Hi Antony,

Thanks for your interest in my paper. I'm glad that it was useful to you. I have a warm spot in my heart for logarithmic spirals and golden numbers, and I look forward to reading your paper.

Thanks again, Charles

We know that, historically, conceptual discontinuities do provoke strong, sometimes even violent reactions from individuals whose views of reality are threatened simply by the contemplation of the possibilities of the discontinuities. Consider as examples in mathematics, the discovery of the incommensurability of the side and diagonal of a square by the Pythagoreans (irrational numbers), the possibility and potency of negative square roots (imaginary numbers),and in physics, the departures from Newtonian common sense and outright paradoxes brought forth by special and general relativity and quantum physics. In each case, a beautiful vision of the world is destroyed, but we have reason to hope, again as we have learned from historical examples, that if we persist, an even more beautiful view of the world will eventually arise in its place.

Hi Mr. Gupta,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. In fact, my essay is based on a large body of well-established experimental results. Consult the literature, for example, to see the variety of delayed-choice experiments carried out since 1980. On the other hand, consult Carey's work (one of many available sources) for a multitude of references to rigorously structured experiments carried out in the cognitive sciences. Enjoy!

Cheers, Charles

Dear Charles,

I have read with allowances for your analytical essay written lively language. World contests FQXi - it contests new fundamental ideas, new deep meanings and new concepts. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas and conclusions.

You cite fiducial thoughts of great researchers to «grasp» the nature of the information:

"Information may not be just what we learn about the world. It may be what makes the world. "( John Wheeler) . And Weizsacker, who regards information as "a quantitative measure of form," and «Experiment and theory, as we know them today, no longer provide any reason to postulate matter and mind (res extensa and res cogitans) as

independent "realities," ie, as substances in the classical meaning of the

word. Form is not an additional third, but their common basis.»

You give great ideas to overcome the broken world of Descartes through the method Descartes: «When Descartes partitioned human understanding of reality into separate domains, he did so with good reason and with good effect. The conceptual simplification achieved by his cut became the means by which the inquiry that we call modern science was able to progress, and revolution upon revolution followed, repeatedly transforming the lives and understanding of humanity. However, his simplifying assumption must now be seen to be a first-order approximation whose limitations have been reached, and a new understanding entailing greater complexity must follow in its place.» Totally agree with you. I'll put a rating of "happy nine" ... Please read my essay. I think we are the same in the spirit of our research.

Best regards,

Vladimir

    Hi Charles,

    Thank you for reference Suzanne book.

    Yuri

    Dear Charles,

    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

      Dear Charles,

      One of the most relevant essays from philosophy I have seen in this FQXi contest. Spekkens is great. Do you consider Grothendieck's 'dessins d'enfants' as

      a conceptual leap?

      http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

      All the best,

      Michel

        Dear Charles

        Information is neutral notion, but tautological....

        "The average human being is a naive realist: i.e., like the animals, he accepts his sense impressions as direct information of reality and he is convinced that all human beings share this information. He is not aware that no way exist of establishing whether one individual impression (e.g. ,of a green tree) and that of another (of this tree) is the same and that even the word "same" has no meaning here."

        Max Born My life & my views p.53

        Every question like "What is the same information?" is tautology

        Warren Mcculoch call it greatest riidle of the World.

        Hello Charles

        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.

        Good Luck,

        Than Tin

        Hi Michel,

        Your discussion of Grothendieck's 'dessins d'enfants' puts me into very deep waters mathematically, but I certainly am intrigued by the fact that your argument addresses quantum non-locality and contextuality, which certainly are relevant to my essay and a search for a greater understanding of the 'conceptual leap' that occurs with regard to them. Your reference 11 has caught my eye, and I will look into it. I wonder, what are the (quantum) physical implications of three-qubit contextuality being on a qualitatively different footing when compared with the two-qubit case?

        Thanks for your interest in my essay and drawing my attention to yours! I suspect that it will be one of the most important papers for my purposes to emerge from the competition.

        Cheers,

        Charles

        Hi Vladimir,

        I have enjoyably and profitably read your paper, which contains many points of interest that we share. I am particularly intrigued by your notion of 'ontological memory'and your references to Ilyin's work. Thank you!

        Best,

        Charles

        Hi, B.N.,

        I've read your paper and value its very helpful overview of the concept of information in classical physics, quantum physics, biology and mathematics. I find it a bit surprising that you have arrived at the conclusion that the human has no limit to his understanding of physical reality or of the external world, that there are no restrictions imposed by the homo sapien brain. No such claim would likely be made for any other creature on Earth, so I wonder why it might be that the human has this particular distinction.

        Thanks again for your interest in my essay and for our interesting paper!

        Cheers,

        Charles

        Dear Charles,

        Thank you for your response. When I wrote

        http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0403020

        following the invitation of the editor of Neuroquantolgy, I found the excellent Flanagan's paper in the same journal. Many years later I was able to use the same formalism in the contest of Riemmann hypothesis and QM

        http://iopscience.iop.org/1751-8121/labtalk-article/45421

        Concerning the 3QB versus 2QB case, Mermin was the first to point out it in his famous paper in the J. Mod. Phys. 65, 803 (1993) "Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell". There are several geometrical clothes of the Mermin's pentagram (half a dodecahedron, the non-realizable (10,3) configuration, the Petersen graph, the Desargues configuration, just to give the most important ones), it is related to E8 anf G2(2)(arXiv:1305.5689 and arXiv:1212.2729).

        I am glad that you found interest in this essay as I found in yours, I am waiting your appreciation at my essay page. I rated your essay in July 24 with a very high score.

        Good luck for the contest,

        Michel

        Charles,

        Great essay. Incisive comprehensive analysis of many salient points, and beautifully written, all the better for it's consistency with and support for my own thesis! Reading a fresh and logical viewpoint was rewarding and encouraging.

        You also asked Armin; "Why does the background of a binary distinction require a complex state space such as the Block sphere associated with the qubit?" I hope my essay may help may answer that with Rob Spekkens "missing ingredient".

        Beyond the bit and Qbit might there be an IQbit that can hold and tell us more, via non-local hidden variables as an ontological "additional concept"? I suggest in my essay that all properties of quantum theory can then be derived, consistent with von Neumann and von Weizsäcker.

        Would it be reasonable to consider a physical entity/particle as a 'signal' occupying an exclusive space and with internal structure?

        I was very interested in the Carey view, but again might a 4th system be possible, as a hierarchical recursive set of higher order 'sample spaces'. Reality (as SR) having the sequential structure of propositions in truth function logic.

        I was very pleased at the end, as the underlying ontological construction I use suggests that Cartesian systems are inadequately for modelling the evolution of real interactions (motion).

        You may need to read mine to fully understand the questions! I very much look forward to your comments and advice. Very well done and thank you for yours.

        best wishes

        Peter

          Charles,

          What an excellent essay! I found your introspective approach most insightful and well thought out. I too have come to appreciate the beauty and precision of Descartes' Cartesian product as the best tool to use to understand the multiple dichotomies of selection. I agree with your statement. "...but much remains to be understood how the rotation operation is actually cognitively called up in the context of an algebraic system."

          Interestingly enough, without the implementation of the compound function of this tool I would not have been able to understand the rotation operation you speak of. In any case your essay is one that I will want to review again and again when the time allows. I wish you make it to the finals for it is deserving of more consideration.

          Best wishes,

          Manuel

            Thank you, Peter, for your thoughtful appraisal of my essay. I will certainly read yours and reflect upon your comments.

            Sincerely, Charles Card

            Hi Manuel,

            Thank you for giving my essay a careful and thoughtful reading! I look forward to reading yours, and as well as exploring the overall argument that you present, I will be keenly interested to learn how you have dealt with the issue of rotation.

            Sincerely,

            Charles Card

            Dear Charles,

            Thanks for your erudite essay. I enjoyed reading it and I am impressed by your thorough knowledge of the treated theme.

            The title suggest a certain relationship to my essay where I explain gravito-electromagnetism by introducing "information" as the "substance" of gravitational fields.

            When I use the term "information" in that context, I mean that "information carried by informatons" makes these fields what they are: not just mathematical constructions but elements of the natural world.

            May I invite you to go through my essay and to give your opinion about my interpretation of the concept "substance"?

            Sincerly,

            Antoine.

            Dear Charles,

            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

            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.