It from Qubit by Giacomo Mauro D\'Ariano

Dear Giacomo

You have a similar approach as Fotini. Can you give some similarity and differences with her approach?

Your essay demands more knowledge of supporting papers. You give visualization with Alice, Bob ... Can you explain and visualize, where the quantum physics is in this example. This can be very useful.

You also write that metric from Quantum celluar automata (QCA) cannot be Pytagoras', except with inclusion of Gromov. But, what if we say that QCA metric is microscopically random. In this case, I think, metric can be also Pytagorean.

You address only ''physical'' level of ontology. In this level I agree with you, that ontology doesn't exist. I also claim that space is emergent. But, in my essay I added also consciousnss into physics. I think that ontology of qualia (It) cannot be simply explained with ''bit''. By my opinion, this is the essential ontology of physics. But I agree that it should be simplified, and clearly connected with physics.

my missing messages:

.

Caro bellisimo professore,

ho lasciato un post l'altro ieri su con un paio di questioni. Forse non lo avete visto?

And the post it refers to is this:

.

Caro professore D'Ariano,

Thank you so much for your gracious comments and high rating of my essay! This was a very nice surprise and coming from a distinguished professor like you -- and! the entrant most likely to win this contest -- was on the seventh heaven!

And thank you for reading and commenting on the essays by Carolyn Devereux and Maria Carrillo-Ruiz (and by the way, I'm not a Dr in either physics nor medicine, but Carolyn is a PhD in physics and Maria, a master). Speaking of coincidences --or oddities in random distributions-- their two essays were uploaded one after the other (topics # 1892 & 1893) and Maria was the only one out of 60 essays that I've read so far who, other than you, also spoke about CA, while Carolyn had the best match ever to my personal vision of reality. The only non-random influence here was that I purposefully looked for essays written by women (since we are such a minority here, 7 out of 182, and I'm only worried that I may have missed Asian women, if any, not being able to recognize the femaleness of their names).

.

You wrote, "If you want, the quantum cellular automaton is a kind of ontological monism: space itself is a kind of "quantum stuff", and reality emerges from its dynamics. This maybe similar to also Carolyn Devereux point of view, where the vibration of a primordial substrate may play the role of the automaton, but I should see the complete theoretical mathematical framework to express a thorough opinion. Here I can remark some differences: in my case the notion of energy is quite different from the usual classical and quantum one."

*** First, could you please elucidate some more on how your notion of energy differs from the usual classical and quantum one? ***

Second, I wanted to bring up some far-reaching implications of Carolyn Devereux's model (as I understand it) for your consideration:

1. The model simultaneously contains the aspects of continuum and discreteness -- here discreteness arises our of vibrations of space-time-energy continuum, with the implication that the minimal oscillation (presumably of 'Plank length') is not fixed globally (as for the whole Universe) but is an entirely local phenomenon, just like time is.

2. The model implies that this space-time-energy continuum comprises a medium that, in addition to carrying EMR and gravity, also transmits thus far undiscovered by physics vibrational.. 'force' (-? for the lack of a better term). It may be that the underlying *finer* vibrations in this medium/substrate is what allows the EM waves to propagate. The other implication would be that the resonances of these vibrations, if we're able to detect them, can shed more light on quantum phenomena.

What do you think?

Thank you again for all your feedback -- and I'm reading now your seminal paper on 'Pavia axiomatization' :)

-Marina

I forget to login. I am Janko Kokosar.

Mauro,

I discovered that I forgot to rate your essay. Our viewpoints don't match up but yours is an excellent depiction of a great concept. Did you get a chance to check mine out?

Jim

Dear Mauro,

Thanks for taking the time to explain: I, too, know what it is to be busy.

The small change that I propose for QM is tied to footnote 6, page 6, where I comment that QM's "collapse" is a mathematical short-cut in my theory.

That is: In my theory, "collapse" is definitely not a physical phenomenon. (And it's my understanding that many physicists would like to eliminate "collapse" from QM.)

PS: The Figures for my essay are to be found in my three entries at July 21, 2013 (9.41 - 11.36 GMT).

Trusting that you have a safe and productive trip, with best regards; Gordon

Dear Professor D'Ariano,

(Google translate)

Thanks for the clear answer.

Sorry for the poor translation. I really thought the physicist.

This is another example which shows that in physics clearer understanding via mathematical formulas.

formulas mean nothing to me,

reasonings mean nothing to me,

Experiment, mean nothing to me,

but together mean the physics.

Reasoning regarding the relationship, it is in my essay. Nothing new, but all the others have said before me. The relationship is a result of their reasoning. Your work I left not rated yet of 2 reasons:

I can not believe the quality of the translation of complicated text,

I do not see that reasoning is supported by mathematical expression.

Regards

Branko

Caro bellisimo professore,

ho lasciato un post l'altro ieri (31, 2013 @ 16:44 GMT) con un paio di questioni. Forse non lo avete visto?

Many thanks for your response,

-Marina

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

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