Hello, Anthony and thank you for the good words. Although I am not a mathematician (I started as you as a chemist), I was always fascinated by the F. sequence and its expression in nature, cf. some of the great pictures in Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science". Having said that, I am simply constituted to look at the physics of the atoms and molecules that, in the subsequent dynamics of their organization, "crystallize", literally and figuratively into something of which we /a posteriori/ define the abstract mathematics. Thus you are right in saying that we do not contradict one another directly. Our pictures address different levels of abstraction (cf. Floridi); I will stay with the intuition that it is energy that moves in and out of black holes, etc.

Best wishes,

Joseph

Dear Hoang cao Hai,

In my conclusion Section, I wrote: "My response to the question of this Contest is that energy-matter is ontologically prior to, that is, more fundamental than information as digital bits". I then proceeded to examine some of the implications of my position. I regret that you did not consider this a conclusion.

I also examined the foundational issue of continuity vs. discontinuity which I feel is well within the scope of the Contest theme. Might I ask you to reconsider your view, and your rating? Thank you and kind regards.

Joseph Brenner

Joseph,

Excellent essay of which I have rated highly! I find myself in complete agreement of your statement, "Nothing proves that Bell's infinitesimals (or any others in standard calculus) and those of the physical world, (if such exist), are the same. I thus conclude that there is a fatal error in any description of the universe that embodies either absolute continuity or absolutely discrete Bits as constituting its fundamental parts." as well as your comments, "I suggest that energy is more fundamental than information, and information emerges from but is always functionally associated with it."

I believe you will find my essay of interest, although different, it attempts to show how self-organization takes place in the universe. I hope you will find my current essay which unifies the four forces into one of interest and worthy of your review.

Regards,

Manuel

    Hello again Joseph,

    Great to see another Chemist on here by the way! I think both approaches are great. The Fibonacci idea would work for photons falling into a Black Hole too, so perhaps there is a scheme where our two ideas merge.

    I've devised a theory where symmetry is broken from nothingness resolving the three laws of cosmogony.

    I think you are right that energy is the best way to describe information falling into Black Holes - with Hawking Radiation coming out.

    Cheers,

    Antony

    Hello, Manuel and thank you for the good words. I have read your essay with much interest, although I cannot evaluate your physics as such. I would like to establish a dialogue with you, as I believe my Logic in Reality may complement your approach by providing additional physical descriptions of parallel chains of cause and effect (cf. my book). How do I get in touch with you to send you the relevant portions?

    Best wishes,

    Joseph

    Dear Joseph,

    I like how your essay goes through various alternatives, presenting them equidistantly, and trying to find the answer to the contest's main question. The essay is well written and well documented, and your position is clearly stated and well explained. I also like that you are interested in Stefan Lupascu's writings and derive your own logic from his.

    Best regards,

    Cristi Stoica

      • [deleted]

      • Post #12

      Dear Cristi,

      Thank you for your good words. It has been a privilege for me to work with Professor Basarab Nicolescu of the International Center for Transdisiplinary Research, Paris, of which he and Lupasco were the principal founders. I hope that more people, both in and outside of Romania, will discover the importance of Lupasco's work.

      Best wishes,

      Joseph

      Dear Joseph,

      In your consideration of various possible scenarios for the relationship between the "informational" and the spatial realities you didn't cover all possibilities, and one of them, which I dare to say important, is considered in my essay.

      Also, I wish to draw to your attention to a considerable *ambiguity* of both "information" and "energy", which makes them poor candidates for understanding the nature of "reality".

      Hello Joseph,

      It is a great pleasure to read your excellently written essay. It presents a review of different author's statements about "information versus matter". Some of these statements raise my objections.

      I will formulate my objections in general terms: There seems to be a general misunderstanding about the function of a physical theory. Whereas an experimental physicist collects data, which means information, about the "physical world", the task of a theoretical physicist is to study these data and try to find characteristic structures and interrelations within these data that would allow to "explain" these data by a "general logical principle", also called "theory". Therefore, a physical theory is always about information. Consequently, when Wheeler presents

      "the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom ... an immaterial source and explanation ... in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin ...,"

      then he refers to a most fundamental logical principle that could replace all other logical principles, formulated so far. It is evident that a logical principle is immaterial. Therefore, in search for a logical principle, the question is not: What is more fundamental, information or matter? The question is rather: Can we find an universal logical principle that "explains" all kinds of information about the physical world? More about this in my essay.

      Regards,

      Walter

        Hello, Walter,

        I am afraid that we are fated to agree to disagree. I think that what we as physical creatures comprehend as physical reality is physical reality, not the result of some process of abstraction. And your statement about all the things one can do with binary elements is exactly what the question is. I have a logical principle that expléains a great deal, but I followed the rules and did not discuss, except in a brief paragraph in the Appendix, "my" logic..,

        Regards,

        Joseph

        Hello, Joseph,

        Don't worry. Disagreement is often more creative than agreement, because it may lead to new insights.

        Regards,

        Walter

        Walter wrote: " Whereas an experimental physicist collects data, which means information, about the "physical world","

        Do you think hats what is really meant by information in this contest?

        I'm not so sure.

        Many of the essays in this contest seem to view computer hardware as physical, and information as something stored in a physical computer.

        Surely there is more to the topic of this contest than that pedestrian observation.

        Dear Joseph,

        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.

          Hello, Satyavarapu,

          I did read your paper, but was puzzled by your definition of Bit and It which seemed opposite to those of Wheeler to which the Contest is supposed to reply.

          Please clarify if you have time.

          Regards,

          Joseph

          Dear Joseph,

          Well researched and logically presented.

          RE: Elementary particles can be programmed...the universe is a physical system that can be programmed to perform universal digital computation

          See an example amateur program for digital motion in my essay.

          You also quote Barbour severally, I quote him as well but I concur only in his saying the binary digits, 0 and 1 must stand for a thing or a state and can not just be abstract figures.

          For another perspective on the discreteness vs. continuity you discussed see same essay. I will subsequently take you up on this aspect.

          Best regards,

          Akinbo

          Dear Joseph,

          I have borrowed this sentence to David Mermin

          "The key to freeing quantum mechanics from the tyranny of measurement is to note

          that a measurement consists of the establishment of a particular kind of correlation between two particular kinds of subsystems, and to insist that everything that can be said about the physical reality of the correlations established in a measurement applies equally well to the correlations among any subsystems of a quantum system. If physics is about correlations among subsystems then it is a fortiori about measurement. But to insist that physics is exclusively about measurement, is unnecessarily to relegate to an inferior ontological status the more general correlations among arbitrary subsystems."

          It seems that relational quantum mechanics has to do with Mermin's view, and he is a favorite thinker of mine, as you can read in my essay. In my view, the geometrization of correlations (mutually commuting operators and the resulting contextuality) is useful for understanding the ultimate meaning of quantum measurements.

          Mermin again

          "Correlations have physical reality; that which they correlate does not."

          Acoording to him the it is correlation, do you agree with him?

          Best regards,

          Michel

            Dear Michel,

            Thank you for this interesting position. I hope you will take my disagreement with it in the spirit of inquiry in which it is intended. I think the problem is in taking all-or-none positions.There is a lot of literature about relations without relata to which I, unfortunately perhaps, cannot relate. The objective of RQM as I understand it, is not to be eliminative about relata, but give relations the ontological status they deserve. Hence "and" not "or", and this is allowed in my logic.

            Your other point relates to the first statement in my paper about "geometry". Do you not feel that at a certain point (sic), geometry is not enough?

            Best regards,

            Joseph

            Joseph,

            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

            10 days later

            Dear Dr. Brenner,

            Your essay provides a most thorough and helpful analysis of the possible It-Bit doctrines.

            I agree with the view you quote: 'that there is an irreducible interactive relation between energy and information, such that the designation It-and-Bit corresponds better to reality.'

            My paradigm is founded on the concept that all is energy, even information and abstractions. All things have a physical aspect, even if the particles involved are still elusive. (Have we not only recently discovered the Higgs Boson? And is it not most likely that there are other fundamental particles, and that these should permeate all phenomena - even the Organic and the Sensory-Cognitive?)

            From this, I describe the cosmos in terms of Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive Vortices of energy.

            I show that the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive Vortices are correlated but distinct fields, interacting directly with the greater field of energy from which the Cosmos emerges.

            These three fields remain distinct from one another - that is, they do not interact directly - and I describe how this creates the correlation of It and Bit (rather than any type of sequential relationship) over the course of evolution.

            Indeed, It and Bit are continually altering their relationship: information is 'shaping itself' - as do Inorganic and Organic phenomena over the course of evolution. This has an impact on the question of meaning (which you cover most interestingly); I show that the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive Vortices are equally fundamental - that the Cosmos develops life and the cognition associated with living things, as inevitably as it develops matter from energy. This imbues all things with direction and meaning, though in the context of a 'Species Cosmos' - that is, the only context we know.

            This very usefully formalizes the concept of a participatory, self-organizing universe.

            Though you conclude that 'energy-matter is ontologically prior to, that is, more fundamental than information as digital bits' I think you will find much to interest you in the Correlated Vortex System I describe - where cognition is perpetually correlated with the physical universe.

            Therefore, I hope you will be kind enough to read the work soon, and share your views.

            All the best,

            John

              Hello, John,

              Thank you for your detailed post. I have looked at your essay and can can only gasp at the breadth of your vision. Having said that, there are things I find I can agree with and others not, so what else is new. One thing seems true of both of our papers: we think there is something missing in moden physics.However, it is not necessary to go beyond the laws of physics as we know them. Abstractions (e.g numbers) are not energy, even though they require energetic processes for their discovery. The number 1 does not change, even if its understanding may over time. You might wish to read my 2008 book, Logic in Reality, which founds logic in the properties of energy, self-duality, etc.

              Best regards,

              Joseph