Information, Misinformation and High Philosophy by Don Limuti

Hello Don,

Speculative idea but with a hint of truth. Your picture can form the basis for signalling across space.

I will check more on your webpage. The idea is that if space that has the ability to discriminate linear from circular then the *constantly related* bodies can experience centrifugal force. The implication is that space is a something that can participate in motion instead of being a nothing but a relational concept only.

I will be following your battle with the 'uncertainty principle'. In the judgement on my blog (on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT) I mentioned that yourself (uncertainty principle), Gordon Watson (Bell's proposals) and Armin Shirazi (background) should be looked up to for solutions to difficulties with Quantum theory which I am not expert in. You may also view this article I came across. Wish you success.

Hi Chidi,

Very good question. It struck me that this contest brought out a trend I did not expect. That trend is the advance of physics into the turf that was formally philosophy/religion. I put the entries into these classes:

1. Information is physically real and it causes everything else.

2. Information is not physically real and is the cause of what we call reality.

3. Information is not physically real and is not the cause of reality.

3. The reality out there, is the cause of information.

4. It and Bit are always intertwined, both are always found together, but neither causes the other

5. It from Bit, or Bit from It, is an unanswerable question, a question that fundamentally cannot be asked.

It would be interesting is someone (FQXi) did keep track of these trends.

How we see the world is changing, lets keep track of it with bit :)

What do you think? Did I leave anything out?

Thanks,

Don L.

Hi Don,

I found your essay to be interesting, engaging and well written (and amusing). I think you could be onto something with lambda-hopping . I hope the experiment you describe on page 7 can be performed.

As you know, there are some similarities in the way your essay describes a particle that "never moves, but disappears and reappears" and the way my essay describes 1) laws of nature representing static information category relationships and a seemingly static system, because there is no evidence for an actual calculation infrastructure and 2) new information being injected via quantum decoherence and information category relationship.

Seemingly you'd say that a particle itself lambda-hops(with information causing the hop), and that this doesn't occur in classical objects; whereas the way I'd put it is that the information relating to a particle "jumps", and in classical objects the information jumps are effective but maybe can't easily be detected. That is, we seem to come to similar conclusions from different directions or mechanisms.

Best of luck in the essay contest, I will give your essay a good rating.

Lorraine

Hi Lorraine,

Thank you, It is nice to get votes, after all it is a contest. But it is much nicer to be understood. You can see why I liked your essay immediately. Since you mentioned decoherence I will add the following:

A few posts back, Cristi asked me how does the electron stop? I would translate that question as how does the electron appear? The answer is that if no energy (or object) is near the electron it just keeps hopping along with the same wavelength. This is similar to Newton's law that says a object in motion tends to stay in motion. An electron changes its motion by absorbing or emitting a photon. There is no physical thing added to or eliminated from the electron. The electron simply changes its wavelength and thus its speed when it absorbs or emits a photon.

So lets say you have an electron hopping along and you get it to absorb a photon. This electron will appear just a little bit sooner than normal and have a new shorter hopping wavelength. This is essentially "decoherence".

Classical objects (anything above the Planck mass) are collections of particles. The object itself can have zero velocity and a constant presence (no hopping) but its particle substratum is still hopping (appearing and disappearing).

It is a wish of mine to have a FQXi member perform an experiment to see if this concept of Lambda-hopping has any merit. Maybe they could even get a grant?

I appreciate your visit very much,

Don Limuti

Dear Don,

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.

Dear Don,

Your essay was an interesting read and I have rated it accordingly.

One doesn't see the dialogue style that often, but it gives your essay a nice pace. The only recent physics paper that I know of in that style is "a dialogue on quantum gravity" by Rovelli. Was that paper your inspiration to use this style?

Your lambda-hopping bears some resemblance with the concept of stepwise motion that I have developed in my own work; if you are interested, see my papers in Annalen der Physik (2010 and 2011). The central point is that rest-mass-having constituents (electrons, protons, etc.) alternate between a particlelike state of rest and a wavelike state of motion.

I agree with you that the concept of motion is one of the most important features of a fundamental physics theory. And like you, I do not believe that quantum theory is the final answer regarding the workings of the universe.

Best regards,

Marcoen

Hello Don,

You have stimulated my interest in the Uncertainty principle, which I wish you luck in its modification or overthrow. I am not really keen in joining that desirable task but I may chip in my thoughts. The following are excerpts on the subject from Wikipedia:

"the uncertainty principle actually states a FUNDAMENTAL property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the OBSERVATIONAL success of current technology. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer"

"A nonzero function and its Fourier transform cannot both be SHARPLY LOCALIZED"

"For any two conjugate variables like position and momentum--the more precisely one is known, the less precisely the other can be known"

Heisenberg wrote: It can be expressed in its simplest form as follows: One can never know with perfect accuracy BOTH of those two important factors which determine the movement of one of the smallest particles--its position and its velocity. It is impossible to determine accurately BOTH the position and the direction and speed of a particle at the same instant. Heisenberg imagines an experimenter trying to measure the position and momentum of an electron by shooting a photon at it. If the photon has a short wavelength, and therefore, a large momentum, the position can be measured accurately.

MY QUESTION: How accurately can ONE, not both ever be measured? In particular, how *sharply localized* can position be determined? Can position be accurately measured beyond the Planck dimension, 10^-35m which has no further part? If position cannot be localized beyond this, does the uncertainty relation not then imply that the imprecision or uncertainty is actually limited by this Planck limit and not necessarily because of any relationship between conjugate variables? Note the Planck value as well in the uncertainty equation seems to indicate this limit.

Take note that I am not expert in these matters

Pls. I am copying Gordon Watson whose turf is on Bell's inequalities proposition and whose judgement one can possibly trust. A proposition which I now see arose from attempts to resolve difficulties brought about by what to make of the Uncertainty relation and the initial EPR Paradox attempts to modify it.

Regards,

Akinbo

Dear Don,

Extremely interesting and profound philosophical essay with original identity and current answers to the main questions of the contest. I am happy to read it! Beautiful deep dialectic! Dialogue provides an answer-which way to go. The main concept - "state". Excellent rating.

Thank you very much again! You made me very happy. Look also to my philosophical ideas.

Good luck in the contest,

Best regards,

Vladimir

Sorry Don, was mistaken for logging into the portal ...

Dear Don,

thank you very much for visiting my FQXI-page and leaving a comment.

I agree with you that IT and BIT are the two sides of the same coin. The qualitative core of this coin is the Aristolean relationship between FORM and SUBSTANCE. Thus, BIT is the measure of form. The more complex a thing is the more information is needed to describe it.

The most important question to me in this regard is: What is the most fundamental thing of reality? Is it a BIT? I don't think so, because a thing defined by two states of equal propability is a dead thing that will never change.

That's the reason why your explorations of the Planck-World are highly important - and that's the reason why I rated your paper high - very high.

All the Best for You

Helmut

Dear Don,

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

So glad you could make it, Oh exalted One!

Best of luck in the finals Don! Your essay this year was tops.

See you in the winner's circle (I hope).

All the Best,

Jonathan

Thanks Don, (in reply to your comment on my page)

I guess you should be told Penrose didn't make it to FFP11 either. But his paper appears in the Proceedings anyhow. So who would know?

I'm glad you decided to give it a try. Once those muses take hold, they will have their way and my oh my - a fine essay from you Sir.

All the Best,

Jonathan

And by the way,

FFP conferences are not always in Paris. This year an interim conference will be held in Hyderabad, but I don't know the details. The previous one FFP12 was in Udine, but I could not go to Italy that year. So like yourself with FFP11; I must be content with knowing my name appears in the list and on the schedule, as a presenter.

All the Best,

Jonathan