BIT, IT, BOTH OR NEITHER by JOSEPH E BRENNER

Dear Joseph,

I enjoyed reading your engaging and thought-provoking essay.

You quoted McMullin as saying that it is the potentiality, not actuality, "that reality should be attributed at its most fundamental level". If the dialectic interaction between cause and effect is framed in terms of Lagrangian mechanics, then that potentiality is quantum potential.

You also wrote that "information may be an artifact of human thought". From the perspective of quantum information theory, the observer's knowledge of bits arises from the erasure of entanglement information which encodes quantum potential. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

Best wishes,

Richard

Joseph,

I'm quite convinced I posted here earlier based on my notes of your excellent essay and analysis. I propose quantum uncertainty dictates at least one of the ~10,000 posts here will be lost to cyberspace. Mine must have been it!

You propose; "QM's error is in not allowing structure", which I agree and take to a physical proof, also then consistent with; "causality but of a 'different kind".

I can't help also agree that; "One should, therefore, construct a basis for the emergence of information and meaning from the 'underlying invisible world of quantum fields and particles'." as I do so in this and my previous essays.

Do you not however agree the real problem as the 'acceptance' of any such theory, however successful, by the guardians of doctrine? How can that problem be addressed?

Congratulations on an excellent job with your essay. I hope you can get to mine before the deadline and look forward to your views as to whether it may meet the specification you describe.

Very best wishes

Peter

It's not just Peter..

I also left a comment last night, and it has been erased. Amazigh was emphatic that I needed to check out your essay Joe, as there are areas of agreement with my own to explore. After reading your abstract, I tend to agree. I'll have more to say after reading your essay.

All the Best,

Jonathan

It seems that most (perhaps all) of the comments on July 31 and Aug 1 were erased... and perhaps the voting reset as well. Seems like FQXi might have reset the database for some reason. I am just surprised there is no announcement or explanation.

Hugh, Joseph,

See the explanation under BLOGS in "Essay Contest 2013". Brendan things cyberspace may return the posts so I won't re-write my comprehensive post yet.

Your essay is excellent and incisive Joseph. It is worth a high score and placing. I agreed a priori with;

One should, therefore, construct a basis for the emergence of information and meaning from the "underlying invisible world of quantum fields and particles" and have proposed such a basis and tested it in my essay. The "causality but of a "different kind" you proposed is proved in a non-local EPR paradox resolution.

I would be very grateful of your views, and points! Thank you and well done.

Best wishes

Peter

Joseph,

I was pointed to your theory as consistent with the episto-ontology of mine. I found it not only that but also well organised, incisive and well argued. In fact I extracted some key statements and ended up with a page full. But rather than similar our essays are complimentary. (I rather crash on into the void left between QM's denial of actual quanta, particle physics, and optics!)

I agree; "higher-level information...has not been...captured by any categorial theory involving separate exclusive and exhaustive categories." and that "Nothing proves that Bell's infinitesimals (or...standard calculus) and those of the physical world...are the same." so; "there is a fatal error in any description of the universe that embodies either absolute continuity or absolutely discrete Bits..."

I agree; "causality but of a "different kind" and that; "One should, therefore, construct a basis for the emergence of information and meaning from the 'underlying invisible world of quantum fields and particles'." and; "Following Krause, I consider Bits as quasi-individuals" (well describing my 2012 essay!). Do you think that being strictly non physicists allows greater overview?

Thank you for an excellent analysis and inspired solution, very well presented. Top marks due. I hope you will read and find mine as useful. Please ignore the offputting dense abstract and be swayed to read it by the post comments; 'impressive!, 'fantastic job', 'clarified the whole issue', 'wonderful', 'significant', 'deeply impressed', 'philosophically deep', 'very sophisticated', 'groundbreaking', remarkable! etc.

I find only semantic and trivial differences, which is remarkable considering our contrasting approaches. I hope mine shows the power of your approach (do please comment on the resulting EPR resolution described).

Very best wishes,

Peter

Greetings Joseph,

Amazigh was emphatic that I should find my way here, as there was much in your essay that is in common with my own. It appears from reading the abstract that is likely true. I shall return with comments after reading your essay.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Joseph,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

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.

Joseph.

Thanks for your message on my blog, to which I was very pleased to reply. I'm sure we can collaborate in the long overdue new paradigm. I've seen some other valuable parts around here which people may like to bring to the party.

Peter

Dear Joseph,

Excellent essay! I do have different view but not necessarily that KQID has an opposing view but KQID combines and integrates and assimilate like the Star Trek Borg species.

You wrote:

Since antiquity, human beings have always had an intuition that what there is - existence - has emerged from something else. The implied question of "why is there anything at all?" has never been satisfactorily answered. Science has not provided an adequate meaning for these concepts or the implications of "from" which remain the purview of religion and tradition." If I may say that KQID purposes a new paradigm that bit = it and it = bit, then information is physical and physical things are information. Then physics can cover the why, how and what Existence or God/s.

You wrote:

"C. It-and-Bit

Thus, going beyond the simple dichotomy, I will discuss some additional positions, which I refer to as It-and-Bit:

(1) Energy and information are the most fundamental entities in the universe, but neither is ontologically prior to the other.

(2) Information and energy emerge together from, or are different aspects of, an as yet undefined primordial substrate more fundamental than either.

In my synthesis of these positions, at some level of reality, I suggest that energy is more fundamental than information, and information emerges from but is always functionally associated with it. In the macroscopic world, energy and information, as well as continuity and discontinuity, are non-separable partners."

KQID defines everything is information and it is KQID meme ψI(CTE), bits-waves function of consciousness (C), time (T), energy (E).

You wrote also: "In my preferred picture, information and energy are the components of all higher level processes, but in contrast to the Diaz-Zimmermann view, information and energy are not and do not have to be absolutely the same or different, nor emerge in tandem. Because energy is primitive, (Bit-from- It), it is the dualistic, oppositional properties of energy that determine the properties of information. In the logic to which I have referred that describes such a state of affairs, they are the same and different, ontologically and also epistemologically, as the mind moves between focus on one or the other aspect to the partial, temporary exclusion of the other."

KQID does not have preferred picture because Information encompasses consciousness, time and energy which are interchangeable like expressing in different languages for different purposes but it is the same thing. Because meme ψI(CTE) is our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit. Qbit is all things and all things is Qbit.

If I may quote a long summary of KQID.

In summary, quoting my answer to Michel Planat and please forgive me for being respectfully and humbly boastful to counter the doubtful: First, KQID Qbit is (00,1,-1) which is singularity Qbit Multiverse in zeroth dimension at absolute zero temperature that computes and projects Einstein complex coordinates (Pythagoras complex triangles or Fu Xi's gua or Fibonacci numbers) onto the 2D Minkowski Null geodesics and then instantaneously into the 3D in Lm, our Multiverse timeline to allows Existence to move around 360 degree and its arrows of time or ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm). New informations are created and distributed per ≤10^-1000 seconds. No information is ever deleted. KQID is the only theory out there that can calculate the dark energy of our Multiverse ≤10^-153Pm/Pv and the minimum bits as the lower bound ≥ 10^153 bits in our Multiverse. KQID is the only theory that I know here that proves bit = it; KQID calculates Sun lights into Sun bits; calculates electron, proton and neutron in terms of bits; set up equivalent principle of bits with energy and matter. Therefore, Wheeler's it from bit and bit from it. Please correct me if I am wrong. And, KQID is the only theory in this universe has the mechanism on how Holographic Principle works. Also answer the mother of all questions, the why, how and what Existence.

KQID's Origin of Mass:

Furthermore, KQID is the only theory that can explain the origin of mass as A+S=E=ψI(CTE) that Wilczek said admittedly in 2012 after the discovery of Higgs boson mH ≈ 125 GeV in his tour the force article Origins of Mass arXiv:1206.7114v2 that human beings do not yet know the origins of mass and it is not even in sight. He concluded on page 32/35 and lamented like Einstein 51 years before: "We've passed some milestones, but the end of the road is not in sight." Einstein, after his landmark article 107 years ago on m=E/c^2 showing mass in terms of energy in 1905, "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy Content?" But this equation required us to know what is energy before we can define the origin of mass. Einstein truly like Socrates before him as the wisest man in Athens according to the Oracle simply because Socrates claims that he does not know anything, Einstein the wise similarly stated his own ignorance of energy in 1951: "All these fifty years of pondering have not brought me closer to answering the question, what is light quanta?"

KQID's origin of mass is simply A + S = E = ψI(CTE) that is Dao's Wuwei (the least action moves) maximizing the flow of A, anti-entropic time-future bits-waves function moving from future to time-present bits-waves function E in optimizing the E flow and minimizing the flow of S, entropic time-past bits-waves function moving from time-past to time-present in terms of both bits and joules SI. That also leads to Pauli's exclusion principle and the lowest amount of energy arrangement required in an atomic system. See KQID Ouroboros Equations of Existence.

Michel asked the heart of KQID: "Where is the FAPAMA concept coming from in your frame? I mean who is the influencial thinker?"

First from Fu Xi's gua(trigrams) Ξ ☷ as DIRECT representations of nature, from Pythagoras's all things are numbers, from Jesus's Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, from Hindu's Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, from Planck's intelligent mind as the matrix of all matter and from Maxwell's infinite being with infinite storage capacity who computes in bits/qbits to create and distributes energy that does works, and from Landauer who teaches us that information is physical and nature can freely create and distribute bits/qbits but to erase/deletes the created bits/qbits must incur entropy cost somewhere else in Multiverse. That is why our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit does not and can not erase any information. The computation of Holographic Principle must be within the one and only Qbit(00,1,-1) showing that Existence origin is from Non-existence and the calculations of Einstein complex coordinates can only be done at absolute zero temperature in which Bose-Einstein superconductivity perfectly happens without resistance or entropy. From Susskind and Hooft, who got the idea from Beckenstein-Hawking black hole entropy, proposed/discovered Holographic Principle and Hooft's quantum entanglements must be from the beginning. Thus FAPAMA Qbit must be there from the beginning (Hooft) and splits freely without cost (Landauer and Guth) to itself and Multiverse infinitely every absolute digital time T≤ 10^-1000 seconds. Moreover, every T-moment, our FAPAMA Qbit escapes extinction from its forever chasing companion Non-existence to be reunited only just barely by rebooting, resynchronizing, refreshing, renewing and reborn itself, so that it is forever just newly born evolved immortal baby. This gives us the arrow of time. Ξ00☷ = < S | E | A > = ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) ⊆ T. Time reemerges every digital T-moment. Every T-moment Qbit resynchronizes all Minkowski events in time-present. This is the KEY in re-entangling everything and keeping things in order and not crashing down. Complementarily, KQID also supports block Multiverse within T-moment in which all time-past-present-futures are forged into the NOW that in turn enabling resynchronization above! Time disappears. Yes, Einstein-KQID relativity rules (8πG/c^4)Tμν - Kqid(ΑΘ-ΘS)gμν = Τμν block Multiverse. Yes, Existence is the founder of creativity, it must invent new ways to escape from the grip of its Non-existence complementarity-companion. Dear Akinbo, KQID answers your immortal question if our founder is it or bit. The Founder Qbit is both bit and it simultaneously. Existence-Non-existence is one Qbit. This Qbit is It as Existence. FAPAMA: FA in Chinese means law like law of gravity that gives Existence order in time, PA from the concept of papa or the Holy Ghost or Brahma or Fu XI heaven Ξ that connects everything with everything else as one meaningful whole that manifests in quantum mechanics as Hooft's physical quantum entanglement. Yes, quantum entanglement phenomena must be instantaneous with infinite speed because it is within that one Qbit, there is no gap, no space, no time, no dimension, no locality but it is everywhere locally in physical forms that are derivative from MA as mama trigram earth ☷ that gives birth to mass and structure of Existence in ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) relativistic Multiverse in which time contracts, thus length contracts and mass/energy increases. So you see KQID gives picture of Existence as fantastically magical Disney's world, a holographic but physically relativistic fiction but real Multiverse. We are active game changers in our Wheeler's participatory magical kingdom, the Leibniz's happiest Multiverse possible. Because we are limited, we have choices to make including mistakes that lead to man/nature made miseries; so that we have free will to enjoy this wonderful make-believe holographic world. Let us sing and praise Xuan Yuan's Da Tong song and dance.

I do strongly believe that we must encourage diversity of opinions/theories. Because uniformity of opinion is a heat-death state of thermodynamic equilibrium tantamount to Schrodinger's defunct bumblebee. Let us celebrate symphonies of ideas. In the end, because of our Ancestor Qbit's meme ψI(CTE) imperative to venture into our realm, we the Qbit must discover our own truths in different ways and methods. Let 1000 bumblebee's thoughts bloom, flourish and make love to give births to another forever new 1000 hybrid flower of thoughts.

Joseph, if I may ask you to raise my ranking if you think I deserve it and please comments and offer suggestions to KQID. Thank you!

Best wishes,

Leo Koguan

Joseph

Very impressive review if a touch pedestrian, nice to have a balanced approach but what we need is revolution! None the less a very good essay, and I gather from the blogs it's consistent with Peter Jackson's which for me is paradigm breaking, which I see you and others seem to you agree. See his previous essays too. Exciting times perhaps. Glad I got your score in in time.

Richard

Dear Joseph,

A perfect essay in the Spirit of Descartes! Excellent analysis and synthesis of new concepts, new ideas and conclusions.

I particularly note:

«Energy and information are the most fundamental entities in the universe, but neither

is ontologically prior to the other. Information and energy emerge together from, or are different aspects of, an as yet undefined primordial substrate more fundamental than either .. »« In the macroscopic world, energy and information, as well as continuity and

discontinuity, are non-separable partners. »

«The most reasonable ontological commitment favors an interpretation of reality as the totality of structures, energetic entities, dynamically interacting with each other.»

«The approach I have adopted elsewhere [15] is to provide a demonstration of how actuality and potentiality can evolve together, alternately and reciprocally, to have the" best of both worlds ", so to speak.»

«I have considered the alternative that matter-energy and information emerge together from some more fundamental underlying but at this time unknown substrate - the ground of being.» (!!!)

«Finally, a picture of the universe as fundamentally either continuous or

discontinuous may be usefully replaced by one in which both continuity and discontinuity are jointly and dynamically instantiated. »

Highest score.

Please look also my essay and essay FQXi 2012 related to the ontology of "form" and "in-forma-tion», the ontological justification of "Absolute generating structure" - my version of «the ground of being».

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1796

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

With best wishes and regards,

Vladimir

Dear Joseph,

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

Joseph,

Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I was referring to your statement "it has been suggested that information may be an artifact of human thought". I didn't mean to infer that you were the originator. Certainly the concept of information transcends any purely anthropomorphic interpretation.

Best wishes,

Richard