BIT, IT, BOTH OR NEITHER by JOSEPH E BRENNER

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

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

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, 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.

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

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

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

Hi dear Joseph,

I have read your essay and have find in it a consecutive and convincing analysis of the topic. Actually you have shown the contentless of subject of discussion! That is excellent my dear (despite we getting many anonymous units!) and I am with you on 100 (you just look in the top of my work PHYSICS)

That is why I go little side of question and I have trying to explain where from come such misconceptions in physics. Please try to read it. I am very hope it will interesting for you, than you see as will better. I am going to rate your work as a high.

Sincerely,

George

Thanks Joseph,

I've noted your book, which I will look into after the contest. I did, by the way, rate your essay.

Best of luck,

John

Joseph,

I read your excellent essay twice (first in June and just now). Out of the number of entries I've read thus far you give the most comprehensive answer to the contest's main question. Your essay is also very well-written and your position is stated clearly; thus my high evaluation of it.

I have one question though and it has to do with your caution concerning the following: "that matter-energy and information emerge together from some more fundamental underlying but at this time unknown substrate". Why unknown? It is very tempting to assume (I do!) that this 'substrate' is spacetime itself.

And indeed, if a theory of everything is ever to be found, ontological monism demands that "reality is ultimately composed of one basic kind of stuff" (Dr. Maria Carrillo-Ruiz essay). In addition, such a theory would naturally have to be background independent -- in fact the background would emerge from it and -- everything else would emerge from this background. What better candidate but spacetime itself can it be? This is what I imply in my essay, even though I do not go into this issue in depth, expecting the readers to make this connection themselves.

You state, "In my preferred picture, information and energy are the components of all higher level processes". I agree, but is it only true of 'higher level' processes? Perhaps you you could review your position on the "categorial separability between energy and information" in the notions of the 'dynamic structure of space'. In this view, dynamics = energy and structure = information (while time emerges naturally from the ground of this substrate => I guess it is fitting to call it 'spacetime', but I prefer not to use it in order to avoid limiting the implications by our familiar notions).

In this view organization emerges out of primitive processes following just a few basic principles. A good example of emergence of It from Bit can be found in Prof. D'Ariano essay where he discusses how spacetime itself is generated by the underlying quantum cellular automata. Or take Dr. Carolyn Devereux's essay where she shows how a harmonic oscillations within the vibrating primordial substrate can lead to emergence of 'matter'. (I especially like her view, because it resonates so well with my last year essay on the nature of space -- essentially, we see it exactly alike).

Explaining your position you state that "the quantum vacuum does embody energy, but as it does not undergo thermodynamic change, information is absent and only evolves from energy at the particle-field level." Here, I believe the definition of information as entropy is limiting. From reading the essays this year I came to appreciate the fact that what we mean by information has two major aspects: 1 reflective aspect, and that's what we mostly mean by info in our daily lives. 2. organizational or structural aspect, which is usually hidden and yet which we take for 'essence' or the 'core' of a thing or an event in question. Regarding quantum spacetime, it is true that we so far have not found its organizing principle -- which does not mean that it's not there. So, am I correct that the caution in your position lies in the fact that "there is something missing in modern physics"?

I like your conclusion, "Therefore, whether information or energy is more fundamental, neither can be the most fundamental entity" even though I see details differently and I am in full agreement with your ref. [20], which suggests that "both matter-energy and information are two different, associated aspects of the same underlying and still unknown primordial structure of the world. The best picture is that they emerge together from this substrate."

Again, I found your essay most thoughtful and most comprehensible in answering the main question of the contest, even though we have a somewhat different position on matters of space lol. Maybe you could adjust your view on this after reading the essays mentioned in my post: Prof. D'Ariano (also his 2011 essay) Dr. Maria Carrillo-Ruiz, Dr. Carolyn Devereux.

-Marina