‘It from bit’ equally ‘bit from it’ by Dipak Kumar Bhunia

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 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 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

Dipak,

I agree you proposition of mirror symmetry, but as the real relation between the so called 'singlet state' pairs, so I don't need to invoke and real 'anti space' to find the same result. I've scored you essay very high as I am convinced the solution is correct and valuable, however described.

But there is then no inevitability about FTL because there is another parameter not allowed for by Bell. The pairs have opposite spin but the same spin axis orientation as orbital angular momentum. Detector settings will then be reciprocal, and uncertainty increase at each detector when settings are not identical or opposite around the 360 degree orbit. I hope you then also consider mine worth a top score. The experimental evidence of this is shown in the link to the expanded essay in the top blog post, with the additional figure towards the end.

Best of luck in the results.

Peter

Hi Deepak -

I think many of your conclusions concur with mine, though I produce a more structural, or physical version of the Cosmos.

It seems you conclude that It and Bit are correlated, which is the same conclusion I reach - but again in different terms.

I hope you'll be kind enough to read and rate my essay, and I wish you all the best in the competition,

John

Dear Dipak,

Yes let me know on my thread if you want me to rate soon, otherwise I'll probably do so when I've read all essays.

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear Kumar,

Thanks for your attention to my work. I understand that it written not vein because many people have reading it with enough interest. I have rated your work by quick acquaintance as a good, but my comments I hope I will send you later (now is tensioned time, as we understand!) I can just suggest you to use more references and more certainly formulated conclusions/resume. Please in your free time to read the references in my work. I hope that these will some useful and interesting for you. Particularly about old dilemma of duality problem, you can find some more.

I wish you all of the best,

George