BIT, IT, BOTH OR NEITHER by JOSEPH E BRENNER

Joseph,

I guess the earlier cyclic models failed because of heat death. The more recent, Steinhardt's too, evades energy loss with a expansion each cycle, preventing entropy from building up. None of us have the knowledge to understand colliding branes, I would think including string theorists, and will the big crunch Steinhardt speaks of change the particle interaction strength. Maybe we need to run into more advanced aliens to find out.

May your score soar.

Jim

Hi Joseph,

Thank you for a masterful tour through the possibilities of It from Bit and Bit from It. You wrote:

> "These five It-from-Bit positions are contradicted by general relativity; which requires an inertial frame of reference; relational quantum mechanics (see below); and current cosmology which supports a configurational view of the universe in which there is neither a containing space nor a standard background time."

It is important to note that there are many unresolved problems with current cosmology, among them Dark Matter, Dark Energy, CMB anisotropy, quasar energies, source of inertia etc. In my essay Software Cosmos I attempt to show by construction a software architecture that addresses such cosmological issues within the simulation paradigm.

While my conclusion, that a computational view is tenable, differs from yours, I think it may be because we have a different concept of computation, not because we have a different concept of reality. In my view, the material world, and the physics we divine from it, are only the *top* layer of a simulation. Lower layers could have different computational rules. It is essential to note that upper layers of a software architecture can know very little about the lower layers they are based on. To an agent or algorithm within a layer, the fundamental operations defined by the layer architecture "just happen". It is only the lower (implementing) layer that knows *how* they happen. We might say it is the responsibility of lower layers to "animate" the upper layer, as it is too abstract to do so by itself.

I read your wonderful paper "The philosophical logic of Stéphane Lupasco (1900-1988)" last night. His insights confirm for me the idea that there is an architectural layer lower than the material. The conventional view is that Life emerges from Matter and Mind from Life. But my simulation model suggests another possibility: that Life animates Matter, and Mind animates Life. I hope you get a chance to read my essay as I would appreciate your insight.

Hugh

Dear Joseph,

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

Dear Joseph,

After reading your essay :

« 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. », by JOSEPH E. BRENNER

You'll be surprised one day to discover how your views are right.

Good Luck!

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.

Dear Joseph,

I clarified two or three times after the essay, in the posts after the essay. Hope you found them already

Best

=snp

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