Dear Madam,

Your essay is very interesting and different from most essays, though have many similarities with our essay. Hence kindly bear with our lengthy comment.

The last paragraph of your first part is interesting reading, but you left out the conclusions. We perceive the result of measurement by our sense organs. Where the instrument is faulty, the readings will also be faulty. Reality must be invariant under similar conditions at all times. The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality. In a mirage, what one sees is a visual misrepresentation caused by the differential air density due to temperature gradient. All invariant information consistent with physical laws, i.e. effect of distance, angle, temperature, etc, is real. Since the perception of mirage is not invariant from different distances, it is not real. Similarly, a jaundiced person sees everything yellow. Since it is known to be caused by a disease (as is color blindness), the vision is not real.

You begin the second chapter by discussing reductionism, which is one of the causes of the present maladies of physics. There is an anecdote of six blind men who went to 'see' an elephant. They touched one part of it and described the elephant by that perception. All of them are right in their description. But, even if you combine all their versions, you cannot make any meaning out of it unless you have seen an elephant earlier to put these in the right sequence - or like a jigsaw puzzle you put the right pieces in the right place accidentally. The incremental branching out of physics must stop and all theories should be rewritten by compiling all known facts in the right order.

A priori knowledge is a necessary condition for perception. In the perception "this (object - bit) is like that (the concept - it)", one can describe "that" only if one has perceived it earlier. Perception requires prior measurement of multiple aspects or fields and storing the result of measurement in a centralized system (memory) to be retrieved when needed. To understand a certain aspect, we just refer to the data bank and see whether it matches with any of the previous readings or not. We cannot even imagine something that we have either not perceived earlier or inferred from such perception. The problem arises when we try to imagine something not conforming to physical rules. We have seen rabbits and we have seen horns. But horns of rabbits are possible only in dreams and not in physics. This implies limited knowledge or knowledge boundary.

Participatory universe in the right context is not a bad idea. Everything in the universe is interconnected and interdependent. You cannot take out or isolate anything. The state of knowledge varies in each case. The plants have only one sense organ - tactile perception, which is the fundamental perception that covers other perceptions. The virus, bacteria, etc have two sense organs - tactile and olfactory. The insects have these two and in addition have ocular perception. The animals and birds have deficiency in one of the sense organs. Only humans have well developed five sense organs.

In the mechanism of perception, each sense organ perceives different kind of impulses related to the fundamental forces of Nature. Eyes see by comparing the electromagnetic field set up by the object with that of the electrons in our cornea, which is the unit. Thus, we cannot see in total darkness because there is nothing comparable to this unit. Tongue perceives when the object dissolves in the mouth, which is macro equivalent of the weak nuclear interaction. Nose perceives when the finer parts of an object are brought in close contact with the smell buds, which is macro equivalent of the strong nuclear interaction. Skin perceives when there is motion that is macro equivalent of the gravitational interaction. Individually the perception has no meaning. They become information and acquire meaning only when they are pooled in our memory. In the lower animals, all the sense organs are not fully developed. Hence their capacity to function in tandem is limited. Thus, they only respond to situations based on memory. In human beings, the sense organs are fully developed. Hence they not only respond to situations, but also plan future strategies. This is the difference between them.

In page 6, you have said that "There are no things in Quantum and no boundaries separating any two different environments. Instead the spacetime is infused with various fields that tend to taper off gradually making Quantum It appear rather fuzzy". A medium or a field is a substance or material which carries the wave. It is a region of space characterized by a physical property having a determinable value at every point in the region. This means that if we put something appropriate in a field, we can then notice "something else" out of that field, which makes the body interact with other objects put in that field in some specific ways, that can be measured or calculated. This "something else" is a type of force. Depending upon the nature of that force, scientists categorize the field as gravity field, electric field, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, etc. The laws of modern physics suggest that fields represent more than the possibility of the forces being observed. They can also transmit energy and momentum. Light wave is a phenomenon that is completely defined by fields. Thus, if the field theory is correct, the quantum world is not fuzzy. But our description is fuzzy. We can precisely describe the quantum particles. But we err in the interpretation of the mass energy equivalence equation.

The left hand side of any equation or inequality is characterized by free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The right hand side is characterized by determinism, as the results are deterministic - otherwise there would be no theory. The equality sign characterizes special conditions to be observed in each case. Unless these conditions are met (like a certain temperature threshold in chemical reactions), no interaction takes place. Alternatively, it shows the variation parameters like those in the mass energy equivalence equation. When we say e = mc^2, it does not show convertibility of mass into energy and vice versa, because energy and mass have opposite characteristics and the other term is a constant of proportionality. Both mass and energy are inseparable complements. There is nothing like bare mass or bare charge. The equation actually says: a certain amount of energy in an isolated system can spread out mass over a field with area equal to c^2 and no more. When we mix up mass and energy by factoring in the ratio of c^2, we land in problem. Thus, "let us try and keep flies separate from hamburgers".

You can visit our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published on May 31 for further details.

Regards,

basudeba

    Hello Basudeba and Mishra!

    I assume there are two of you, sine you always refer to your essay as 'our' :) Thank you for taking time to read and comment on my essay. You touch on many important points, out of which I am in the mood for answering these:

    You speak of 'perception' as requiring a prior knowledge. Yours is different definition from mine, which is simply the act of.. well, perceiving something, like say, seeing an object, registering its color and shape, etc. For example, I happen to remember myself since just a few months of age, and I remember very well my thought processes and even the shocking realization that started it all; and that was my awareness of myself as a separate entity from the rest of the world. And so I can assure you that even without language and the labels of words we can perceive the reality and come up with certain understanding.

    I'll tell you about the door in my room. My crib was facing the window on the other side of the room and a meter on the left from it was the door. I did not know that was a 'door', so in this sense you're right about the need of a prior knowledge. This magical, in my mind, rectangle held tremendous fascination for me. It was far more interesting than the window, into which, since I could not move yet, I could not look. But the door! While always retaining its rectangular shape, it changed colors during the day and sometimes almost disappeared, blending with the surrounding wall. It was the most beautiful and alluring when it was dark, for then, suddenly, a flood of warm golden light would suddenly pour out of it. The most mysterious aspect of that rectangle was that people appeared and disappeared in it. I cannot describe how fascinated I was by that rectangle!

    It was many years later that my knowledge of the 'door' formed, and that included passing through it countless times and, twice, slamming it on my finger. Ouch! I remembered that lesson so well that even now, never-ever, put my hand on the door frame (even when the door itself is taken off the hinges lol -- habit rules).

    And so regarding 'perception', I obviously have a different definition from yours. I'm not saying that mine is better or more valid -- only that the knowledge of the meaning of this word was formed in my mind by my own experiences.

    .

    Then you go on about the 5 senses. I apologize but you are obviously draw your understanding of this topic from the ideas that originated in antiquity and had not changed until the end of the 19th C. Today we know that, say, bats use echolocation for 'vision' (in addition to seeing light like we do). How would you characterize this sense among the 5? Or take the sense of electromagnetic fields used by some marsupials and fish? Into what category would you place that?

    Or let's take dogs, who rely on their sense of smell the most. Do you know that a dog actually forms a map in its head of the surrounding area, about a mile-radius. This map is formed by the streams and currents of smells a dog 'sees' in the air. This undulating map tells it what's going on around. Clearly, this goes beyond our understanding of the 'sense of smell'.

    Then you state that plants have only tactile sense. May I refer you to a popular science book, recently authored by a PhD in biology, titled 'What a Plant Knows'. I should have included it as a reference in my essay, but alas had no time for references. But in this very interesting book you may find out that plants have specialized cells to perceive either light or darkness, distinguish some colors and can 'smell' the air (among many other things). Thus they know when their kind is being damaged nearby and emit certain chemicals that attract predators for the bugs that attack their neighbors.

    So, you see, perception --in my view-- includes various types of information and processing of this information (ex. how a dog forms a map of the surrounding area entirely from smells).

    .

    Regarding my essay, the point that got lost in all that fun was that reality emerges in the dynamic structure of space (or spacetime, as time is emergent property of this primordial substrate -- I use 'space' instead so that the full implications are not obscured by the familiarity of the more prevalent today notion). In this concept --i.e. the dynamic structure of space-- dynamics = energy and structure = information. The organization, or the structure, emerges in the result of the underlying quantum processes driven by a few simple principles. In this sense, everything is made out of 'space stuff' (which itself is a dynamic, vibrating structure). To appreciate how 'matter' may emerge from harmonic oscillations within the vibrating primordial substrate you may want to check out the essay by Carolyn Devereux.

    Dear Madam,

    Like your essay, this post is also very interesting in the sense it provides food for thought. But first the clarification: basudeba and mishra are the same person's first and last names. When it comes to consciousness as the perceptor, there is no difference between individual perceptions - they all are perceived as 'I know...'. Since we are not addressing each others persona (not Marina to basudeba as persons), but mutual intellect, that commonality continues here also. We try to see the truth together. Hence we use the plural term instead of singular.

    When you say 'remember myself', you are referring to the commonality of perception of the 'self' as the 'knower'. But the word 'remember' is important. You compare your present perception of the 'self' with your perception in the childhood. Before that time, you were born and brought up, but you do not remember. Hence you do not perceive that state directly, though it can be inferred based on other observation. You perceived your mother as somebody who cares for all your needs. But you remember her as your mother only after you heard her saying "Mama cares for you". In all cases of perception, such comparison with memory occurs. A person who has lost his memory may not know many things he knew earlier, because there is nothing in the memory to compare. The instincts are nothing but comparison with experiences in latent memory. This proves the first part of our submission.

    All our perceptions have three parts: the preceptor, the object of perception and the concept that is communicated as the description of the object of perception. The last part is information, which is always communicated in a language. When you are communicating with yourself - thinking or contemplating - you use some language. Even emotions, which are expressed without using words, use non-verbal communication that is understood as specific concepts in a language. Your description of the door proves it. You perceived something that you liked or feared. But when others started calling it as 'door', you knew your perception is described as a door. Thereafter you used the word.

    Regarding sense organs, possibly you missed our statement linking the five sense organs to the fundamental forces of Nature. You say: "bats use echolocation for 'vision' (in addition to seeing light like we do)". Don't we use the same mechanism? When you look at a pillow, without touching it, don't you 'know' that it is soft? Or doesn't a blind man use his other faculties as a substitute for vision? The dog does the same using sniffing, because that sense is acute in his system. While describing fields, we have said that "if we put something appropriate in a field, we can then notice 'something else' out of that field, which makes the body interact with other objects put in that field in some specific ways, that can be measured or calculated". We see through electromagnetic radiation. The fish you describe the same technique to 'see'. You must notice our statement: "Individually the perception has no meaning. They become information and acquire meaning only when they are pooled in our memory".

    Regarding plants, don't you feel differently if someone touches your toe, hair and lips? They have different types of cells, but the mechanism of touch is same in all cases. A child could distinguish its mother's touch from others, even though the mechanism of touch and the cells of the palm are the same. But in this case the reaction is different. Plants tend to grow towards light not because they could 'see', but they 'feel' the warmth due to touch by the radiation. They respond to certain types of music, because they 'feel' the vibrations that are conducive to them. You must remember the relationship between sound and magnetism. Plants tend to enjoy the company of the gardener who tends them like a child with closed eyes gets comforted with its mother's touch. We are talking of the notions prevailing since time immemorial, but that does not mean they are unscientific. Rather we find the modern description hinged on reductionism unscientific.

    Both space and time are emergent properties born out of the perception of sequence. While space is the interval between the ordered sequences of objects that also is the background structure, time is the interval between the ordered sequences of events, i.e., changes in structures by energy. Both are information or data depending upon the context. Dynamics is not of space, but related to objects in space. We treat energy as that which moves mass. In that respect energy is one type, which becomes 5 types due to its interaction with mass. These are the strong, weak, electromagnetic interactions, radioactive disintegration and gravity. We have described the mechanism in various threads without contradiction.

    Regarding "how 'matter' may emerge from harmonic oscillations within the vibrating primordial substrate", we had described it in our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published on May 31. We will also read the essay of Carolyn Devereux.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Madam,

    We have commented on the essay of Madam CAROLYN DEVEREUX in her thread. You can see it there. Still we recommend you to read our essay.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Marina,

    Very nice essay.

    I have also seen your post on Mauro's blog:

    "Thus, in my understanding, if ToE is ever to be found, such a theory would naturally have to be background independent -- in fact, the organization of what we define as background would emerge from it -- and everything else would emerge from this background. Or, in layman terms again, every 'thing', including space-time itself, is ultimately 'made of' the underlying quantum processes."

    I completly agree with you and that is what I have developped in my essay. It is written in layman terms (I am not a physicist) and I think that you might like to read it. If so, please let me have your comments. (The full theory is here, if you are interested)

    Patrick

    Dear Marina

    I gave you July 5 5x2=10 grade

    No joking.

    Yuri

    Marina,

    This fine essay meticulously complies with the intent of the essay contest in that it contains a very high degree of relevance; it is also an absorbingly interesting work to read from start to finish. It unerringly points to the untold tragedy of physics.

    You wrote: "What constitutes information for each creature, be it bacterium, protozoan, plant, animal or insect, depends entirely on what its sensors or senses can deliver.

    Scientific man has ended that. All life forms on the planet can now only smell scientifically adulterated scents for all of the air is now polluted. All life forms on the planet can now only see scientifically altered scenery. All life forms on the planet can now only hear scientifically enhanced sounds. All life forms on the planet can only be touched by scientifically altered textures. As all life can only continue to exists providing it consumes and regurgitates differing parts of itself, all life forms are now adulterated and life will soon turn toxic.

    Man will be well informed about it though.

    Joe

    Dear Marina,

    World contests FQXi - it contests new fundamental ideas, new deep meanings and new concepts. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions.

    Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

    «The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.» http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

    I have only one question: why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

    I wish you success,

    Vladimir

      Dear Marina

      Just to let you know that I have read your insightful essay. As before I found it well written and structured. You did a great job analyzing the back and forth of information. I'd like to make a couple of brief comments about your work.

      You: it presupposes an a priori knowledge about both the universe at large and every specific

      thing in it

      Indeed, it seems that the "it" cannot be separated from the "bit" or viceversa, so, perhaps it's just a matter of convention.

      You: The only way to know It is through bits captured by our sensors...

      This discussion of whether "it from bit" or "bit from it" appears to me as a modern version of the old problems between "reason" or "experience" and "subject" or "object". I think we are discussing a similar situation: Is reason that generates the knowledge of the outside world or experience? How can we know the object without a subject? What would the subject know if there were no object to be known? Objective reality is always SUBJECTED to the appreciation of the subject... This looks like a vicious circle.

      I wish you good luck in the contest!

      Best Regards

      Israel

        Marina - I enjoyed your essay, and I like your approach very much. As I did also in my essay, you're starting from the question of how information-processes actually work in the physical world, rather than from an abstract notion of information in itself. We know a tremendous amount about how information gets observed and communicated, physically - but the inherent complexity of all such processes is daunting. Despite the evidence of quantum theory, it's hard for many to believe this kind of process could be in any way fundamental.

        In contrast, you make a very serious attempt to analyze what's going on in observing and communicating physical information. This idea in particular is just what I think we need to focus on - that "Every single thing in existence participates, i.e. it receives information, processes it and outputs in turn." As you also put it - "reality is a local phenomenon, perpetually generated anew, emerging as the result of exchange of information between all participants."

        Your 8-point breakdown of the process is very good. The one thing missing is the interactive context in which any particular piece of information gets defined, whether as input or output. I can hardly blame you for that, though, since the point of my essay is just how difficult it is to conceptualize "context" adequately. The notion is foreign to our intellectual tradition, which tends to jump back and forth between the individual viewpoint and the universal, leaving out everything between. Only in biology does local context get much attention - and I suspect it may only be in the framework of an evolutionary theory that we can really grapple with this concept.

        Thanks for a very interesting piece of work - it's very encouraging to me that there are other explorers in this particular wilderness.

          Thank you Conrad for your encouraging comments :)

          Regarding the context, in which "any particular piece of information gets defined", in my scheme, it is the milieu. It got lost in the middle of my 8-point breakdown, but actually the milieu is present throughout the process. I could have started with it, and thus emphasized it more, but it was the loop that I stressed.

          And regarding the 'definition' of a "particular piece of information", I don't even go into this. I examine 'participation' on a simple example; and imho it does not matter what sort of information that is; the underlying loop is the same.

          I used 'milieu' for the context instead of 'background' or 'environment', for the reason best shown in the following: Suppose there is a field of some sort within many other fields in the same environment, and there is a group of 'participants' that can 'trap' the bits of this field. And suppose there is a group of participants in the same environment who remain oblivious of this field. This field is the milieu for the members of the first group but not for the second. Unless there is another filed/milieu shared by both groups, the two will remain oblivious of each other, despite existing side by side. In other words, one knows of existence of only those processes with which one interacts within the same shared milieu. I did not go into these details because I saw this as self-evident ;)

          Thanks again for you feedback and please do check the essay by Prof. McHarris, if you have not done it already. You will love it.

          -Marina

          Thank you Israel for your perfunctory comments on my essay :) I read yours as soon as I saw it and was disappointed too. As I understand your position, you consider the topic of this year contest largely superfluous. This must be because you believe that our knowledge of.. 'things' amounts to 'things themselves' (here 'things' also include 'events' etc). Or, as you say above, '"it" cannot be separated from the "bit".

          I beg to differ and I find your position particularly surprising in the context of your on-going debate with 'realists' about the relevance of the absolute reference frame. This is because imho _information_ about things, and not things themselves, lies at the crux of this debate. I will return to this later in a separate post. In the meantime I want to address the end of your post, where you bring up '"reason" or "experience" and "subject" or "object"'. These are concepts pertaining awareness, consciousness and philosophy, which I too consider superfluous in physics today.

          I am not fond of Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle and I am not alone: out of all the essays I managed to read thus far (50), only one took it seriously. I make it very clear in my essay that every 'thing' in existence 'traps' and generates information and so participates equality in making a snapshot of reality. I also stress that information exists regardless of whether there are 'subjects' privy to it. Because of this I think you read my essay 2 weeks ago and by now forgot what it was about lol. Hey, I understand :)

          IMHO, 'objects' and 'subjects' is not a right way of approaching 'information'. I very much liked the indisputable truth pointed out by Conrad Johnson in his essay and that is "There's no such thing as information without a context that actually defines it." IMHO the best way of appreciating information in physics is in relativity. I will address this in the following post.

          Dear All,

          It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

          iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

          One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

          Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

          the second sub series is always defined by the equation

          Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

          Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

          Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

          Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

          Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

          Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

          Examples

          starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

          where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

          -27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

          Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

          0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

          Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

          0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

          Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

          0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

          The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.

          As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

          d-super.pdf"> The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory](https://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin

          d-super.pdf)

          Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

          I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.

          I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.

          All this started with a simple question, who am I?

          I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.

          I super positioned my self or I to be me.

          I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

          I am Fibonacci series in iSeries

          I am phi in zero = I = infinity

          I am 3Sphere in iSphere

          I am pi in zero = I = infinity

          I am human and I is GOD (Generator Organizer Destroyer).

          Love,

          Sridattadev.

          Hey Marina,

          Nice loop occurrence idea! The use of both the macro and micro in your examples really brought the whole issue into perspective. I'm personally in the boat that before one goes to the math of an item to be described, one should understand it conceptually, and hence borrow from mathematicians after some thinking about physical significance is done. Still, without the math basis, perhaps the ideas about which a physicist pursues would not be out there in the first place! So the use of animals and plants gave concrete images to get the idea of interchange of it and bit into play. It had a flow and structure in language used.

          Another point I thought significant was your mention that information and its reactions with other means of measuring or storing info constitutes the only evidence we have for matter. That this is the same type of thinking that went along with individuals interested in showing the atom to be a real piece of matter is reassuring to the future role of information in science.

          Also, I agree that the bottom up view is the most appropriate way when confronting new phenomenon or areas of thought in physics. This is where philosophy helps out the physicist, and the now present and governing philosophy must not be taken as is without question. This same type of questioning fuels debate and curiosity, both essential for the simply said grinding out of problems in current ways of thinking.

          So over all your essay is pragmatic in outlook, and offers a splendid merger of artistic vocab and searching for form in science. This is what's important to me in an essay. You mentioned light as the old medium, is curved spacetime now what must be worked with? I must ask why you stress a boundary condition though in that fractal wave-front visual. It arises without much grounds and shortly put feels different then that of the vein of writing that encompassed the rest of the piece.

          Cheers,

          Amos.

          A very nice essay you got here Marina! I should have read it long ago.

          Like you I believe information lies at the core of `reality' studied by physics. And as you said towards the end, "...reality is generated in the interplay of information with space. We know what Bit is. This suggests that IT IS SPACE". This is a conclusion with far-reaching consequences. Since It is countable, is space countable also in someway?

          You describe many beautiful and natural ways of obtaining information. But the issue is, must It give out the information or can absence of It not also be information? Take bats and dolphins use of echolocation for example. They emit sound and reflection by an 'it' make them obtain information that there is an obstacle. However, in the absence of an 'it', the bat and dolphin equally capture information that they can move in that direction without collision with an object. Therefore while, "... we know of It only through bits our senses can deliver ", absence of It does not mean absence of information.

          So when you also say,"... source of information (i.e. something that emits energy or reflects it)", from the example above source of information may not emit or reflect energy.

          You may get alternative ideas from my essay that may help us find answer to: Can a yes-or-no question get us the coveted answer?

          Best Regards,

          Akinbo

            • [deleted]

            • Post #44

            Akinbo

            thank you for your kind remarks on my essay :) I'm planning to read yours as soon as I get other projects out of the way (I had the ambitious goal of 're-writing' relativity in terms of information in two paragraphs or less lol ever since Paul Reed's post way above, and just recently brought up again by Israel Perez -- I keep getting distracted).

            You ask: "Since It is countable, is space countable also in someway?"

            IMHO, that's not a right formulation of the question. Rather, it is evident that, if ToE is ever to be found, such a theory would not only have to be truly 'background-independent', but have the 'background', such as spacetime, emerge from its framework (and, by extension, everything else emerge from it in turn). Thus in my last year essay I introduced the concept of the dynamic structure of space. Here dynamics = energy and structure = information.

            As to how exactly the structure emerges, there are 2 themes in this year contest. One is discussed in Dr. Carolyn Devereux essay, where she shows how harmonic oscillations within the vibrating primordial substrate can lead to emergence of 'matter' in it. The other one is cellular automata (CA) quantum processes, governed by a few simple rules, that, despite their inherent simplicity, give rise to great complexity. You can read about CA in essays by Prof. D'Ariano and Maria Carrillo-Ruiz (hers is a beautiful and very short, almost like a theorem, essay that has not received thus far the appreciation it deserves).

            My personal view is more aligned with Carolyn's vibrating space-time-energy continuum, even though CA may be just one of the ways of implementing the Bit part of it. The point is that, ultimately, space is all there is and 'things' are revealed in the dynamic structure of space interacting essentially with itself according to just a few basic principles (such as energy conservation). I tried to introduce this idea in my last year essay, but, as a Russian proverb goes, 'the first pancake comes out scrambled'. I will try again next year. In this regard, this year theme was instrumental in revealing a much crispier view of what is reality in our heads, won't you agree?

            You say "from the example above source of information may not emit or reflect energy."

            Yes, sure. In the context of the structure of space, a perfectly even and regular structure is equivalent to space being 'empty', while any irregularity in its perfection tells us that there is 'something' in it. Empty or containing something are two opposites, 0 and 1, from which 'information' is derived. I am looking forward to reading your essay!

            -Marina

            Hi Marina

            I'm aware that you like to discuss these topics and perhaps you were expecting to have a far-reaching discussion. May be you got me wrong in some aspects. As I said, I found your work interesting and I think you did a nice job analyzing the topic. I agree with most of what you typed. Because of this, I think I have nothing much to comment, as some people say, "it is boring agreement". You didn't disappoint me.

            In this contest we were asked whether Wheeler's dream is worthy of consideration as scientific proposal. I studied the topic and found that whether information is the main ingredient of the universe or not turns out to be irrelevant, I see this topic a matter of semantics. What matters is what you can do with that idea to explain observations. I've seen here some great jobs that exploit this view and I believe they have a lot of potential to get something valuable. But we all physicists know that regardless of the road taken, we have to come up with consistent ideas that agree with data. As mention at the end of my essay, I believe that I have found a way to get out of the present conundrum in physics assuming that the "it" is more fundamental than the "bit" and if this approach works I'll continue working on it. The key is to consider space as a material medium (or field). And this is what I expressed in my essay. I thank you for your feedback, I also felt that people would expect something different from my work but that's what I found. I'm sorry to disappoint you. I felt that the topic is more a semantical problem than a PHYSICS problem.

            You: I make it very clear in my essay that every 'thing' in existence 'traps' and generates information and so participates equality in making a snapshot of reality. I also stress that information exists regardless of whether there are 'subjects' privy to it.

            I agree but this view is the view that there is an external world that whether there is an observer or not the universe exists. This view has been discussed by philosophers for many years and yet there is no consensus. For the moment most people concur that there is an external world independent of observers. This means that information is also there independent of the observer as you remark.

            You: Because of this I think you read my essay 2 weeks ago and by now forgot what it was about lol. Hey, I understand :)

            I don't see the connection, how could you figure it out lol?

            Ok, I'll be expecting your next posts.

            Regards

            Israel

            Dear Vasilyeva

            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 regards,

            Than Tin

            Israel,

            sorry if my post annoyed you. I was just poking fun at you :) And sorry for taking so long to reply. There is a lot of going on in the woods, shroomies and berries, water and sun. Hope your summer is fun too.

            So, the information and relativity.

            ..Well, this seems so obvious to me now that I had a hard time finding the best way of stating it. It's basically comes down to how things _appear_ from each observer's POV as opposed to how they _are_ 'in reality'. It's like Cristinel Stoica says in his essay, in a different context, "Just because we don't have access to reality, but only to the bits, it doesn't mean that there is no reality." In the context of relativity, 'reality' exists in the hypothetical 'absolute' frame, the information of which is not accessible to us directly. However, some of it can be inferred, and that's what makes it relevant.

            Information is what all the arguments about relativity come down to, perhaps without participants fully realizing it. Even on this forum there are several camps from Pentcho Valev to Paul Reed and John Merryman, to Eckard Blumschein and others, and also you and Daryl Jansen vs Ken Wharton, etc. Even though each camp has a somewhat different objections and their own take on things, all the arguments can be reconciled when 'information' is brought into the picture.

            It all this boils down to what sort of information is available in various frames and whether it is empirically accessible. So, 'realists' essentially deny the relevance of the absolute frame on the grounds that its info is not available, while those who advocate for it say in effect that only because it is not directly available does not mean that we should pretend that it does not exist all.

            Presented in terms of information, all disagreements vanish. Pentcho Valev's view makes a good example. He insists that the speed of light is variable and he is probably right, from the absolute frame POV, the info in which is however directly accessible only to an equally absolute observer, not restricted by the limitations of the medium that delivers information to us. Such an observer is able to grasp everything instantaneously, in one sweeping glance, as if, clock in hand, he is present simultaneously at the source of each and every bit just starting its journey through space toward the sensors of less privileged observers.

            This is what I understood when writing the essay. That's why your position that information is irrelevant in physics I find so surprising. Your position also indicates that perhaps you actually believe that the info we get is it. Throughout my essay I allude that there is more to It than the bits at our disposal. So how can you say that you basically [yawn] agree with what I typed?

            Hi Marina

            Unfortunately, I'm not skyping with you, so I cannot see your face to tell whether you are serious or joking. All I have is your typed words and from them I have to figure out in what sense or mood you're expressing your thoughts. At first sight it seems that you're are being sarcastic. Your comments didn't annoy me, instead they surprised me.

            You: the information of which is not accessible to us directly

            Many people concur that nature seems to be jealous. She doesn't allow us to know her in great detail and conspires against us. The impossibility of the measurement of the one-way speed of light, the detection of the absolute frame, the uncertainty principle along with the collapse of the wave equation are clear indicators that nature is not willing to reveal her deepest secrets.

            You: so "realists"...

            When you say "realists" do you mean to say "relativists"?

            You: while those who advocate for it say in effect that only because it is not directly available does not mean that we should pretend that it does not exist all

            Not only because of this, but because without it we would fall into paradoxes. Please consult the original article of Ives-Stilwell. There you'll see how paradoxical SR is.

            You: He insists that the speed of light is variable and he is probably right

            I agree that the speed of light is not constant, and here again nature comes into play. Based on certain principles we can infer that the speed of light is not constant but the problem is how we measure it. The methods used to measure the speed of light are limited to two-way speed measurements and therefore we are blind about its one-way value. Pencho is right in claiming that the speed of light is not constant, but his arguments with which he arrives to such conclusion are ill-posed.

            You: he is present simultaneously at the source of each and every bit just starting its journey through space toward the sensors of less privileged observers

            Well, I would emphasize that the observer receives the information simultaneously from different sources around him, but the information was not emitted simultaneously from the different sources. Furthermore, for observers in motion, the simultaneity of events will change. From your comments, I could notice that you realize that there should be an absolute medium, I wish relativists acknowledge this just as you did.

            You: That's why your position that information is irrelevant in physics I find so surprising.

            I think you misinterpreted my words. I didn't say that information is irrelevant in physics, I said that whether information (or matter) is considered in physics as the fundamental ingredient of the world is irrelevant. Can you see the difference? That the "bit" is more important than the "it" or viceversa is, from my view, just a matter of convention or taste. They are both important, they cannot be separated. The bit can be the it and viceversa. We can say that our senses deal with matter only, and information is the result of processing the data in our brains. But we can also turn the argument over and say that our senses only receive information and from that information our brain feels that it lives in a material world. And again we are back to the problems of the external or internal world, object and subject and, experience and reason. That's why I prefer to talk about matter as the fundamental substance of the universe, because if we think that information is the fundamental substance of the universe, we would have to think that our reality is mere data and thus a computer simulation. That's what I discuss in my essay using "mundane" words.

            Regards

            Israel