Something about Information by Georgina Parry

Can I have something about information from Georgina on my blog? A comment will be appreciated, especially as we have some agreement on the existence/non-existence information.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Hello Georgina

Hoping you are feeling better. I found your essay to be readable (mostly) and a nice walk through some foundational matters. Some thoughts:

You said:

According to Niels Bohr, "there is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of the physicist is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature"

How one (ie. Bohr) can 'say about nature' when one cannot say how nature is, seems self-defeating to me.

Anyway...

Barbour: 'So a direct correlation between macroscopic observed reality and theoretical quantum realm should not be expected.'

I would have thought that the aim of a model of physical reality is exactly that the model has a strong correspondence to our apparent reality, and so at least in theory should be able to describe the macroscopic world.

Your thoughts? (you might post on my essay page that you have responded, and I will have another look).

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

Thanks Georgina

Is quasi-reality, reality? I suppose one could say, 'There exists a probability that...' but to me this would be a statement found in a possible ontology, rather than an actual ontology (see my essay . In this sense the reality is only a possible reality that has no proper existence.

Interesting.

Stephen.

Dear Madam,

This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic - "complex, even inexplicable behavior". Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of "the deer population in Northern Michigan", is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

Infinities are like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others - every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use "a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers", you do just that through "comparison and exchange instructions". You develop these by "inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by 'mating' parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated" and repeat it "thousands upon thousands of time" till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought "evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible". After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area - the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally 'illuminates' the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Thanks Georgina

Thank you for read my essay, it is a pleasure to be read among such a large number of essays.

The grammar errors are necessary in a letter to brothers, and for message to friends.

I think that the self-replicating programs like a life form is a common knowledge; I read some research, and program, after writing my essay.

The connection between bit and it is a little hidden: if each system can be write like a differential equation, and each system have an entropy, then each system have a flow of information.

The mathematics is never important, are important only the ideas.

I have read, and voted, all the essays: I prefer not to reach the finalists.

I consider, after read some interesting essay, the information like a measure on a quantum system (the attribute of a system): this seem the common definition of many essay (like the your).

I am thinking that some nucleotide of dna contain the information on the 3D folding, so that can be packed in the optimal mode (an it is possible the correct 3D form to act optimally); so that it is possible that the nucleotide contain spatial information.

It is interesting the measure like reconstruction of the object in an other form (like digital form, or brain representation): if there is a complete measure, then there is ever the possibility of the complete reconstruction.

Dear Georgina,

Congratulations for your very nice and well written essay! You present a lucid description of what information is in science, starting from von Baeyer, Shannon, Barbour, and ending with your own beautiful vision.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Ooops, sorry if I got you all excited, it tells me I already did. Difficult to remember, and I hadn't noted it.

Peter

Re the truth. I can think of a good analogy which I could have included in the essay. That is the levitation illusion, where it appears that all support of a person is removed and yet they do not fall. This illusion, at least the version I know, like many others, relies upon the restricted viewpoint of the audience who are unable to see how the support is given. The line of sight being obscured by the body of the illusionist.

The truth could be ascertained by having a view from all directions around the "levitating" person. The truth comes not from many people observing the same thing under the same conditions but from having many different viewpoints, so that the truth can not be hidden. The truth being the source of all of the manifestations observed not just the ones that provide the illusion.

Incidentally, in science it is repetition of experiments under the same conditions which is used to give supposed objectivity, which it seems to me some people regard as synonymous with the truth. However only when an experiment has been conducted in every way is a complete picture obtained and it is *the complete picture* that represents the truth.

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

With many thanks and best wishes,

John

jselye@gmail.com

FQXi commentary iii Aug 5

Hi Georgina,

I so wish I had started earlier to review & comment on all the entries - but being new to this excellent essay competition I simply didn't appreciate the realities of it all !!

As you will have seen, my claim is that it is the full set of geometrical objects present here in our universe is that which constitutes 'information'.

May I quote David Deutsch again (this quote is in my essay) as I have come to think of his query-ings as amounting to handing me (us all) 'the answer' to information's identity on a silver platter !

'I'm speaking to you now : Information starts as some kind of electrochemical signals in my brain, and then it gets converted into other signals in my nerves and then into sound waves and then into the vibrations of a microphone, mechanical vibrations, then into electricity and so on, and presumably will eventually go on the Internet, this something has been instantiated in radically different physical objects that obey different laws of physics. Yet in order to describe this process you have to refer to the thing that has remained unchanged through out the process, which is only the information rather than any obviously physical thing like energy or momentum.'

Answer : David Deutsch's elusive 'thing' is geometrical objects plain & simple.

Geometric objects are the only phenomena that can be & routinely are copied / transferred on to consecutive sequences of widely different physical objects - from medium to radically different physical medium to radically different physical medium to radically different physical medium - & yet retain their shape - at least this obtains as to certain mediums as on many others they fade quickly away. Which is why we ourselves choose our mediums with a very careful eye to their ability to carry information (in its native that is geometric form) on themselves with optimum stability.

To save time & space I won't detail the manner in which each different medium Mr Deutsche mentions is able to hold & carry geometrical objects in itself - as most of us will already know how air & light can accomplish this particular feat.

I notice where you too equate information with form. Indeed, you give Christian van Baeyer's definition : "Information is the transfer of form from one medium to another." Which is patently what Mr Deutsch is speculating about too.

I myself came to this realisation long before encountering any one else who postulated it or even just chewed the notion over in their minds as does D.D.

I found your own tracing of 'information's' passage right into our own 'thinking machines' (my term) exceptionally insightful - & as it parallels my own to a great extent, so it also seems correct to me !!

The contribution I think I can make towards this line of reasoning & investigation is to 'elevate' geometrical objects up full 'informational' status by pointing out that all geometrical objects here in our universe carry information on their backs - literally - & that underneath each & every unit of (recognised) information will be found some one, another or assembly (pattern) of same - of geometrical objects.

My view is a panpsychic one which believes (on the best of evidence!) that a 'knowingness' exists at the heart, core & foundation of all material being. As a geometrical object exists on the surface of each & every material body here in our universe - regardless of that solid body's size, shape, composition, location & life history - then this 'duality' - this knowingness on the inside, with information on the outside, pretty much completes my picture of what we call 'solid matter'.

Now then, rather than plunge down into the quantum level of being I trained my focus on our own macro-, & also the meso-, levels of being & noticed that each & every solid object here in our universe is not only enveloped in its own all-surrounding plane (which I call its primary plane (when objects bang into one another they get secondary, foreign shapes impressed into them) but each is also fully enveloped in its own, self-generated, all-surrounding repulsive electrostatic force field.

I found it imperative to not conflate these two entities - the solid body's shape (its all-surrounding primary plane) & its electrostatic force field.

I then factored into my investigations the facts that it is any solid object's electrostatic force field which NOT ONLY 'TAKES THE EXACT MEASURE OF' (that is, reads !!!!) the electromagnetic properties of any other increment of solid matter it encounters - with which it comes into direct bodily contact - BUT ALSO PLAYS A VITAL PART IN PHYSICALLY - FORCEFULLY - RESPONDING TO that contact.

In short electrostatic force fields are both readers-of-information & also the powerful agents of whatever the solid body giving rise to them, does. Readers & doers.

If the subject increment of matter feels, senses, detects, reads, registers an entirely repulsive electrostatic force field on its fellow contactee -doing so with its own all-surrounding force field, it will then, simply by preserving/upholding its own powerful repulsiveness, 'kick back' at its erstwhile attacker for all its worth. Both participants in the interaction will forcefully repel one another.

And as each then literally directs its own kick back response in accord with what each reads concerning its fellow's SHAPE - its fellow's geometricity - then we can see that each not only reads its fellow's shape - not only that each 'takes the exact measure' of its fellow's shape, but, USES that information to guide & direct its reaction.

I came to consider that the definition of 'thinking' - as opposed to mere computing (which is just counting & calculating identical things) - is 'using information (not digits) to guide & direct action' & as this is precisely what all interacting increments of solid matter do - regardless of their own size, shape, composition, location & life history - then I felt compelled to conclude that 'thought' (as the use of information to guide action) is an innate capacity of matter & occurs on the most routine of bases no less than each & every time any two increments of solid matter interact.

If on the other hand our subject increment of matter reads a certain critical level of non-repulsivity within the electrostatic force field of the other bit of matter it encounters, then the two, rather than kick each other's butts, will literally & happily co-join together, thereby making a bigger & or better (more survivally robust) new - & often entirely different - whole.

The classic example of two previously separate things coming nicely together & thereby making a new & under-the-same-conditions-more-survivally/existentially-robust whole is the making of any water molecule. And the most inordinately complex instantiation of this process - whereby previously separate elements come together to make a bigger, better, brighter 'whole' - & doing so quite spontaneously & entirely under their very own self-generated power, direction & ability to do so, is of course life itself - you & me.

And it is my carefully studied opinion that all interacting is accomplished thoughtfully - that is to say, via the literal reading of information as literally advertised on the surface of all other interactees . .. .

What I feel I have discovered is all three key elements of, well, of all material being - of all material being here in a universe in which the elementary elements literally show themselves (to us & to each other) as having severally the power & ability to exist here as they (we) do - even though many of them when they encounter each other smash each other to pieces - or just damage & compromise the existential potential of the other. But also at times, join together nicely, complementarily & eventually produce not only each & every single, individual increment of what we ourselves call solid matter (in contrast to matter in its plasma states) & eventually us - we cognitively self-consciously aware entities who quite manifestly possess a distinction 'above' all other known increments of matter in that we can see & understand 'it all'.

And that all of these interactions are accomplished thoughtfully - again, via the use of information (in the form of geometrical objects existing on the surfaces of all interactees) as the means with which to guide & direct those interactions

But it only works out this way if it is not only a panpsychic cosmos - which in my interpretation means that there is some raw, pure knowingness at the penultimate quintessence of matter - but also that, critically albeit not only, each & every increment of this raw knowingness also wraps itself in an all-surrounding both SENSITIVE & POWERFUL electrostatic force field which entity (again) not only reads the electromagnetic properties of any fellow interactee, but also helps do all of the work - also helps forcefully & actively mount an existentially appropriate response thereto.

One of the physical features of reality which my investigations have made clear is that 'matter' - especially in its electromagnetic properties (rather than the 'gravitational' one !! - gravity is not only weaker than the electromagnetic forces but is roughly 40 orders of magnitude weaker !!!!! as we all know) - so yes, the electromagnetic properties are the only significantly & properly & fully agential 'thing' here at this 'our' level of macro/meso being.

In your essay - as in many others - you ascribe 'directive powers' to information. I feel that the evidence does not support this. Again I feel the evidence compels us to conclude that whenever any two lumps of solid matter bang into one another each literally READS the other's SHAPE - that is, literally reads the other's geometricity - WHICH IS AN ITEM OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE OTHER - & then concomitantly mounts its own reaction thereto with its own powefulness - which power & energy are housed or contained with the solid matter itself - not within the geometrical object riding on its surface.

AND ALL THE WHILE THE QUINTESSENTIAL KNOWINGNESS INSIDE THE LUMP OF MATTER KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON - IT KNOWS BECAUSE THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT KNOWINGNESS DOES - IT KNOWS.

Imagine a single entity composed of raw, pure knowingness. Indeed, of raw, pure SENSITIVITY (of raw, pure electromagnetic sensitivity) stranded way out there in the middle of the universe somewhere all on its own. It would effectively know nothing as the only manner in which its knowingness activates - FEELS anything - is when it literally bumps into another thing like itself. The archetypal case of 'I only come to know myself when I find myself reflected in my surrounds - & especially in our own situation, only as I bump into & bounce off of - or co-join together with !! other human beings.

Speaking of 'us' human beings, it is, of course, necessary to point out that we are different from the rocks & stones beneath our feet & the atoms & molecules in the air we breathe only in degree & not at all in kind. In other words we too - as already claimed - come to know ourselves only as we encounter whatever is separate from us & feel it. The only difference being that we - as the little bit of water trapped in between our two consciousness-generating panels (see my essay !!!!) can experience the world is via a sometimes very, very, very long line of proxies or mediums.

And as not a few of us have noted, what these mediums & proxies must do in order for us to obtain a good picture (literally) of the world, is deliver the SHAPES - THE GEOMETRICITIES - of the objects & events off of which these mediums first harvested whatever foreign shapes they now carry on their person (in addition to their own personal shapes) with maximum copying fidelity - with optimum fidelity of copy.

As I stress in my essay, the ensembles of geometrical objects which our brains gather together into their one last final summation, is not 'intended' for 'us' - these patterns are not intended for the private, personal delectation of the small amount of interstitial fluid which comprises us. No. 'We' just happen to be 'in the road' as it were. It quite accidental that we feel them as we encounter THESE GEOMETRICAL OBJECTS & ENSEMBLES THEREOF ONLY AS THEY GET TRANSMITTED THROUGH US - get transmitted through us on their way over to their properly intended destination, specifically our Reading/Triggering Panels - at least the trillions of trigger heads of all of the nerves innervating all of our motor equipment mounted thereon.

One of the many, many vital items of information (gems of wisdom) I discovered during my investigations is that a very large & clear distinction exists between mere computing & real thinking. Computing, which is merely counting, calculating & computing, can be easily accomplished with digits. Real thinking requires 'information' which I am insisting always exists as some one or another geometrical object - some one or another or assembly of (pattern) planes, lines & points. Always exists in analogue form.

So then, if what I am saying is true - & so far all this is 'objectively' 'observable, measurable, verifiable, quantifiable' phenomena - then 'all' we are left with is a little bit of water accidentally trapped in between our consciousness-generating panels, feeling, sensing, detecting a whole bunch of geometrical objects pulsing through it - which patterns are probably not instantiated in bioelectrical impulses but in patterns of neurotransmitter release !!! - so how then do 'we' 'know' a colourful, warm/cold, hard/soft, sound-filled, odourous, tasty, indeed, happy, sad, loving, hating, etc etc world ??

Here I think the answer lies in, er, 'mirror resonances' !! That somehow - & for this phenomenon I don't know the exact answer !! - when all of the visually derived geometrical objects hit 'us' & when all of the auditorially derived geometrical objects hit us, & when all of the buccally derived geometrical objects pound through us & all of the tactile-ly derived geometrical objects pulse through us - the quintessential knowingness that is at our heart, core & foundation - undoubtedly at the level we call the quantum one - literally resonates in tune with the medium on which those geometrical object are, after all, merely riding.

Two things happen when we come to know something. (1) we get literally hit by a solid object in the instance of the medium bring the (2) message on its back. We are impacted in two different ways by each medium-delivered information event.

Our own human-made communicating devices somehow - & we know quite well how - spit back out exactly the same 'experience-of-the-world' they first took in - or picked up if you prefer. And here I refer to the fact that light goes into our cameras & eventually re-emerges as light on our television & ipad screens. Likewise sound. And if I get it correctly - the virtualists among us are working on getting our recording & communicating devices to 'spit back out' ever more 'experiences' in precisely the same modality in which they took them in. Odour, touch etc.

So if we can make our machines do this I feel confident that that is pretty much what that small amount of water accidentally lodged where it is, also does. As a ball of pure knowingness, it is able to divide its knowingness into knowledge of the world rather well. After all it feels not only colour, sound & contact pressure, odour & taste but possibly something like a million other distinct feelings - balance, sick, well, happy, sad, sexy, hungry thirsty etc, etc, etc All of which seems to go well enough provided we deliver all of this 'up to it' not only in geometrical objects riding on them but also as deliverd on the backs of particular mediums which physically effect that little bit of water in ways that also cause it to literally vibrate/resonate in tune with the manner in which the originators of those geometrical objects, resonated . .. ......

Something KNOWS & as that little bit of water is the only thing in the whole universe that experiences every single feeling, sensation, thought, imagination, increment of knowledge we ourselves believe ourselves to consciously feel, sense, detect, know & experience then I feel we are compelled to make pretty much precisely the very distinctions concerning thought, mind & consciousness, that I make here & in my essay.

Very best regards - Margriet O'Regan

Georgina,

You have defined and discussed the concept of information in different fields and from different angles. You have your own definition of information as well. The way you have treated information in biology is notable. In my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) too I have defined information in the context of biology and discussed its relation to biology. Since you are a biologist you might find it interesting. You have given equal importance to both It and Bit by saying that "It from Bit and Bit from It, together". I too agree with this. I appreciate the way you have handled the subject in your own original way with elegance and lucidity. So I give excellent rating. Feel free to express your comments on my essay in my thread.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Dear Georgina,

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.