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

Dear Dipak,

when I read your paper I felt indeed some similarity to my own ideas, in particular with respect to your view of the "velocity of light". I am convinced that the "velocity of light" is actually given twice - in a wave-like version and in a particle-like version. It follows as such QM as supposed by you.

In my 2012-FQXI-paper "Is the Speed of Light of Dual Nature?" I've presented a popular paper about this idea.This idea leads us - as conceived by me - directly into the realm of (Eastern) spirituality.

Kind regards

Helmut

Dear Dipak,

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay and also for rating it.

Regards,

Sreenath

Dear Dipak

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Best Luck,

Than Tin

dear Dipak,

I was alerted on your essay by Sreenath, and read it with much pleasure, however you lost me with the formula's.

My perception is that between wave and particle there is an infinity of grey tones like life is in between birth and death.

I valued very high your philosophical part.

So good luck in the contest with "a little help from your friends" we will arrive.

respectfully

Wilhelmus

It appears our comments from last night have disappeared, and I have alerted the FQXi folks. But I wanted again to offer my best regards, and wish you luck.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Dear Dipak,

I have just read your pretty Essay as I promised you in my Essay page. Here are my comments/questions.

1) I think that your statements "The digits or quanta are basic tools (or messages) in any digital observations. Those digits or quanta cannot emit from a non-digital or analog origins" are at the foundation of my solution of the black hole information paradox.

2) Your statement that "we can consider that 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" is very interesting. In that case, we should always lose part of information arising from nature.

3) By using your statement "Inertial Motion - another 'bit'" and Einstein Equivalence Principle one gets that "Gravitational Motion is the same 'bit' ".

4) You re-introduce the concept of 'ether' as a concept of fundamental continuum in classical physics. What is the difference between 'ether' and 'non-void space'? Also, notice that a perfect void space is forbidden by uncertainty principle.

5) Is there any relation between your quantized time of eq. (19) and the Planck time?

6) Concerning your ideas in paragraph 5, you could be interested to the Theory of Extended Relativity by my friends Erasmo Recami and Robero Mignani.

I think that your final statement "if 'it from bit' then 'bit from it'" is compatible with my one "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow".

I find your Essay intriguing and I bit provocative. As I like people who "think outside the box" I am going to give you an high rate.

Cheers,

Ch.

I have read your good essay, you demonstrate without doubt, the digital nature of the quantum world

"where r is the corresponding quantize radius of all MMSS; and the volume of digital nature might be a sum of all such quantized volumes of systems in it."

this assertion yours is for me the most fundamental, that the sum of surfaces including dimensionless numbers as a measure of information content. Clearly in agreement, for example, you Bekenstein limit: (2Pi R x E) / hc x In2

By its clear exposition, mathematically well-argued, and his demonstration of the use of the strong holographic principle (the information is encoded in surfaces), for all the work, I have given You a rate of 10 points

And notice that your formula: (3pi) / 4, has this remarkable property:

-(1/ {[3Pi / 4]-1}= cos(2Pi/(Phi)^2)

Where Phi is the Golden number.= (1 sqr(5) )/2

Regards

Dear Dipak,

Yes indeed zero = K = I = Singularity = infinity. I wish you all the best in your efforts to explain relative reality scientifically.

Theory of everything is that there is absolutely nothing but I

I have rated your essay as per your request.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Greetings Dipak,

I just noticed your comment on my page, and I will read your essay - which had already caught my attention. I will comment here, when done, especially if I find points to discuss.

All the Best,

Jonathan