Essay Abstract

The debate whether it (matter) or bit (information) is more fundamental is the product of several millennia worth of human thought in one form or another and it will be resolved in much the same way that it was solved in the past. It is a just a new variation on the theme 'is reality the internal product of human mind or is it external to human mind in the material world?' The new information argument is alluring because it is relates questions on the ultimate nature of reality to other modern ideas concerning the human mind and consciousness. If the brain processes information like a computer, whereby mind is a mere epiphenomenon, then the internal and external worlds could be more easily reduced to a single model. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The argument for an information based reality is itself founded upon the faulty assumption that reality is discrete at its lowest discernible and most fundamental level. In this case, the physical concepts of matter and motion could be further reduced to two and only two physical variables or bits of information, as expressed in one or the other forms of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. However, reality is not discrete, whether in the form of bits of information or quanta, and the uncertainty principle gives an incomplete description of reality. The only possible answer to the paradox of describing nature using two extremely successful but mutually incompatible paradigms, the discrete quantum and continuous relativity, would be to find the point where their incompatibility breaks down and they become compatible, thereby merging them into a single theory. This new theory will be based on the concept of a single substantial field rather than an insubstantial field of information bits.

Author Bio

Professor Beichler taught Physics, Mathematics, the History and Philosophy of Science and European History for more than three decades before recently retiring. He earned his PhD in 1999 from the Union Institute and University in Theoretical Paraphysics. He is presently conducting theoretical research in Cosmology to explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy as well as Physics to explain the fundamental nature of life, mind, consciousness and matter, space and time in a theory based on a single quantized potential field that unifies the quantum and relativity in a five-dimensional Einstein-Kaluza model of space-time.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear James Beichler,

I do not see how anyone can disagree with your essay, but disagree they will. You so clearly frame the issue and analyze the aspects of the problem. Yet the 'rigorization' has apparently transcended a program and is on the way to becoming a religion, as belief in it is palpable.

Nevertheless I agree with you almost 100%. Only Eckhard Blumschein's essay has evoked this response from me. The "almost" refers to your discussion of Cartesian dualism where you state "The mind or mental self is completely internalized in that it is either an epiphenomenon of internal processes or it is a non-material and independent phenomenon that manifests through the brain." I do not see either of these as describing my model, but of course it may depend upon how one defines mind(?). As you say, this is a 17th century view.

I would also quibble with the preceding paragraph discussing "a universal mind or consciousness in which knowledge in the form of bits of information is pre-existent." This does not allow for a universal consciousness (= awareness plus volition) which is initially empty of knowledge, not even one bit of knowledge, but self-aware of its 'not-two' nature, before evolving into an information filled universe.

I very much like your treatment of "non-commuting pairs". It is the second attack on the reality of this concept I've seen in two days. That's a good sign.

Of course I agree that "It from Bit" is impossible, but as I said, there are believers. Raised on the Copenhagen interpretation, the rigorization of math, and Bell's theorem, they've punted on reality, and look for certainty in a higher realm.

Finally you say that if one attempts one equation to describe reality it must be of a single continuous field that is real and substantial. I have that equation and that field in my essay as well as alternatives to the Cartesian duality and the consciousness with pre-existent bits. I would very much hope that you find time to read my essay and comment on it.

I hope your essay is a winner.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Professor Beichler,

The clarity of the writing and the meticulous logic expressed in your awesome essay are phenomenal.

As a decrepit old realist, may I humbly make one comment? I do not know what the theory of everything is. I have noted in my essay BITTERS that the absolute of everything is one.

Dear Professor James,

I have read your essay with great pleasure. It should be a must read for all entrants before writing anything. Obviously in general I agree with you.

You claim "That single substantial thing could only be a single continuous potential field. This field cannot be just a mathematical construct or abstraction. It must be real and substantial"

My candidate for that real and continuous field is the conformally flat spacetime itself having following properties:

a) continuous, i.e. not perforated, not torn and has a homeomorphism property

b) elastic properties (possible to assess),

c) the elastic properties of spacetime are isotropic

d) any spacetime deformation is unlimited (i.e. to some extent it deforms the entire spacetime due to its elastic and homeomorphism properties).

The spacetime here is not the infamous ether which was rightly rejected because it was to be a frame of reference and a background for all events. The spacetime is not the background, but the material of matter and energy itself and then it is quite natural that energy and matter can be transmitted as waves.

Then the hidden variable is the bulk modulus of spacetime. Then also we do not have any dualities. Everything is just a wavepacket being a deformation of elastic spacetime.

I have proposed to prove or falsify this geometrization concept by the spin experiment described in references to my essay. As I know from some entrants the description of the experiment is not quite clear but I could clarify if needed. The experiment could deliver the answer to your important question: can the description of reality be reduced to a single equation or not?

I cannot agree that "It from Bit" is definitely impossible. I think it depends on definitions of It and Bit. To me "It from Bit" does not have anything to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. And information is not just two bits. However if "It from Bit" would mean that two bits are the foundation of the reality than it is impossible also for me.

Best regards

Prof. Beichler,

re: "That goal can only be accomplished if the question of whether mind creates reality or reality creates mind is answered."

The statement implies that reality and mind are separate....that reality is only physical...

If reality represents all that humans experience, then what is the reasoning behind rejecting a reality in which both the physical and immaterial co-exist, sometimes independently... sometimes not?

All the best,

Robert

Dr. Beichler:

You make some interesting points in your essay. If I understand it correctly, your key point is that nature is continuous rather than discrete. And of course space and time are continuous, but charge and spin seem to be discrete. The key point in my own essay ("Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time") is that all matter and energy are ultimately composed of continuous relativistic vector fields (like the electromagnetic field). But each field self-organizes into coherent quantized domains, each domain with spin in integral (or half-integral) units of Planck's constant h-bar. The rest of quantum mechanics follows directly from this primary spin quantization. Remarkably, this simple picture provides a consistent basis as well for general relativity; a rotating vector field acts as a local clock.

Alan Kadin

Dear Professor Beichler,

Nicely written essay which I'm pleased to report wasn't too over my head. Nice use of uncertainty and ToE's always whet my appetite for more! I found it both interesting and relevant.

I'll be delighted if you find the time to look at my essay.

Kind regards,

Antony

Hello.

You say:

"

It is a just a new variation on the theme 'is reality the internal product of human mind or is it external to human mind in the material world?"

This is a false dilemma.

Does reality follow recipe A or recipe B?

It doesn't work like that. Reality isn't a stew pot for ingredients to mix together.

You mention the shadows on the cave wall.

Those are the objects we observe and measure, the its, still products of the human mind.

The bits (monads) are what is external.

So the answer is both.

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 Sir,

Starting to read your essay, we were momentarily taken aback as we felt we were reading in a different format our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published here on May 31. The thoughts are so similar, though our logics may be different!

The abstraction claimed by physicists does not come from mathematical modeling, but from the dimensional difference between mathematical objects and physical objects. 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.

The non-commuting pairs of position and momentum are a travesty of mathematical principles. Mathematics is possible only between similars (linear) and partly similars (non-linear). Linear accumulation is addition and non-linear accumulation is multiplication. Since accumulation is done at here-now and zero is absence at here-now, multiplication by zero makes the product zero. Position depicts fixed coordinates of space and momentum depicts mobile coordinates in time. Hence if one is zero, the other is always non-zero. They cannot be accumulated. Both are infinite. The difference between one and infinity is, while the dimensions of one are discrete - hence perceivable, the dimensions of infinity are analog and hence not fully perceivable. Infinities do not commute, but co-exist. This gives the notion of dualities. Consciousness is also infinite, as in all perceptions "I perceive it as such", the "I" part is non-differentiable, though the other part is differentiable.

Information is the result of measurement of something taken at a specific instant and frozen as a concept in some language (perception) for use in the future by a conscious agent. Thus, it is always about something and it is always stored and compared with fresh impulses to elicit yes-no responses. Unfortunately, the result of measurement has been taken as the reality along with the objects, leaving out the conscious agent part.

Entanglement is not an exclusive quantum phenomenon. A pair of socks is also entangled. The effect of quantum entanglement does not last infinitely, but tapers off at some finite distance. We see superposition in everyday reality regularly. 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. For example, look at two water waves coming from different directions on a beach. They are continuously evolving in time. When we saw them as coming together, one might be a crest and the other a trough. After meeting together, it becomes a flat surface and move away again to be another crest and trough. If we want to know where the crest and trough were, there is no way of knowing it. They could be anywhere - they are in superposition of all possible states. The problem becomes complicated when the image reality is perceived differently from the objective reality like mistaking a conch shell partially hidden in the sand in reflected sunlight for silver. In the case of entanglement, we could determine the two states after observing one state, because the two are never in superposition of all possible states.

As we have stated earlier, consciousness is infinite. Hence it is non-interacting, but coexists with others. Only finite objects can interact, as interaction means change of state involving change of position. An infinite object cannot change its position. Hence it cannot cause collapse.

Your description of suppressed variables is based on the concept of validity of collapse. Hence it has some problems. The simplest answer to Zeno's paradox is that velocity is related to the mass of the body that is moving, the energy used (force applied) to move it and the total density of and the totality of the energy operating on the field. These are all mobile units against the back drop of the field that is static with reference to these. Middle of the distance is related to the frame of reference, which is relatively static with reference to the other mobile aspects. Thus, it is like comparing position and momentum. They do not commute. Hence there is no paradox, which is borne out of experience and which conclusion you have arrived at also. While the middle of the distance is gradually reduced, the velocity is not reduced by the same proportion.

Your conclusion is correct. Interconnectedness and interdependence will lead to the ultimate answer, which can be explained by two simple laws: those of conservation and inertia. We have discussed it in our essay briefly. You are welcome to read and comment.

Regards,

basudeba

James,

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

9 days later

Dear Professor Beichler,

A highly commendable essay in every way.

You point out;

"The present goal of physics in the minds of many physicists and scientists is at least finding a way that the quantum and relativity can live in harmony if not outright unification." and;

"This new theory will be based on the concept of a single substantial field"

How wonderful to find a rare genuine realist who can think, not rely on doctrine. But how will we recognise this theory when it first appears?

My essay runs a test of a an entirely new dynamic ontological construction with great epistemological and self consistency appearing to do just what you suggest, which I then show able to resolve the EPR paradox in the way Bell and von Neumann expected. I'd be very grateful if you would look it over and offer any falsification. All such has failed to date.

Well done and thank you for yours.

Peter

13 days later

Very nice essay sir. Please indulge me to ask a question which may be off topic

I am taking advantage of this forum to ask professional physicists so I can be better enlightened. Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

.

James,

"Shave and a haircut, two bits" - Loved it! I would like to rate your essay highly but it seems from the lack of responses from you on your essay page that perhaps you are not interested in such things.

In any case, I would like to run some questions by you if I may via email. My email address is msm@physicsofdestiny.com if interested in contacting me. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

Manuel

5 days later

Dear James,

Whether you speak of duality is good. Whether you have a contrary view is good too. Knowing something is also understanding its opposite.

Important is to talk about it.

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

eDuality is the first principle.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words, but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

6 days later

Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I've Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented your essay in what follows.

Of the nearly two hundred essays submitted to the competition, there seems to be a preponderance of sentiment for the 'Bit-from-It" standpoint, though many excellent essays argue against this stance or advocate for a wider perspective on the whole issue. Joseph Brenner provided an excellent analysis of the various positions that might be taken with the topic, which he subsumes under the categories of 'It-from-Bit', 'Bit-from-It', and 'It-and-Bit'.

Brenner himself supports the 'Bit-from-It' position of Julian Barbour as stated in his 2011 essay that gave impetus to the present competition. Others such as James Beichler, Sundance Bilson-Thompson, Agung Budiyono, and Olaf Dreyer have presented well-stated arguments that generally align with a 'Bit-from-It' position.

Various renderings of the contrary position, 'It-from-Bit', have received well-reasoned support from Stephen Anastasi, Paul Borrill, Luigi Foschini, Akinbo Ojo, and Jochen Szangolies. An allied category that was not included in Brenner's analysis is 'It-from-Qubit', and valuable explorations of this general position were undertaken by Giacomo D'Ariano, Philip Gibbs, Michel Planat and Armin Shirazi.

The category of 'It-and-Bit' displays a great diversity of approaches which can be seen in the works of Mikalai Birukou, Kevin Knuth, Willard Mittelman, Georgina Parry, and Cristinel Stoica,.

It seems useful to discriminate among the various approaches to 'It-and-Bit' a subcategory that perhaps could be identified as 'meaning circuits', in a sense loosely associated with the phrase by J.A. Wheeler. Essays that reveal aspects of 'meaning circuits' are those of Howard Barnum, Hugh Matlock, Georgina Parry, Armin Shirazi, and in especially that of Alexei Grinbaum.

Proceeding from a phenomenological stance as developed by Husserl, Grinbaum asserts that the choice to be made of either 'It from Bit' or 'Bit from It' can be supplemented by considering 'It from Bit' and 'Bit from It'. To do this, he presents an 'epistemic loop' by which physics and information are cyclically connected, essentially the same 'loop' as that which Wheeler represented with his 'meaning circuit'. Depending on where one 'cuts' the loop, antecedent and precedent conditions are obtained which support an 'It from Bit' interpretation, or a 'Bit from It' interpretation, or, though not mentioned by Grinbaum, even an 'It from Qubit' interpretation. I'll also point out that depending on where the cut is made, it can be seen as a 'Cartesian cut' between res extensa and res cogitans or as a 'Heisenberg cut' between the quantum system and the observer. The implications of this perspective are enormous for the present It/Bit debate! To quote Grinbaum: "The key to understanding the opposition between IT and BIT is in choosing a vantage point from which OR looks as good as AND. Then this opposition becomes unnecessary: the loop view simply dissolves it." Grinbaum then goes on to point out that this epistemologically circular structure "...is not a logical disaster, rather it is a well-documented property of all foundational studies."

However, Grinbaum maintains that it is mandatory to cut the loop; he claims that it is "...a logical necessity: it is logically impossible to describe the loop as a whole within one theory." I will argue that in fact it is vital to preserve the loop as a whole and to revise our expectations of what we wish to accomplish by making the cut. In fact, the ongoing It/Bit debate has been sustained for decades by our inability to recognize the consequences that result from making such a cut. As a result, we have been unable to take up the task of studying the properties inherent in the circularity of the loop. Helpful in this regard would be an examination of the role of relations between various elements and aspects of the loop. To a certain extent the importance of the role of relations has already been well stated in the essays of Kevin Knuth, Carlo Rovelli, Cristinel Stoica, and Jochen Szangolies although without application to aspects that clearly arise from 'circularity'. Gary Miller's discussion of the role of patterns, drawn from various historical precedents in mathematics, philosophy, and psychology, provides the clearest hints of all competition submissions on how the holistic analysis of this essential circular structure might be able to proceed.

In my paper, I outlined Susan Carey's assertion that a 'conceptual leap' is often required in the construction of a new scientific theory. Perhaps moving from a 'linearized' perspective of the structure of a scientific theory to one that is 'circularized' is just one further example of this kind of conceptual change.

Dear James,

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

Write a Reply...