Dear Nainan,
You are dead right that an object has to exist before information can be gained about it. This statement, I think can not be argued with. So you go further than most in uniting most essays here. But not all essays mentioned this very simple but fundamental point! Well done! Please take a look at my essay, which shouldn't be at odds with your excellent ideas.
Best wishes,
Antony
Dear Sir,
We fully agree with your views. The validity of a mathematical statement rests with its logical consistency. The validity of a physical statement rests with its correspondence to reality. 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 until they are 'given'. Whatever is 'given' (including inputs for emotion) are the subject matters of physics. Mathematics is an expression of Nature, not its sole language. Though observer has a central role in Quantum theories, its true nature and mechanism has eluded the scientists. There cannot be an equation to describe the observer, the glory of the rising sun, the grandeur of the towering mountain, the numbing expanse of the night sky, the enchanting fragrance of the wild flower or the endearing smile on the lips of the beloved. It is not the same as any physical or chemical reaction or curvature of lips.
Mathematics is related to the measurement of time evolution of the state of something. These time evolutions depict rate of change. When such change is related to motion; like velocity, acceleration, etc, it implies total displacement from the position occupied by the body and moving to the adjacent position. This process is repeated due to inertia till it is modified by the introduction of other forces. Thus, these are discrete steps that can be related to three dimensional structures only. Mathematics measures only the numbers of these steps, the distances involved including amplitude, wave length, etc and the quanta of energy applied etc.
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.
You are absolutely correct that "A computer is programmed by intelligent beings to operate in certain manner. Computer definitely requires creator(s). It gives specific output for certain input. Computer is incapable to produce outputs that are not programmed into it." Nature appears to obey definite laws as computers because otherwise there would be chaos. Everything in Nature is the logical conclusion based on the simple laws of complimentarity: inertia and conservation. The inertia of motion brings in its conjugate inertia of restoration (elasticity). But who started the first inertia? It must be a conscious function, as mechanical functions are only logical reactions. The answer to this question answers everything.
You are also right in distinguishing between "real entities" like the physical world and "functional entities" like space and time, which, though experienced, cannot be physically shown to others. Space is the interval between objects and time is the interval between events. We describe these through alternative symbolism using objects and events. The intervals themselves are nothing and cannot be described. Consciousness is a functional entity.
Reality is not Observer dependent, as the observer only perceives or reports the state of objects, but does not interaction with it. Measurement being a comparison between similars, also does not interfere with time evolution of objects. We measure the state at time t and freeze the report for use at time t', t'' etc, when the object has evolved further. Thus, our description of the object is not the description of its exact state at the moment or the "ultimate objective state", as you put it, but state at a particular instant. We combine all other unknown states and call it superposition of states.
We shared these thoughts because our ideas are similar. You can read our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published on May 31.
Regards,
mbasudeba@gmail.com
Dear Nainan,
I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.
Regards and good luck in the contest,
Sreenath BN.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827
Hi Nainan,
Sorry for the delay, I just noticed your response to my earlier comments of support on your essay page. I too believe in the doctrine of cause and effect which is also the basis of my essay. Although you have a different approach to causality than I do, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit and have rated it accordingly.
Best wishes and good luck in the competition.
Manuel
Dear Nainan,
Very nice essay. I will score you 7. But I don't agree an object has to exist before information can be gained about it. Let me give you a little puzzle to explain my idea.
"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?"
If you answer YES TO 1) then you will understand my point. Have you check and rated my essay?
Best regards,
Dear Nainan,
Your brief but lucid essay is full of insightful points and makes any one to ponder over it deeply to grasp its meaning and implications. You have rightly pointed out the limitations of applying not only mathematical analysis to science but also that of digital based computational applications to grasp the facts of Nature. Misuse of the concept of information in science is clearly exposed and you have put restrictions on its usage in science. You have clearly summed up your thought in these lines "It from Bit doctrine suggested that laws of physics can be presented in terms of information and hence, information is more fundamental to physics than reality. This line of thought is not much different from many other modern theories in physics, which consider human faculty above reality. All of them strive to impose human supremacy on whole of nature. Nature and reality are treated as handouts of physical laws promulgated by humans, however outrageous and illogical these may be". When you say that 'Reality is absolute and ultimate objective state', you remind me of the Indian vedantic philosophical system of Advaita. You have concluded that 'It is substance and Bit' is foundational matter particle from It', thus giving primary importance to reality rather than to information and also showing the prominent role played by mind in grasping reality through information. This is also the conclusion reached by me in my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827). So, please, go through my essay and express your valuable comments on it in my thread.
Best wishes,
Sreenath
Dear Nainan,
I have also rated your thought provoking essay with maximum possible honors.
Thanks,
Sreenath
Dear Sir,
This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.
Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic - "complex, even inexplicable behavior". Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of "the deer population in Northern Michigan", is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.
Infinities are like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others - every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.
Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use "a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers", you do just that through "comparison and exchange instructions". You develop these by "inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by 'mating' parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated" and repeat it "thousands upon thousands of time" till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought "evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible". After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.
Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area - the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.
The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.
However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally 'illuminates' the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.
Regards,
mbasudeba@gmail.com
DearNainan K. Varghese:
I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,
But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time". No one that I know ever said what I say over it and I am convince that I proved that with our clocks we measure "motion" and no "time.
:
I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".
I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).
Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.
I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.
With my best whishes
Héctor
Dear Nainan,
I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many other threads I have commented on over the last few days. This has been a lot of work and I feel like it has been a waste of time and energy. Seems to have happened to others too - if not all.
I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something. Your thread was one affected by this.
I can't remember the full extent of what I said, but I have notes so know that I was going to rate it very highly, which I have now done!
Hopefully the posts will be able to be retrieved by FQXi.
Best wishes,
Antony
FQXi have resolved the issue now
Dear Nainan,
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
What is an "ad hock"? Beyond spelling errors and questionable grammar, I think a more focused, refutable, and less ambitious article would be helpful for those of us newcomers trying to evaluate these ideas from a position outside of the debate.
"Fallacy is due to difference between reality and information. "
Not so. Fallacies are generally identified and categorized by their internal structure, independent of reality or information. (see 'ad hoc' fallacy, 'ad hominem' fallacy, et al.)