BIT, IT, BOTH OR NEITHER by JOSEPH E BRENNER

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

Dear Joseph,

I am hopeful yet got your valuable comments to my work (let it be even short) that I have ask you early (see my post above)

Regards,

George

Dr. Brenner

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

With best regards,

Than Tin

Dear Joseph,

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

Brenner,

This essay flowed with a logical clarity that marks it as the most beautiful in the (rather limited) batch that I have had privilege to read.

What is the difference between matter and energy? I hear them used different in view of fields and simply don't know whether they are different, the same, or have a connotative meaning based on who says them, in which case that doesn't seem a solid basis.

Best of luck,

Amos.

Dear Brenner,

Thanks for your response to my posting in your thread. I will shortly post my comments on your essay in your thread and rate it accordingly.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Dear Joseph,

Your essay is highly original and it is based on modern computational models. Your views can be concluded in your own words "matter-energy and information emerge together from some more fundamental underlying but at this time unknown substrate - the ground of being". This something unknown substrate is the reality underlying the facts of the world. This situation reminds me of Kant when he says 'noumenon' is the reality underlying the 'phenomenon'.

This is also the sort of conclusion I have come to in my essay. Considering these points I have rated your very impressive essay highly.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Joseph,

A very comprehensive coverage of the topic. I am very much in agreement with your conclusion that reality is a dichotomy of energy and information. I think though that this relationship can be mined more deeply. Energy manifests information, while information defines energy. Since energy is conserved, in order to create new information, old information has to be erased. This produces what we commonly refer to as the "arrow of time."

The problem is that as we view reality from an essentially point perspective, our understanding of it is then filtered though the limitations of this frame. The result is that since we experience this effect of time as a sequence of events, we treat it as a vector from past to future and physics, in all its reductionistic focus, enforces this by treating it as a measure of duration.

The actual physical dynamic is that the changing configuration of this "energy" creates the "flow" of events, but it is not this physical "presence" that moves from past to future, rather those events coalesce and disperse, thus go from future potential to past circumstance.

To wit, the earth is not traveling some fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Rather tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.

Clocks run at different rates for the very practical reason that they are separate processes. The cat's fate doesn't branch out into multiple possibilities, but rather it is the actual occurrence of events which determine the cat's fate, ie. future potential becomes past circumstance.

Duration doesn't transcend the present, but is the dynamic processes occurring between the occurrence of events, so it is not a "blocktime" vector.

The problem this poses for relativity is that time is reduced to an effect of action, similar to temperature. One could say time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude.

This means "spacetime" is not some underlaying metaphysical fabric, but correlations of measures of distance and duration, using the speed of light as mediation. One could do something similar with ideal gas laws and create "temperaturevolume," but temperature is only the basis of our organic processes, not our narrative and logical ones, as sequence is, so we have a more objective perspective of temperature.

This leaves space as background. Physics dismisses it largely as an artifact of measurement, but three dimensions originated as the coordinate system and are how one models space from the point perspective of the individual. Three dimensions are no more foundational to the nature of space than longitude, latitude, and altitude are foundational to the surface of the planet. Yet distance, area and volume are measures of space, while time is a measure of change. Without the time vector, space has no structural properties which can limit, bound, warp it, etc. Not only does this make it infinite, but absolute as well, since it is inert. This can be measured as centrifugal force of a spinning object. Necessarily the effect of centrifugal force is due to the relation between the spin of the object and the inertia of space(call it an infinite frame, if your model requires), not the relation of the object to external references. So filling space is this "energy" cycling between contracting mass and expanding radiation, which express those parameters of infinity and inertia. Radiation expanding out to infinity and mass collapsing into inertia. In this description, background radiation is not residue from some primordial singularity, but the solution to Olber's paradox; the light of ever more distant sources, shifted completely off the visible spectrum. Could go on with all the issues with cosmology, but will stop here.

Regards,

John Merryman

Hi Joseph,

I was worried, your bio indicated a professional philosopher, I was prepared for the worst.

What a pleasant surprise! Your essay is very readable, wide ranging, and incisive. It gets a very high rating (yes some bits that are really energy someplace).

Do come over to my blog. I favor a continuous space-time in conjunction with a digital concept of change (that has been masquerading as a continuous velocity). Sounds like a deep subject, but I manage to keep it humorous. It follows some of your intuitions and I think you will enjoy it.

Thanks,

Don L.

Joseph,

Your essay is a clear-cut and well-defined discussion of the contest problem. It is deliberate, yet conversational, logical, and complete.

I agree that energy is more fundamental than information and I do tend to debunk the role of consciousness in measuring or observing matter and the ambiguities of describing examples in the micro and macro world.

If in the BB the quantum vacuum (you mention it embodies energy) was the source of a cascading sea of virtual particles, did they contain energy and no information? Did gravity result from their formation? We can assume so but I have no idea how, but my essay proposes that the foundation of our perfect universe couldn't possible be observed by consciousness until 1 billion years after the BB, since we had no mixture of atoms to form into our bodies.

I would be interested in your view of my essay.

Jim