How Big a Bit of It are we? by Richard Kingsley Nixey

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.

Richard,

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

Joe,

Thanks, I agree with your idea. But surely plenty of real men can be ants?

R

John,

Thanks. I'm not entirely sure I see the real central point of your idea, but I didn't object to anything I found.

R

Peter,

Thanks. I thought your own essay was exceptional. It was so rich plan to read it again and will comment on your blog then.

R

May I say to all I don't think 'mass posts' are appropriate and will not put those essays ay the top of my list to read.

R

Hi Richard,

Thanks for a very enjoyable read! You wrote:

1. "The chamber is filled with the finest incompressible ethereal medium called 'Darkenagy' at just below dew-point. Introducing one tiniest spinning particulate impurity then starts a chain reaction."

Take a look at Royce Haynes' essay for a nice take on this scenario.

2. "A beautiful series of tiny vortices start to appear, spinning ever faster then contracting almost to a point before flowing out of the sides; re-emerging on a perpendicular axis and starting to rotate yet again on the new axis. Examining these closely the process can be seen as a fractal."

This is also part of my picture, although I was not as poetic about it.

3.The only motivation available seems to be on the 'it from bit' side!

The question of motivation is a great question to use as a tie-breaker.

The conclusion in my essay Software Cosmos was "It from Bit and Bit from Us". You will find there a proposal for how to construct a simulation of the cosmos, and an experiment I have conducted to tell whether we are currently within such a simulation.

4. "Douglas Adams brilliantly found, when coming to the logical conclusion consistent with out own, that we then need to find the question."

Paraphrasing you: "If we are the answer, what was the question?"

Marvelous question! Wish I knew....

Hugh

Hugh,

I'll try to check out your and Royce's essays. The experiment sounds most interesting. The best questions i've found so far are in the McHarris and Jackson essays, both also pointing to important answers. it seems tough at the top this year!

Richard

Hello Richard,

Your conclusion It from Bit agrees with Wheeler. I agree as well. Probably there is a mix up in understanding what Bit is and how come an It can be derived therefrom. A good score to be expected. By the way, if you don't mind can you answer below questions. The way I posed these 4 questions seem to have offended a few so I rephrase

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there...

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Richard,

I found your essay thought provoking and very much in keeping with the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently completed. Your statement, "Our answer is that all outcomes are possible but that no outcome is inevitable in any one case." is indeed the case. You made so many great analogies that I will need to reread your essay again.

Anyway, I would like to ask you some questions via email and would like to know your email address or if you wish you can send me your response to my email address at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

Thanks,

Manuel

Manuel,

Thank you. I did read and award your essay some good points some time ago now. I see you haven't doe the same for mine despite your words. I saw your point, though not any great significance, and recall I thought it unfinished somehow. You infer some conclusion without seeming to want to state it. What is it?

Richard

Dear Richard,

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

Hi Richard,

Thanks for reading my essay and yes I read Peter Jackson's essay and yours. You are a good writer and it was fun. By the way, i believe the Planck scale is way too high. Read vixra:1307.0085.

Gene,

Glad you enjoyed it. I agree about the Planck scale. OK for 'matter' as we know it perhaps, but I think it's clear there's certainly more to life then that.

I also think your lens analysis etc. is far more important than most have recognised. That seems to to be shown by Peter Jackson's essay. I hope you keep pushing it.

Best wishes.

Richard