It from Δ-Logit by Vladimir I. Rogozhin

Hi Vladimir,

As to ''the essence of information'', I have yet to read an essay which treats the question where all information comes from, how information becomes information. What I mean is this: If there would be only a single charged particle among uncharged particles in the universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. As it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, for that matter, must be something which is shared by particles, something which only exists, is expressed and preserved within their interactions. If particles, particle properties (its) are both cause and effect of their interactions, of the exchange of bits, if particles only exist to each other if, to the extent and for as long as they interact, exchange information, then you cannot have one without the other nor can one be more fundamental than the other. Moreover, if we can regard interactions, the exchange of information as an observation, then we don't need human '' Observers ... to bring the Universe into being'': if particles cause, creating one another, then they create their own universe.

If the information as embodied in particle properties and the associated rules of behavior a.k.a. laws of physics must be the product of a trial-and-error evolution, then information only can survive, become actual information when tested in practice, in interactions between its carriers, between actual, physical, material particles, whatever we may mean with 'material'.

What strikes me in all the essays I've read (also of previous contests) is that everybody, without exception, thinks about the universe as an object which has particular properties as a whole and evolves in time, as something we may imagine to look at from the outside: as if there is a collection of platonic truths, an absolute, objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations we cannot perceive due to imperfect instruments and, indeed, to the uncertainty principle.

My point is that if a particle cannot exist, have properties if there's nothing outside of it to interact with, then the same must hold for the universe. The fallacy of Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) therefore is that we can only speak about the properties and state of the universe if there's something outside of it, something it can interact with, and, like the charged particle its charge, something it owes its properties to: if it has been created by some outside intervention. For this reason BBC is an even worse 'theory' than creationism which at least honestly states that, yes, there is Someone outside of it Who created the universe. If a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside intervention has to obey the conservation law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, then everything inside of it, including space and time somehow must cancel, add to nil, meaning that it has no physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from the outside, but only exists as seen from within. If in that case it doesn't make sense to speak about the properties it has or the state it is in as a whole, then it also makes no sense to make such statements from within. In other words, we need a completely different approach, an entirely different paradigm if we ever are to comprehend the universe rationally, as opposed to causally, something I'm trying to do in my blog, a study which, I'm afraid, is a bit of a mess.

As I argued in a previous essay, this means that we can no longer conceive of the speed of light as the (finite) velocity light moves at, but that c just refers to a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely. In regarding the universe as an object we can imagine to look at from without, a Big Bang Universe (BBU) lives in a time realm not of its own making: as it is the same cosmic time everywhere, here it takes a photon time to travel so here c does refer to the velocity light moves at. In contrast, a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) does not live in a time realm not of its own making: as it contains and produces all time within, here clocks are observed to run slower as they are more distant even if they are at rest relative to the observer. As in a SCU it is not the same time everywhere, here a space distance is a time distance so in this universe a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all, in contrast to a BBU where the photon covers a space distance in (a finite) time. The difference is as subtle as it is crucial to comprehend our universe. Evidently, in a universe where the communication between particles over any spacetime distance is instantaneous, things like the double-slit experiment, the EPR paradox become obvious. The problem is that nobody seems to be able to escape the essentially religious narrative of BBC and start to try to understand the universe from within. Frankly, I'm appalled that everybody takes the word of the saints of physics as a God's word instead of trying to see whether a different interpretation of observations might solve some of the most glaring contradictions of physics.

Regards, Anton

Vladimir,

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 Vladimir,

Zoran cracked a joke on my blog and made reference to your essay. Your deep interest in philosophy shows in your essay.

In your essay, you say:

1. "In mathematics, the process of "loss of certainty" began with discovery of "non-Euclidean" geometries and lasted ABOUT 100 YEARS", ...

2. "In physics, "loss of certainty" also took place gradually, over about a hundred years since the beginning of the study of the phenomenon of electromagnetism, the peak is the theory of relativity with its paradoxes"

This in conflict with

3. "Physics in its development went on the way of "geometrization". However, to date "the beginning of geometry" (ABOUT 2500 YEARS AGO) remains unclear itself"

In the Galileo Galilei work you quoted, he advises us that "Philosophy [i.e. physics] cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, AND OTHER GEOMETRICAL FIGURES, ... without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth"

In my essay, I suggest we go back 2500 years in obedience to Galileo's advice above. Do you agree?

Regards,

Akinbo

Vladimir,

Thank you for your wonderful thesis and useful quotes. You'll notice from my essay that our conceptions of the limitations of mathematics as a description of nature closely coincide. Having suffered the indignation of mathematicians for my specific proposals for rationalising the relationship your essay was a great pleasure to read.

I do understand how some have struggled with your style of prose, doing so a little myself, but I did completely understand and agree with your message. Our whole way of perceiving reality needs a paradigm shift. I propose a first step identifying specific issues, and challenge the fundamental proposition of maths and predicate 'logic'; a=a. I hope you will agree this. I also, I hope, show the power of 'higher order' or logarithmic spaces and dielectrics, building an ontological construction which offers rationalisation of Bells theorem.

I particularly agree your; "crisis of representation and interpretation", "ontological gaps in the grounds of basic sign systems",

I suggest that 'nested' Cardano's Sample Spaces and 'Marilyn' both exposed the more consistent reality and show that; "the problem of justification of mathematics for some strange reason is diligently 'swept under the rug'."

I congratulate you on the essay, and for tackling a critical subject head on. In particular I look forward to your views and comments on mine, which uses a little less philosophical but more epistemological approach.

Very best of luck in the competition.

Peter

Hello Vladimir,

although my field is not phylosophy I see in your essay two important issues: how information is stored and it must be modified, although I think you have a hard work in front of you to develop the Delta-Logic. I know some proposals to use modal logic in quantum physics maybe you can take some ideas of it for your work.

Best regards,

Sergio

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

Congratulations for this excellent article.

Quantization of the change of Binary Logit in Ternary numeral system emerges with a matrix determinant of quantum information unit for the observation of Information continuum in near-reality.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for reading my essay, and I left an answer for you in my thread. I have tried hard to understand your ideas but I am not able to connect well, only few points that others have already mentioned. Maybe, I will wait and see more responses here and try to understand before I engage.

Adel

Vladimir, this is an excellent essay and you deserve a high position in the rankings. When theorists first learnt about string theory they though it provided a clear route to a unified theory but they have found that the situation is much more complex and uncertain. This is indeed a "crisis"

Now we have to explore further what the mathematics says. It will take a long time and ideas such as your Δ-Logit may be right.

good luck

Dear Vlad, i agree with you in general and we do have similar view in most things. we use different languages and translations and we do have our own unique contribution as you quoted Protagoras the principle of Homomensura: "A Man is a measure of all things: existing in their existence, not existing in their non-existence". I agree with most of your views as expressed in your conclusions. I have to read several times to get the essence of your essay o get familiar with your terms and unique language. Congratulation and wishing you well and I will rank it high now.

Truly, Leo

Hello Philip,

Thank you for your kind and encouraging comment. Global Contest FQXi-a competition for new ideas in fundamental science, especially in physics. In the words of Nobel Laureate David Gross, we need to construction a «general framework structure». I'll add: with the ontological justification. The fundamental (!) Knowledge must be substantiated and the "bottom" and "top" - empirically (empiricism) and essentially (empyrean). Only the fundamental rationale of sign systems, physics and mathematics, and then building a «general framework structure» will give access to the understanding of the nature and location information in a unified picture of the world, united and for physicists and lyricist.

Good luck in the contest and best wishes,

Vladimir