Essay Abstract

John Archibald (JA) Wheeler's "It from Bit" is a form of metaphysics attempting to use information system theory as an ontology to describe Bohr's quantum phenomenology. This paper revels in the insanity caused by humans seeking to understand foundational issues. It offers a fair overview of JA's "Its from Bits." It builds a realistic model that addresses the major unresolved issue raised by JA himself: The continuous nature of the natural number system as opposed to the quantum discreteness of space and time. It concludes that classical mathematics, including binary information, may be a spurious basis for understanding existence. Dimensions must be taken as real in their own right. This article uses an alien commentator as a rhetorical device for entertainment and to aid comprehension. Perhaps humans will be less offended if it is an alien critiquing their cherished beliefs rather than a fellow human.

Author Bio

Tubal is a Bundal whose bio may be accessed at http://tubalsphysics.com/who-is-tubal-what-is-a-bundal/. Darrell is the human translator who holds a M.Div. from Nazarene Theological Seminary and a M.B.A. from Indiana-Purdue at Fort Wayne. As an avid student of physics for thirty-two years he is self-taught (a most dangerous kind of learning) in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Darrell,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

.....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

    Hi, Tubal aka Pastor Poeppelmeyer,

    Your essay was enjoyable to read. The style was superb. The speculations are nice; alas, you postulate that mathematics is insufficient to characterize reality, so you thus disqualify your own system as a characterization of reality, since it is presented in a way which is quite amenable to a mathematical formulation. (Your aside about mathematics being especially inadequate when restricted to its binary form is a red herring, given that all mathematics could be reformulated in binary, even though that would be a monumental hassle.)

    I am curious to know what link you make between Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the wavefunction. Are you equating indeterminateness with undecidability? (By the way, if you had used Gödel's theorems as a justification for stating that all humans were insane, the link would have been clearer; even if humans are not insane, then there is no way for us humans to consistently show the contrary.) This point would need to be further elucidated for most readers, I think.

    You warn the reader not to be surprised to find out that everything can exist in one point. (For a fanciful enlargement of this idea, I recommend the fourth story in the collection "Le Cosmicomiche", translated into English as "Cosmicomics", by Italo Calvino.) Perhaps I missed something, but the announcement did come to me something as a surprise. (That does not mean it is not true; I am still surprised by butterflies.) In future expositions of this idea, perhaps this point could get more of an introduction.

    You also mention that mathematicians and physicists are not very self-critical. You mention some examples out of physics. However, if you go further into pure mathematics, you will find that mathematics that go way beyond physical reality, with mathematicians who are quite conscious of this. Indeed, the question as to how aliens such as Tubal might think is a subject of Mathematical Logic (and no longer the earlier forms of logic which were restricted to the way that humans think).

    Nonetheless, a good essay. Thanks.

    David

      David, I thank you for reading my essay. Your comments are cogent and help me immensely. In regards to mathematics, I will blame my lack of writing skills for not making myself clear. I was trying to say mathematics (mostly geometry) needs to be reformulated away from the central idea of a dimensionless point. I am not against mathematics as a whole.

      You insight on the potential use of Godel's theorem to show a relationship to human insanity was humorous and good.

      My understanding is that indeterminateness and undecidability are related. The question is how. For my model, both are a function of two, temporal time zones. In other words, their relationship and cause (so-to-speak) is due to human limitations in being able to measure the future, even though we live in the future as well as the past. We can only measure the past.

      As for the use of Godel's incompleteness theorem and its relationship to the wave-function, the best I can say is that the wave-function, as a mathematical expression, is built upon axioms that prevent it from securing an ontological character. If the axioms were changed and mathematics reformulated, then an ontologically relevant wave-function could be developed.

      In regards to mathematicians and physicists critiquing their own disciplines, I agree. But critique that does not change outcomes is probably not a deep enough critique.

      Darrell,

      Your essay is entertaining. I responded a bit more on my essay blog site. I am unfortunately a bit skeptical whether we will ever contact alien intelligent life. If we do it would be an interesting comparison exercise.

      LC

      Mr. Poeppelmeyer,

      I found your essay hugely entertaining. It is a pity you did not translate my essay BITTERS for Tubal. Had you did so, Tubal would have been made aware of the fact that I had listed now as the absolute of time. Tubal would then have known that at least one "human had firmly grasped a now."

        You do an interesting analysis. Thank you for posting and rating. I confess I have given high scores for quality essays that do not fit my views. I remain partial to those essays that challenge me and teach me.

        Darrell,

        If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

        Jim

        8 days later

        Dears Darrell and Tubal,

        As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your beautiful and particular Essay. I had a lot of fun, and I think that it should deserve a better attention from the FQXi Community. Thus, I am going to give you an high score.

        In particular, I think that the major issue raised by JA himself, by verbatim citing you "The continuous nature of the natural number system as opposed to the quantum discreteness of space and time" is also the core of the black hole information paradox that I discussed in my Essay. Your statements that "Space is not contiguous. Inside-space and outside-space are separated by time" and "Time is not continuous. Past-time and future-time are separated by space"are fascinating. I suggest you to attempt to implement them through a rigorous mathematics in future works.

        Cheers,

        Ch.

          Your concern for a rigorous mathematics is well founded. I have learned much from participating in this contest. Most of my learning has come from reviewing essays that successfully integrate common explanation with physical and mathematical rigor. Tubal remains a fun read and write for me, but I am learning better how to communicate my approach for imagining two temporal dimensions. Your kind words are a strong encouragement for me to continue my efforts. I look forward to reviewing your essay.

          4 days later

          Hello Darrell,

          Contests FQXi-is primarily a fundamental new ideas. You have an excellent essay, great ideas, great conclusions: «Does it mean science has successfully cornered the market on understanding? Or has human science gotten into a mathematical rut? It is true, further insights can be gleaned, even from within a rut. Maybe it is time for you to climb out of the rut and imagine new possibilities that challenge your foundations.

          ... Has human metaphysics gone amok? Or has human mathematics gone amok? You will figure it out in a bit.» I estimate the" happy nine ". Take a look and vote my essay ... I think we are close in spirit to the research.

          Good luck and best wishes,

          Vladimir

            Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. I look forward to reading your essay. -Darrell

            5 days later

            Dear Darrell,

            Nice essay and great way to make the subject interesting and engaging with aliens! I particularly like that you consider dimensions real in their own right. I think in that case you'd consider my essay possibly worth reading and relevant to yours.

            I think you deserve to have a higher mark, so I hope my rating has helped.

            Best wishes,

            Antony

              Dear Darrell -

              You cleverly point out all the pitfalls and paradoxes of trying to answer foundational questions; of course, evolution itself impels us to carry on ...

              My view is that we need to be able to think in physical (less-abstract) terms about these issues, and all our assumptions need to be revisited as well.

              The way you point out the malleability of our space-time coordinates is very interesting. I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include an evolving observer who occupies a 'Composite Zone' (space-time) within which his measurements are most viable. I see a lot of this in your treatment of space, time, gravity, and light.

              Another contestant wrote that a thought is a moment that incorporates past, present, and future; I show that since mind, organism, and cosmos are three energy vortices producing their own types of particles - past, present, and future are simply different locations in a system of correlated vortices. The past keeps coming back - while the future is never entirely unexpected. Strange as all this may sound - is it not fundamental to evolution?

              The narrow definition of Bit and It in Wheeler's concept needs to be expanded, a view I think is implicit in what you write - and ultimately Bit and It must be described as correlated.

              As for the questionable use of mathematics in discovering the cosmos - I ask: is not the historical expansion of mathematics into the field of reality a phenomenon that also precisely describes the evolution of the human mind within that field? In other words, we can't help it - we've got to figure it all out: we've conquered the planet, and now we have to conquer the cosmos .... but we must struggle to bring 'real' concepts back into physics - and as I say, this involves reconsidering all our assumptions.

              In conclusion, I agree with you that science moves much more slowly than common wisdom - I believe all discoveries were previously made (and a long time before) by artists, writers, and people living off the land.

              Someone told me that my own work is probably centuries ahead of its time ... strangely, I don't think he meant it as a compliment.

              It was illuminating to read your essay - I have rated it, of course - and I look forward to your views on my paper.

              All the best in the contest,

              John

              John, You've done some thinking in creating this response to my paper. I am not sure evolution is a be-all or end-all notion. Philosophical critiques of progress are abundant. How evolution relates to the second law of thermodynamics needs to be more deeply appreciated. As for conquering the earth, I am not sure the last battle has been waged. The earth may just eliminate us yet.

              I will read and rate your paper. I am expecting it to be an enjoyable and thought-provoking read, based on your comments here.

                Hello Darrell,

                Great fun to read! And not too many equations, which makes it for easy to follow.

                But I dont think binary information, will be a spurious basis for understanding existence. Suppose the binary information is existence/non-existence itself?

                Again I agree that dimensions must be taken as real in their own right. This much I discuss in my essay. I don't think we have any other areas of disagreement. A good rating from me.

                Best regards,

                Akinbo