Information-Based Physics and the Influence Network by Kevin H Knuth

Dear Kevin,

Yours is a commendable striving to discern fundamental particle behavior. However, since you talk of 'influence others', 'network' I presume you imply interactions in space. Can the true nature of such be well described without first deciphering the nature of space?

I commend the following for your contemplation,

The Pythagoreans say: Space is a composite of monads and geometry is the study and science of space.

Leibniz says: monads are the true atoms of Nature - the elements out of which everything is made. He also says I think there is no empty space--the extended world is entirely full, a plenum.

Newton opines:...And my account throws a satisfactory light on the difference between between a body and a region of space. The raw materials of each are the same in their properties and nature, and differ only in how God created them. (By this he meant that the only difference is that while body was created by God, the other, space was eternal and not created).

Wheeler asks: What else is there out of which to build a particle except geometry itself?

Then going further,

Leibniz says: Within a monad there's nothing to re-arrange, and there is no conceivable internal motion in it that could be started, steered, sped up, or slowed down, as can happen in a composite thing that has parts that can change in relation to one another.

So we can say that the only way for monads to begin or end--to come into existence or go out of existence - is instantaneously, being created or annihilated all at once. Composite things, in contrast with that, can begin or end gradually, through the assembling or scattering of their parts.

So from the foregoing, coming to the two alternate states available to the monad, the fundamental 'it', what states that can be designated 0 and 1... which will be the binary states (the bit)?

Paul Reed in his first post above talks of existent/non-existent although I am not sure he buys the ideas I put forward in my essay.

Best regards and good luck,

Akinbo

Hi dear Kevin,

I enjoyed read your attractive essay being on the certainly opposite position!

Whatever you are doing it maybe really useful and right from applied point of view. However, you can be agree with me that such approach can not be productively for the cognitively investigation of events. It is the main lack of formal methodology at all, which however looks now as the inevitable reality.

You say ,,Since we cannot know what an electron is, perhaps it is best to simply focus on what an electron does,, Excuse me! - you can not, but maybe somebody will able to say you what itself is presented the electron and how it shows its known attributes/properties? I mean why we must declare something as impossible since we cannot do it? I want simply say you it really is possible, that however demand totally change our imagination about how to need to build the science!

I will put on your essay (8) point because it really written by master!

Hope you can have the patience to check my work (mainly the references) and appreciate it. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1804

ESSAY

Best wishes to you,

George

Dear Kevin,

You say:

1. We can only know about something if it influences us (directly or indirectly).

2. Therefore, if an entity has properties that do not affect how it influences others, there is no way for anyone to obtain information about those properties etc.

You have put such points as finitely. Mostly you are right but there is another way that the science does not recognize now as a method! It however works in life more often and successfully! A talk is about of guesswork.

We may to predict at the beginning that we will face with impossibility to make new experiments/measurements when we will reach to base elements of substance. (We will just annihilate it or deeply damage it if we try to influence with that! Here I think no need big explanatory). That we have faced actually!

So what we can do in this situation? We know there exist something actually (for example photon or electron) that we cannot touch or seen, because restriction of influence with those?

I suggest to build the imaginary model of primarily objects, on the base of known natural laws, by condition of correspondence of our model with the all known properties/attributes of real objects. (I mean on the base of model and basic laws must be possible the derivation of its all known properties!)

You can immodestly ask - how we can be convinced that our model is right?

The answer is - no direct way as before, but we just must believe to our model up on the mentioned same criterions, i.e. - 1) it is constructed on the base of well-tested laws and 2) It corresponds to all properties of investigated object without exception. Third and next confirmations of our model will came from successes of its future development ...

Please find time (after of FQXi battle!) and check on my works (references in essay) I very hope that a lot of questions will be solved for you (because you are scientist who are inclined to analytical judgement) If there will be big questions I am ready to discuss and will thankfull for your remarks.

Thank you for good score of my essay!

Best wishes,

George

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. Can we produce material just by thinking about it?

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.

Hi Kevin,

I like many others before me pick up with your opening sentence ' I know about the universe because it influences me ' I would rather argue that you observe the universe because of it's influence it has. Knowing and understanding is an abstract process of human thought resulting from the observation. This abstractness allows one to build new models and postulate new method, as you have done in your essay, but is it closer to reality? We will never know for certain.

You relate your Equation-5 to formulations of special relativity. May I ask a simple question assuming you did not know about special relativity would you have come up with the formulations and ideas preceding Equation-5? or was it rather knowing the result and finding an alternate way to it.

We also know about the Michelson-Morley experiment, but do we really understand it? I would argue no. Please read my very short essay I really seek an answer to the paradox.

Kevin, I read your essay and liked your discipline of staying within an observation based model. It is interesting that so much familiar physics comes from observed influences alone. The new perspective you mention is the information (bit) that can be inferred about observed physical reality (it) if I understand your essay correctly.

I believe we can and must go further. I share your interest in the foundations of physics and entered the last contest with an essay entitled "A top down approach to fundamental forces". It shows the informational basis (code or bit) for what an electron is (along with all the other particles) and the informational basis for the influences that are observed. Results of the model give us the cosmology we observe (papers are posted under this years essay "It from Information"). Someday, sometime, someone needs to take the time to interact with me about this work.

Dear Kevin,

I was pleased to read your essay. I am happy to see your networks of influence approach applied here to relativity and quantum mechanics, and how you discuss the "it from bit" question. I particularly liked the conclusion "Rather than thinking about the universe as a computer, perhaps it is more accurate to think about it as a network of influences where the laws of physics derive from both consistent descriptions and optimal information-based inferences made by embedded observers."

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Hi Kevin -

This is a very fine essay, and I found a lot to agree with in your approach. I appreciate it that you make your assumptions so clear as you go through your argument, acknowledging that other routes might also be possible. And it's impressive how much you can derive from a very simple model of interaction.

I think your basic argument is important - that is, since everything that can be observed consists of "influences", we lose no empirical information if we describe only the structure of influences themselves, without assuming this structure is due to any definite underlying properties of things.

Of course it's vastly more efficient to describe what a thing is in itself, with all its properties, than to describe all the different ways it influences other things, in different contexts. But since at the quantum level, the "thing in itself" is so problematic, it's important that we can in principle do without that notion. But then we're faced with the difficulty of conceptualizing the structure of influences in some way.

Your approach to this is essentially the opposite of the one I take in my essay. You want to abstract from all the many kinds of influences that constitute the observable world, to see what kind of structure can be derived from basic postulates about "influence" in general. And while some of your assumptions seem questionable, I think you've demonstrated that a lot of basic physics is already implicit in a radically simplified structure of things observing other things.

My approach may be complementary to yours. You say, "we do not need to know how a particle influences others - just that it does - to obtain these relevant physical variables with their expected relations." But in fact, we know a vast amount about how different kinds of things affect each other. In fact, per your basic argument above, that's really all we know, in physics - this structure of influences. But for reasons I explain in my essay, we haven't yet learned how to describe this type of structure effectively. So by default, our theories are still cast in the language of things (particles, fields, spacetime) that posses intrinsic properties.

I argue that the reason it's been so hard to conceptualize the structure of observable information is because things "influence" each other in so many different ways, and because every way things interact only results in observable information in an appropriate context set up by other kinds of interactions. Rather than trying to reduce this complex contextual structure to something simple and abstract, I'm suggesting that its complexity can be explained as the result of an evolutionary process.

Taking a line of thought similar to your basic argument, I note that all observable information is definable in terms of other observable information, whether or not there's any underlying reality of things-in-themselves. But this implies that the structure of "influences" as a whole constitutes a very special kind of self-defining system, which I argue could be subject to a form of natural selection.

Since this idea suggests that our current physics may have evolved from much simpler structures of influence, the sort of construction you undertake in your essay seems quite relevant and interesting.

Thanks - Conrad

Kevin,

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

Mr. Knuth,

Boy I'm a huge fan of your work! I've pretty much read all of your papers scattered over the web, from the NASA archives to your homepage. I reference a couple of your papers in my own essay here and linked to your "Quantum theory and probability theory: their relationship and origin in symmetry" paper on Phil Gibb's section of the forum. That, in my opinion, is a very elegant piece of work! I haven't read this essay yet but look forward to it.

With regards,

Wes Hansen

You know, I like your "Cox-Knuth Method" largely because it's very straight forward, elegant, revealing, and because it has such a broad utility; I believe its utility is constrained only by the breadth and depth of one's imagination. So naturally I enjoyed your paper but I was a bit let down; I was hoping to gain a little insight into your metaphysics! Your imagination is readily apparent in a number of your papers but your analysis is always conservative and careful, as it should be. I can't help but wonder if you even allow yourself the luxury of a metaphysics.

To me, with this essay contest, the Foundational Questions Institute is asking, certainly an ontological question and perhaps a metaphysical question: does reality EMERGE from a more fundamental underlying information or is information DERIVED from a more fundamental underlying reality? In my opinion, you constrain yourself to the epistemological. You take the approach of analyzing the best perspective for building inferential models, which is to say, for conducting theoretical science and in that endeavor I feel you present a rather formidable argument. But just out of curiosity, what is your ontological view? Do embedded observers create physical laws with the order they IMPOSE on reality or do they investigate increasingly more accurate approximations of an order existent independent of their existence?

And while I'm on the subject, in the first paragraph of your paper you state:

"My entire sensorium is excited by all that surrounds me. These experiences are all I have ever known, and for this reason, they comprise my reality."

What aspect of reality do you think is accessed during, say, a deep meditative state? For example, a state such as that obviously obtained by Bo Tat Thich Quang Duc (Thich Quang Duc self-immolated during the Vietnam War and as reported by David Halberstam of The New York Times, "As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him."). Or what aspect of reality do you think is accessed when one is isolated in a sensory deprivation chamber. Do you think this aspect of reality transcends the embedded observer or is it constrained to the observer's cognitive apparatus? If you think this aspect of reality transcends the embedded observer, is it susceptible to scientific analysis or is it part of the "not completely knowable underlying reality?" And if you think it is constrained to the observer's cognitive apparatus where, exactly, are the boundaries? Considerable scientific studies have demonstrated that embedded observers are capable of responding to stimuli prior to the manifestation of said stimuli, it would seem, in the "light-cone," suggesting observers are somehow capable of responding to what you call "influences" sometimes seconds before they happen; is it possible that said observer's cognitive apparatus extends to include the entirety of the environment he/she is embedded in - thou art that, say? This is not to undermine your poset picture or the associated Susan Sontag quote but, rather, to suggest that perhaps there exists a relative perspective and an absolute perspective both of which are somehow accessible to the embedded observer; Buddhists refer to this as the theory of two truths. Your thoughts, if any?

Best regards,

Wes Hansen

• Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis - abstract: This meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 tests an unusual hypothesis: for stimuli of two or more types that are presented in an order designed to be unpredictable and that produce different post-stimulus physiological activity, the direction of pre-stimulus physiological activity reflects the direction of post-stimulus physiological activity, resulting in an unexplained anticipatory effect. The reports we examined used one of two paradigms: (1) randomly ordered presentations of arousing vs. neutral stimuli, or (2) guessing tasks with feedback (correct vs. incorrect). Dependent variables included: electrodermal activity, heart rate, blood volume, pupil dilation, electroencephalographic activity, and blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) activity. To avoid including data hand-picked from multiple different analyses, no post hoc experiments were considered. The results reveal a significant overall effect with a small effect size [fixed effect: overall ES = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.15-0.27, z = 6.9, p < 2.7 Ã-- 10-12; random effects: overall (weighted) ES = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.13-0.29, z = 5.3, p < 5.7 Ã-- 10-8]. Higher quality experiments produced a quantitatively larger effect size and a greater level of significance than lower quality studies. The number of contrary unpublished reports that would be necessary to reduce the level of significance to chance (p > 0.05) was conservatively calculated to be 87 reports. We explore alternative explanations and examine the potential linkage between this unexplained anticipatory activity and other results demonstrating meaningful pre-stimulus activity preceding behaviorally relevant events. We conclude that to further examine this currently unexplained anticipatory activity, multiple replications arising from different laboratories using the same methods are necessary. The cause of this anticipatory activity, which undoubtedly lies within the realm of natural physical processes (as opposed to supernatural or paranormal ones), remains to be determined.

• Electrophysiological Evidence of Intuition, Part 2A: A System-Wide Process? - abstract: Objectives: This study aims to contribute to a scientific understanding of intuition, a process by which information normally outside the range of conscious awareness is perceived by the body's psychophysiological systems. The first objective, presented in two empirical reports (Part 1 and Part 2), was to replicate and extend the results of previous experiments demonstrating that the body can respond to an emotionally arousing stimulus seconds before it is actually experienced. The second objective, to be presented in a forthcoming publication (Part 3), is to develop a theory that explains how the body receives and processes information involved in intuitive perception. Design: The study used a counterbalanced crossover design, in which 30 calm and 15 emotionally arousing pictures were presented to 26 participants under two experimental conditions: a baseline condition of "normal" psychophysiologic function and a condition of physiological coherence. Primary measures included: skin conductance; the electroencephalogram (EEG), from which cortical event-related potentials (ERP) and heartbeatevoked potentials (HBEP) were derived; and the electrocardiogram (ECG), from which cardiac decelerations/ accelerations were derived. These measures were used to investigate where and when in the brain and body intuitive information is processed. Results: The main findings presented here are: (1) surprisingly, both the heart and brain appear to receive and respond to intuitive information; (2) even more surprisingly, there is compelling evidence that the heart appears to receive intuitive information before the brain; (3) there were significant differences in prestimulus ERPs for calm versus emotional stimuli; (4) the frontal cortex, temporal, occipital, and parietal areas appear to be involved in the processing of prestimulus information; (5) there were significant differences in prestimulus calm/emotional HBEPs, primarily in the coherent mode; (6) there were significant gender differences in the processing of prestimulus information. Especially noteworthy is the apparent interaction between the HBEPs and ERPs in the females, which suggests that the heart modulates the ERP and that females are more attuned to intuitive information from the heart. Conclusions: Overall, our data suggest that the heart and brain, together, are involved in receiving, processing, and decoding intuitive information. On the basis of these results and those of other research, it would thus appear that intuitive perception is a system-wide process in which both the heart and brain (and possibly other bodily systems) play a critical role. To account for the study's results, Part 3 will develop a theory based on holographic principles explaining how intuitive perception accesses a field of energy into which information about "future" events is spectrally enfolded.

Dear Anton

Thank you for your comments.

I am not so sure that your restatement

'I would rather argue that you observe the universe because of it's influence it has.'

of my opening sentence is so different. Though I do appreciate the fact that you move from one's knowing to observation. However, I would rather stay away from "observation" since it is a term loaded with a wide variety of preconceptions.

With regard to your question on Equation 5 and special relativity. We were studying how one could consistently quantify causally ordered sets. We realized that there were no symmetries in a general poset (unlike in lattices, one which my other research was based). At one point I realized that one could imagine an observer as a chain of events, and I considered how such an observer could quantify the poset. I realized that scalar measures of intervals would be based on quantities like dpdq and it was a flash of inspiration that allowed me to realize that this could be decomposed by considering symmetric and antisymmetric components. Now had I never learned of relativity, I would have still obtained the Minkowski metric this way. But I doubt I would have realized how one could derive the Lorentz transformation, nor would I have understood its deeper significance.

It all comes down to counting discrete events.

You can read more in our paper:

Knuth K.H., Bahreyni N. 2012. The Physics of Events: A Potential Foundation for Emergent Space-Time, arXiv:1209.0881 [math-ph]

and I should mention that Prof. Mauro D'Ariano has had similar ideas that he presents in his essay on qubits. Here is a link to one of his papers:

G. M. D'Ariano, On the "principle of the quantumness", the quantumness

of relativity, and the computational grand-unification, Quantum Theory: Reconsideration of Foundations, 5 ed. (New York) (A. Y. Khrennikov, ed.),

73 AIP Conference Proceedings, no. 1232, American Institute of Physics, 2010,

arXiv:1001.1088 [quant-ph].

Last, I look forward to seeing your essay on Michelson-Morley

Cheers

Kevin