Essay Abstract

Essay considers nature as digital ('it') including its digital observers like us. Because, analog part of nature, if that would be fundamentally there, does not emit digital information to detect it digitally or, even, non-digitally. There's only a digitally perceivable 'it', which is a sum of all intrinsic quantized systems or wave-corpuscular-phenomena (WCP) ranging from micro to macro scales including macro-most, i.e. universe; where quantization in each of those WCP is due to presence of some quantized common parameters ('bit') therein. Since de Broglie's wave-corpuscular inverse relation, between two of such 'bit's (mass and wavelength), is common in all WCP, it can be stretched to a common inverse relation by inducting other 'bit's like space, time, motion etc. That new relation depicts 'it' as a product of its two inverse sets of 'bit's where 'it' and 'bit' are inseparable.

Author Bio

A learner of philosophy linked to ground rules of nature, an independent thinker, associated with charity and graduated in Science. Current essay is partially based on some core ideas in his paper which is now waiting for publication in winter issue 2014 of 'Galilean Electrodynamics', from USA.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Deepak,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. Why do you think you are digital?

and do you think you can produce matter just by your thinking?

and ...

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.

    Dear Satyavarapu

    Thanks for your comments and also for your's submitted essay, which is really encouraging.

    The observers like us are digital, including instruments therein, because we are constituted by quantized or digitized ingredients or wave-corpuscular-phenomena and we are fundamentally unable to detect any analog messages apart from digital.

    Of course according to modern scientific understanding, "matter" rather wave-corpuscular-phenomena, can not be created merely through thinking, because that process of thinking too inclined towards a digital process apart from spiritually mystic process of analog types.

    The essay is fully based on all common experimental and established understandings in mainstream physics, particularly from cosmology, astrophysics,special relativity, quantum mechanics and so on.

    Regards

    Dipak

    Hi Joe

    Many thanks for the little & inspiring tweet comment.

    Dipak

    Dipak,

    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

      Dear Hoang,

      Thanks for your comments. But I doubt whether there would be really any 'absolute theory' of anything or nature forever for the observers like us. Because an absolute theory should have to be passed through tests every time and enough to disqualify even by a single test. Because our technological reach changes almost in every day as well as wisdom or perceptions about anything or nature is equally changing as well accordingly. At present, the property of quantization in all scales of systems (or wave-corpuscular-phenomena) is appeared as common in all micro to macro scales of systems in nature. Each of those scale specific quantize magnitudes are universally absolute to all observers' frames of reference but simultaneously relative to the magnitude of other scales.

      Otherwise its good.

      Dipak

      Jim,

      Thanks for good presentation. Apart from Anthropic views, both of our essays are probably on the same direction. Right now, we are not certain whether conscious part in an observer is analog in type or that could be explain digitally in near future as a super simulated artificial intelligence through neuro-digital-ways.

      As per current understandings, the Nature is there with all its inner dynamics and configurations of it's ingredients including digitized (and may or may not other types of) observers. Such an intrinsically digitized Observer (like us) would have only its own view or perception about that nature through his own range of observations. There would be remain the nature if there at any moment no observers like us. Therefore, he can not anthropically create any thing in nature as its one of parts, apart from his own views depend on the current observations. Those views have also the step wise modifications over the ages simultaneously along with the changes in wisdom based on the technological advancements.

      Dipak

      Dear Kumar,

      Thank you for reading my essay and inviting me to read yours.

      Yes, I like to have some poetry and visualization when it is possible.

      You tell us that each access to reality is digitized and I agree.

      But it occurs in a different way in classical physics and quantum mechanics.

      Myself I did measurements of the frequency of ultrasable clocks in the past; there I recovered the structure of rational numbers, you can easily google with the keyword "number theory and 1/f noise" and find my contributions. This is well in the spirit of what you are writing. Quantum physics is more seriously difficult in this respect in the sense that it undress in bits (the eigenvalues of qubit observables) and it is much more difficult to organize them. In addition the observer participates in the undressing as Wheeler explained.

      Best wishes,

      Michel

      Dear Dipak,

      May be you can browse this very well documented archive

      http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/physics.htm

      Best regards,

      Michel

        Dear Michel

        Thanks for the archive. Yes, of course, it "occurs in a different way in classical physics and quantum mechanics". From macro level it appears that "access to reality is digitized" but not necessarily always quantized; and from micro level access to reality is quantized but not merely digitized.

        Best wishes

        Dipak

        Dear Dipak Kumar Bhunia,

        I have read your paper and believe we overlap as follows: you support that nature is not (or cannot be proven to be) analog, and consider observers (us) to be digital: "then nature that perceives through such digits or quantum must appear as a digital." [and] "the digital observers (like us) have a natural limit to detect the nature non-digitally, even if it would be non-digital anywhere in its deeper levels beyond that digital limit. "

        This is a well-thought-out proposition, and the locus of our agreement seems to be here. I tend to believe that the deeper levels are non-digital, but, as you may recall, I view the transfer of information as energy transfer, that does, or does not cross a threshold. This is the digitization you refer to. If the threshold is crossed, then the digit is '1', else '0'. This sets the digital limit of observation. The crossing of the threshold results in a change in form or 'in-form-ation' of the contextual structure, and becomes 'information' at this point. It is, of course, the basis of all our observations.

        The details of the observed world are so rich that we cannot expect any two essays in this contest to agree upon all of them, but the basic mechanism seems to be in agreement.

        Thank you for reading and commenting upon my essay.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Edwin

          Thanks for the reply.

          Then all our quests seem to be such step after step

          'agreements'towards truth over the ages.

          All my best wishes & regards.

          Dipak

          Dear Hoang

          I'm "absolutely" agree with you. But hopefully the "communication" through the "messages" what I made to you may create a different "impact".

          However, I did not defined an "absolute theory" as merely "The absorption and transmission" of "information" to and fro the wave-corpuscular-phenomena. Rather I mean by that about our whole views related to the digital nature. I hope you must agree with me that (as per our ever changing views of the same nature with the progress of ages)our absolute theory concepts, say from Pluto or Aristotelian to Eisenstein or Quantum Mechanical, how it has step wise changed particularly with the advancement of our technological capabilities? That is why I wrote to you, I've doubt about any of such "absolute theory" concept for ever for the nature. Obviously such an "absolute" theory should have to pass through all the tests with time but could be enough to disqualify even by a single test which may contradict that theory. For example you can realize what was the fate of the classical ether theory in 19th century. There may be so many other similar examples too.

          Thanks for your "communication".

          Dipak

          Dear Dipak,

          Thanks for your comments over at my essay. I enjoyed yours too! Logical approach to explore whether reality is analogue or digital, followed by a thorough examination of Bit from It and It from Bit, concluding that they are "mirror" like in their foundations - something we seem to agree upon.

          The left handed nature you mention also seems to be back neutrinos nature versus antimatter.

          Best wishes for the contest,

          Antony

            Dear Dipak,

            I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

            Regards and good luck in the contest.

            Sreenath BN.

            http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

            Dipak,

            I found that a very original and fascinating essay, carefully constructed and argued and certainly with some likely truths. I liked your

            "intrinsic quantization in both 'bit' and 'it" qualified by "observers (like us) have a natural limit to detect the nature non-digitally, even if it would be non-digital anywhere in its deeper levels"

            I did felt the lack of a comprehensive definition of the difference between digital and analogue as you saw them, but that wasn't important as it allows each reader to apply his own if he wishes. I'd none the less be interested in your specification.

            Finally I very much liked and agreed with your concept of time as a left handed flow and Inertial Anti-time: "there would be a mirror image counter part of t" That is somewhat consistent with a finding of my own in an earlier paper on astrophysics (not discussed here), but a very original approach.

            Lastly the important; "Special Relativity Principles correspond to c becomes Local", which I also argue and rationalise in my last two essays here, but still seems poorly understood by most. Some consequences of that model are applied to build an ontological construction in my own essay with, I hope interesting results. I hope you can find a chance to read and rate it. Your own position is ridiculously low and I'm very glad to assist you to a better place.

            Well done

            Peter

              Dear Peter

              Congratulations for your "IQbit"; and also thanks for some inspiring comments on my essay. I really like your essay very much as well.

              "The correlations predicted by QM appear classically impossible without spooky action at a distance or superluminal signalling" in entanglement processes is definitely inevitable. But I like to say here(in support of you) whether an intervention of a "mirror" in between two or more entangled particles would be more helpful to understand that event better?

              If two entangled particles or systems or a wave-corpuscular-phenomena (say A & B)suppose to have an 'inseparable & imaginary mirror' in-between. Then image counter parts say A2 & B2 of both A & B are also inverse to other parts say A1 & B1. Therefore, any change which can occur in say in A1 must be instanteneously create a change in the B1 part too. In my essay, it can define that, in mirror image (and inverse)relationship in-between 'non-void space' and 'non-void Anti-space', as far as A1 & B1 in once entangled A & B would be separated in 'space' their mirror image counter parts A2 & B2 would be instantaneously come closer and closer together in 'Anti-space' and vice versa. That is, the entangled pair of particles can be considered that they are never been completely separated in terms of their 'Space' & 'Anti-space' or 'Time' & 'Anti-time' or 'Inertial mass' & 'Inertial motion'.

              I definitely rate your essay at higher end of the scale and of course I would be glad to have your assistance for "better place".

              Thanks & regards

              Dipak

              Hi Joe

              Can you consider my essay for any rating?

              Regards

              Dipak Kumar Bhunia

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