be still more elaborate. Your argument is original, elegant and convincing, and for this I am going to rate this essay with highest score.

Please go through my essay also (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and express your comments on it in my thread.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Dear Alexei,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.