Dear Sreenath

thank you very much for your very nice compliments.

In my essay, I dismounted the "It" with the main motivation of getting more attention to new alternative theoretical frameworks that I consider much more powerful. More than being interested in proving the Bit or the It what matters to me is finding the most efficient way of deriving the largest phenomenological scenario from the minimal set of principles, and I just showed how powerful the Qbit is! Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the "It" of Tejinder Singh. Bohm's has now more than 60 years, and, honestly, even though it is always suggestive, we didn't get much from it. Singh doesn't even have a unique notion of "It". Is it "the particle"? What is a particle? The hyper-realists Singh and Bassi are trying to save a "mechanical" world, making it look even stranger and weirder than the quantum one. In support of their realism they are even invoking the trace-dynamics by Stephen L. Adler. Why? To rely on authority? A year ago I was curious, and bought the book of Adler (I got it used for a small price), and honestly I found his theory laking any kind of beauty. I later discovered that almost nobody knows it.

We should seek new physics, based on solid principles, principles based on logical arguments, not on the satisfaction of our imagination. At least, we should give to new physics more opportunities to express their potentialities, which had not been expressed up to now by the realistic approaches.

Thank you again

Mauro

Dear Than

thank you for your reading and compliments. I had a look ar your essay, and I should say that I do not share many of your assertions and generally the methodology. I do appreciate your interest in physics. Unfortunately, physics is a quite hard job.

My best regards

Mauro

Jim,

your essay has an attractive narrative, is pleasant to read and well written.

Regarding my personal opinions on the subjects, I just like to stress that the "It from Bit" that I like of Wheeler is not the act of creation of the universe. Likewise, I'm not very fond of the Antropic principle either.

But you master to put all subjects in a quite equilibrate way.

My best regards

Mauro

Dr. D'Ariano,

Hi. It's Roger again. Sorry for another comment. This is only peripherally related to your essay, but your essay and Olaf Dreyer's prompted me to throw it out there. It's an idea I've been thinking about for awhile relating to the superpositioning idea. It's below.

A. Suppose that there is in existence only one instance of a most fundamental existent entity, named A. A is an existent entity and represents a position. This also means there is only one position in existence. There are no entities or positions outside of A.

B. Suppose that this most fundamental existent entity, A, has the ability to generate additional existent entities, each named B1, B2, B3, etc., in order to cover its surface. Once created, these new B entities would be new positions. One can't say why these new entities were created in the positions they're in because there were no positions until after they were created.

C. Now, suppose a human mind looks back on this situation after the B entities were created. Given that it seems natural in our minds to think that space is infinitely divisible (e.g. continuous), we might think that the B entities could have been in any of an infinite number of positions around the A entity. That is, in our minds, there would be a superpositioning of possible locations for B to have been in. This seems reasonable, but it's not correct because there were no positions other than A until after the B entities were created. So, our after-the-fact imposition of a probability distribution for the possible locations of the B entities is incorrect because there were no locations other than A until after the B entities were created.

I just wanted to throw it out there in case in you might have some feedback. As before, thanks for your replies to all our posts. As an amateur thinker, I appreciate your taking us seriously!

Roger Granet

    Dear Mauro,

    Am wondering, did you per chance omit to answer my questions of 4th july or did you CHOOSE to ignore them. You did answer every other person's question around it. But I sincerely do need to be educated by you on those issues I raised, if you don't mind.

    All the best

    Chidi

      I read a interesting comment of westy31 on http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/network-theory-part-28/#comment-31505 that contain a link to an interesting application of the network theory that describe Schrodinger equation, Dirac equation and Klein-Gordon equation (in space that seem curved space, and it is possible to use Clifford algebra); it is all too complex for me to evaluate it.

        Hi Mauro,

        I really enjoyed reading your paper. Your construction seems to be extended to the higher dimensional case. However, you implicitly assume that our world seems to be in four dimension in your essay. Is it right? Or, how to evaluate the dimension on the space-time in your approach?

        Best wishes,

        Yutaka

          Mr D'Ariano,

          the italians in the contest are not more than 5, can I ask kindly

          an opinion about my essay this way i will know why I am the 5th....

          My Best Regards. Giacomo Alessiani.

          http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1903

            • [deleted]

            • Post #100

            Dear Chidi,

            I will answer to your post soon. I'm not answering sequentially, and the website has been unavailable lately.

            Best

            Mauro

            Domenico,

            Can you just send me the interesting link?I cannot find it in that page.

            Best

            Mauro

            Dear Chidi

            I don't see what the Zeno "scenario" has to do with infinite regress.

            Personally I cannot follow your arguments, since you are not following what I think is the correct methodology in theoretical research. I can considered arguments that run as a mathematical proof, made with a chain of logical implications, where every assertion is circumstantiated by facts or statements that everybody shares.

            I therefore will not "do my best to prove you wrong", as you ask me.

            If you need somebody proving you wrong, then you should submit a paper to a scientific journal. It my happen that an anonymous referee will do the job.

            My regards

            Mauro

            Dear Roger

            if I understand your position, you want to figure out how can make sense the notion of "space" in the presence of just few events. The answer is: it will make no sense. Think about: what is space for you? You can move in space, you can rotate something, you can walk, look at a distance ... the whole scenario makes sense only in the presence of infinitely many events, or, what we simply call "objects" that are macroscopical and made of a huge number of tiny parts, atoms, molecules, ... Whatever is "extension" needs parts, and not just a few of them.

            Therefore, to figure out what does it mean to live with few "entities" and without space, try to imagine that you are an amoeba or any single-cell organism, that has no sight, no hearing, no other sense but e.g. three different kinds of different inputs--call them "a", "b", "c"--that are binary (on/off). Suppose also that the amoeba has brain that is a small subroutine, which is able to discover relations and causal connections. Such a mini-brain would figure out a space which would look similar to a finite group.

            For a space like ours, we need to figure out infinitely many potential relations, corresponding to an infinite group. Such a group will be, however, finitely generated, by few simple relations, a bunch of translations, whose number of independent ones will define the space dimension.

            Have fun

            Mauro

            Hi Yutaka,

            nice to hear from you.

            Yes, I'm implicitly assuming the dimension in the quasi-isometric embedding in R^3. My purpose is not to understand why 3+1. Let me add here that no theory ever, even remotely, had seriously addressed such an issue.

            What we may have in the future (in the evolution of this theory) is discovering new unexpected physical features that are connected to the space dimension.

            My best

            mauru

            Dear Mr Alessiani

            you wrote your essay in form of a poem. You regard the bit as a metastable object. For me this is an irrelevant feature, since the bit, as a "system", doesn't carry its own dynamics. The dynamics is determined by the interaction.

            My best

            mauro

            Graceful Mr. D'Ariano,

            my fear was about a completely wrong argument. i mean the core of my essay.

            Really I appreciate Your soft reply.

            What about the joint with the Uncertainty Principle in my essay ?

            My Best Regards.

              Dear Mauro,

              Thank you for your comments and your perspective.

              Perhaps we are on different planets. Though I suspect that some of the similarities may be due to the robustness or stability of our respective theories, which Gian-Carlo Rota described in lesson #6 of his famous essay "Ten Lessons I wish I had been Taught".

              I also should mention that I am very aware that Bialnycki-Birula's cellular automaton, as impressive as it is, was reverse-engineered. And I should reiterate that I very much appreciate that you are working to directly engineer the theory.

              Cheers

              Kevin

              Mauro,

              Hi. Thanks for the reply. I wasn't trying to make sense of the notion of "space" but was just using a very small subset of a few points in space as an example to try and make sense of the notion of quantum superpositioning. Separate from this, though, I agree completely, of course, that space is much bigger than just a few points. I disagree, however, that whatever has extension needs many component parts. At the most fundamental level, I think our physical reality must be composed of some type of fundamental existent entity no matter whether that entity is called a qubit, a bit, an it, a mathematical construct, whatever. As the most fundamental of all existent entities, this entity would have no component parts. Yet, in order to physically exist and to serve as the foundation of our physical existence which has extension, this entity must itself have extension. It seems possible to me to have a single unit entity that has extension but has no component parts. Given such an entity, space would then be built out of huge, or possibly infinite, numbers of these fundamental entities with each one defining a position in space. There would, of course, be relationships between all these entities as you point out in your essay. But, to have relationships, one has to first have entities to have the relationships be between. In your game example, I think these would be the players Alice, Bob, etc. in group G.

              Thanks!

              Roger

              Dear Giacomo,

              Thank you for your insightful essay.

              I agree with you that the It is from the Qubit, based on quantum information theory. The conditional entropy of the local observer and global quantum potential reciprocally weave the web of interactions that generates relativistic spacetime. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

              Of particular interest is how continuous symmetries can be recovered from desecrate ones due to quantum interference between paths.

              Best wishes,

              Richard Shand