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

    Hi Giacomo,

    Thank you for an excellent essay.

    > Why we should bother changing our way of looking at reality? Because the old matter-realistic way of thinking in terms of particles moving around and interacting on the stage of space-time is literally blocking the progress of theoretical physics.

    Strongly put, and I agree.

    > We can create a three-dimensional ontology corresponding to the shadows, but we should not forget that this is an explanatory tool, not "what is really out there"

    In my essay Software Cosmos I offer an alternative computational picture by taking seriously the simulation paradigm. Here we have the distinction between an "explicate" order that observers can measure and an "implicate" order that performs the dynamics.

    > Unfortunately, we have not only successes, but also failures in explaining relevant phenomena-e.g. gravity or dark matter and other astrophysical observations-phenomena that even a reasonable revision of the particle notion seems unable to explain.

    What I find is that the software cosmos picture can address many longstanding cosmological puzzles. I also suggest (and carry out) a test to see if we currently live in such a digital world.

    > What is then the teleported human?

    In my picture, there is an answer to this, as the physical cosmos is only the top layer of the simulation. Beneath the physical (not above it!) is a layer animating the physical: a layer of life and mind. Thus, the physical reconstruction is not alive unless and until a life animates it from below.

    > The Quantum Cellular Automata

    I will have to take a look at your papers (after the contest) to see if this might be incorporated into my picture, which is described at a higher level at the moment.

    I hope you get a chance to take a look at the software cosmos, as I would appreciate your comments on it. It seems to me a specific picture very much in keeping with your perspective.

    Hugh

      Dear Giacomo,

      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.

        Your essay started off stating the long-held central tenets of physics (i.e., modern natural philosophy) and then proceeded to attempt to reconcile them with other types of ideas; namely, reductionism with holism. They are two ways of thinking with varying applications. And I think that showed in a lot of your reasoning, which came across (to me at least) as being contradictory and conflating. The notion that physical objects became vaporized was particularly alarming!

        Please check out my essay: All Your Base Are Belong To Math.

        - Kyle Miller

          Dear Marina,

          Regarding the notion of "energy" in my framework, as for any other physical quantity (see e.g. the inertial mass), it must emerge from the quantum processing of the automaton. Mathematically it is related to the imaginary logarithm of the eigenvalues of the unitary operator of the quantum cellular automaton. There are two opposite values (corresponding to particle/antiparticle), and each with degeneracy two (corresponding to the spin degree of freedom). Being the imaginary logarithm of a unit-modulus eigenvalue, and being defined on the Brillouin zone, one still have some ambiguity in the interpretation as an energy, due to periodicity: for example there are some new particles appearing with the minimum of energy shifted at ultra-relativitic values of the wave vector (this is the so-called fermion-doubling phenomenon). The physical energy-interpretation will come out only from the interacting theory, and the easiest will be QED. Only then we will understand if there are truly new particles appearing at the Planck scale in the ultra relativistic regime. With Paolo Perinotti we are starting the interacting theory, and I can tell you that this is going to be astonishing. By definition in the QCA framework the interacting theory will be linear (yes, linear!), non-perturbative (all Feynman diagrams summed up automatically), and will also come out from a simple principle that will substitute the gauge symmetry. I cannot say more than that.

          Regarding Carolyn model, I am curious about the connections that you are suggesting, but I need a technical paper in order to assess if there are such connections. There seems to be, however, a strong phylosophical contrast between our two ways of going physics: I personally want few solid principles from which to derive the whole physics, and not to play with "models". For me the principles are by far the most important ingredient of a theory. The mathematics must follow to work-out the consequences of the principles. However, I would love to compare mine with Carolyn's model, but I cannot find any reference in her manuscript. I think that your interpretation of Carolyn's model is probably correct.

          Did you really read the Pavia axiomatization paper?

          It is always a pleasure to talk to you

          My best regards

          Mauro

          Marina,

          please look also at my reply to your post of Aug. 3!

          My best regards

          Mauro

          Dear Marina

          I'm happy that you had a personal backup of your very nice post. I answered to your previous post that you kindly copied here. Please, look up in this blog, I will be looking for your answer.

          Here I just dare confess a personal curiosity about you--a computer scientist that worked in the industry and has a not just the understanding, but the genuine curiosity, of a true scientist. Your activity looks fascinating: what can be more interesting that the history of ideas? And pursued by somebody who loves puzzles? Are you a science writer? I am left with the mystery of a pair of green eyes and bright-red lipstick of a woman living with her family in the woods of Pennsylvania. What also makes you special is that you are probably the only author in this contest who makes publicity to others, not to herself.

          My best regards

          Mauro

          Marina

          the system manager re-astablished your old post. Please look at my answer to your post of Aug. 3rd.

          My best regards

          Mauro

          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.

            Dear Mauro,

            Do you find any empirical evidence for producing matter from information...?

            Best

            =snp

            I enjoyed your essay. A last minute comment about the blur between realism and idealism. If a quantum is some function of space and energy and time it therefore exists, it is real. This is what I have understood to be a realist view. I agree with you that information is the interaction between 2 objects and I assume that those 2 objects can be bits of space. Therefore if space is real then information is emergent rather than fundamental. Is an abstract notion of information creating the real universe (the idealist view) or is information emergent from the interaction of objects such as quanta of space (what I have taken as a realist view)? Your essay has made me think that the traditional realist view of objects creating the Universe is no longer valid but that there is a new realist view that space and energy and quanta exist.

            Carolyn Devereux

              Dear Carolyn

              thank you for reading my essay and for your kind compliments. I also enjoy reading your essay, and commented about it answering to Marina Vasilyeva. You can make a search of your name on this post. However, I couldn't find any reference to a technical paper of yours about the ideas expressed in your essay. Can you give me a one?

              Regarding your points on realism, I hardly follow your post. To me space (empty space) cannot have any real connotation, if not in the negative. The point is: what do you mean for "real"? In my view information is fundamental--not emergent--and definitely cannot emerge from interaction between "objects" (half of my essay is devoted to dismantling the notion of "object"). Energy is a far-from-fundamental notion. There are only quantum systems in interaction: and from this the whole physics emerges. And systems are "qubits", namely pure information. And this (systems and interactions) is the minimal set of "entities" starting from which a physical theory can be constructed.

              Please, provide me a technical paper of yours, so that I may be able to better understand your point of view.

              My best regards

              Mauro

                Dear Carolyn

                thank you for reading my essay and for your kind compliments. I also enjoy reading your essay, and commented about it answering to Marina Vasilyeva. You can make a search of your name on this post. However, I couldn't find any reference to a technical paper of yours about the ideas expressed in your essay. Can you give me a one?

                Regarding your points on realism, I hardly follow your post. To me space (empty space) cannot have any real connotation, if not in the negative. The point is: what do you mean for "real"? In my view information is fundamental--not emergent--and definitely cannot emerge from interaction between "objects" (half of my essay is devoted to dismantling the notion of "object"). Energy is a far-from-fundamental notion. There are only quantum systems in interaction: and from this the whole physics emerges. And systems are "qubits", namely pure information. And this (systems and interactions) is the minimal set of "entities" starting from which a physical theory can be constructed.

                Please, provide me a technical paper of yours, so that I may be able to better understand your point of view.

                My best regards

                Mauro

                Dear Prof. D'Arino,

                I am agree with you that "It" is emergent from pure information, an information of special kind : quantum." Of course, "It" is from "Qubit" but if we can able to observe the same suppose from any opposite (say a mirror), why that "Qubit" would not be from "It"? I think that the factor of observation as well as observer (like us) would have some definite role. So I invite you to read and rate my essay "It from bit equally bit from it".

                I think quantization property in nature is the basic origin of 'pure' information.

                Your essay is really convincing and impressive. So I rate you full.

                Regards

                Dipak

                http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855

                  Dear Charles,

                  thank you for your beautiful compliments, and for your post that makes the point on the statistics about the different points of view. Clearly, as you say, the "Bit from It"--the realist point of view--is the most popular. Unfortunately we cannot infer any useful information from such statistical fact. Centuries ago it was the same with "is Earth flat or round"? The "immediate evidence" is the easy way: but unfortunately it has little to do with logic. In addition, we have the "sociological" side of physics, with its own lobbies, of which the historical ones have had the opportunity of collecting more power and more popular consensus through a publication systems that is business oriented.

                  I also enjoyed reading your essay, I rated it and wrote a short post in your blog. The scientist who is closest to my point of view is von Weizsaecker. Unfortunately, in those old years both him and J.A. Wheeler had not yet sufficiently sharp tools to work out their revolutionary ideas.

                  My best regards

                  Mauro

                  Dear Dipak

                  thank you for your very nice compliments, and thank you very much for your rating. I will read and rate your essay soon.

                  I don't believe in the specularity between It and Bit. As you have seen in my essay, for me Bit is fundamental, and It is emergent. In order to put the It to the same level of the Bit, one should precisely define what is the "elementary It", and we know that it cannot be the elementary particle.

                  My best regards

                  Mauro

                  Dear Janko

                  thank you for your interesting post. Yes, my approach is close to that of Fotini, in the sense that we reach the same conclusion, namely that, as she says:

                  "the problem of time is a paradox, stemming from an unstated faulty premise. Our faulty assumption is that space is real. I propose that what does not fundamentally exist is not time but space, geometry and gravity. The quantum theory of gravity will be spaceless, not timeless. If we are willing to throw out space, we can keep time and the trade is worth it. "

                  The supporting technical material you are asking is given in the following Refs. in my essay:

                  [7] G.M. D'Ariano and P. Perinotti, arXiv preprint 1306.1934 (2013) http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1934

                  [8] M. Kapovich, Cayley graphs of finitely generated in- finite groups quasi-isometrically embeddable in R3, http://mathoverflow.net/questions/130994 version: 2013-05-17

                  To say something more Alice and Bob and how space emerges from systems, the logic is the following. You start from relations between systems. If you assume that they are homogeneous, then they are described by a finitely-generated infinite group. From that group you get the manifold that embeds it quasi-isometrically. Therefore the manifold emerges from relations. The striking thing is that the quantum cellular automaton achieves the embedding "physically", in the sense that all the continuous symmetries are recovered from the discrete in the limit of small wave-vectors (the relativistic limit). It is the quantum nature of the related systems that allows this, and this is exactly the idea that I wrote in my previous essay in an embryonic stage, namely that the quantum superposition of paths solves the Weyl-tiling issue of recovering continuum geometry from the discrete one. Therefore, the quantum nature of systems and relations is crucial for the emergence. This new way of having space-time as emergent from a purely relational framework is amazingly interesting, since it also opens crucial new problems (e.g. if there are QCA that are quasi-isometrically embeddable in non euclidean spaces!). I'm now in Chicago where I will meet some mathematicians expert in the field, and I hope to find answers soon.

                  As regards consciousness, I never seriously addressed this problem. I saw your essay, and it looks interesting, but I need time to read it. I will doit, hopefully in time to rate the essay.

                  My best regards

                  Mauro

                  Dear Kyle

                  I am sorry if I alarmed you. Please, consider that you will be perfectly safe in a digital universe!

                  My best wishes

                  mauro

                  Dear Amazigh

                  thank you for your post. I also rated your essay.

                  Good luck to you.

                  Mauro