The Play of Mind in Emptiness by M. V. Vasilyeva

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

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

Hi Marina

To me the fundamental substance of the universe is matter (it could information, energy or consciousness, the name is irrelevant, the important is the concept) and space is made of matter. When I say matter, I don't mean the ordinary matter of the standard model, simply matter in the sense of Aristotle. So, space is a material field or fluid and therefore is a medium not only for electromagnetic phenomena but also for particles (of the standard model), understanding particles not as hard spheres but as energy packets and excitations of space. Whereas electromagnetic fields are states of space.

You: The medium I referred to in both my essay and the post above was plain [yawn] EMR.

Ok, I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your words then. With respect to your second paragraph, I don't share your opinion that SR is not paradoxical, but I respect it.

Unfortunately, I couldn't open the video but thanks for sharing, I'll look into the internet, it looks interesting.

You: for he omits a crucial fact about what constitutes 'looking' in the quantum world...

"looking" means the uncertainty principle and the measurement problem. Nature again is laughing at us.

Regards

Israel

Hi Marina

You: again it seems I ruffled your feathers

I don't know how you figure out this. Not at all!

You: when you say that space is the 'absolute medium', do you mean some other form of energy, besides EMR and gravity, it can carry? I find this line of reasoning fascinating.

My notion of space is as if space were an ocean of matter. EMR are transversal waves travelling in this ocean whose speed is defined by the properties of the medium.

You: Regarding SR, what paradox(es) in particular do you refer to?

Let's say the clock paradox.

You: I'm sorry but in this particular case, 'looking' means placing a detector in the path on an atom, which, in my sprinter analogy above represents a bonafide hurdle. To 'look' here means to interfere _physically_ both with the atom and its surrounding medium.

Again, the uncertainty principle and the measurement problem, mean either "interfere physically" or "place a detector". A detector is a measuring device that interferes with the system under study, in this case the atoms. When we perform a measurement, i.e., we look, we put in action the uncertainty principle and at the same time the measurement destroys the state of the system, i.e., the wave function collapses.

You: Have you read the essay by Carolyn Devereux? She describes how harmonic oscillations within the primordial substrate can lead to emergence of 'matter'

No I haven't, but that's not new. In QFT particles of the standard model are created from the quantum vacuum (the material space for me). In my view material particles are not created from space because space is already made up of matter. They only get shape from space when we excite space. Check this video, this is my idea of particle and space: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyjwZ39EDmw.

Regards

Israel

Hi again Marina

Thanks for recommending me Carolyn's essays. I just read it with expectation and I could notice also that she hasn't realized the deep implications of assuming particles as resonances of space, i.e. that space is a substance, a medium for the resonances and therefore a privilege frame of reference. Which obviously contradicts the mathematical formulation of relativity. As in the link of the video that I give you in my previous post, the resonances move absolutely relative to water, being water the absolute frame that is space itself. Do you get what a mean by medium?

Israel

Dear Madam,

This is our letter to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic - "complex, even inexplicable behavior". Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of "the deer population in Northern Michigan", is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

Infinities are like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others - every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use "a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers", you do just that through "comparison and exchange instructions". You develop these by "inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by 'mating' parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated" and repeat it "thousands upon thousands of time" till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought "evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible". After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area - the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally 'illuminates' the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Dear Marina,

I want to express my best congratulations for your very well written essay, which I rated very high.

Needles to say that I share your position that "information lies not only in the heart of Life but also is at core of `reality' studied by physics''. What I'd like to remark is that it is crucial that such information be quantum. Hence: It from Qubit. Space-time would never emerge from classical bits: it needs quantum bits! The classical information is the one available to the observer, what we call the "event"-the experimental outcome-everything that we consider objective. Or else, using the cryptographic paradigm: classical information is openly known, quantum Information is secret. Regarding Wheeler's "participatory universe", I'm not sure I share this. The boundary that generates new information as mentioned in your essay is the boundary between the coherent quantum evolution and the observer, where the secret is disclosed to the yes-no question.

And to get to your finale: information is never stored. It always flows. Storing information is a temporary loop made with interaction with ancillary systems.

At least, this is my own re-reading of your essay.

Compliments again, Marina.

My best wishes

Mauro

Dear Marina,

What a lovely, lyrical essay! I enjoyed it thoroughly, for it combines common sense with scientific discipline. And I think you are skirting around the idea of nonlinear dynamics, even chaos theory, with your recursive loops. I expound on this idea a little more in my reply to your comments on my essay, "It from Bit from It from Bit..."

Again, thanks for your comments -- and especially for your insight and lovely writing style.

Best wishes,

Bill McHarris

Hi Marina

Indeed, some people, including myself, think that the quantization arises from the continuum and some plausible explanations have been given.

I didn't understand what you really mean in your 3rd paragraph. From your 4th paragraph I could notice that you don't have clear the physical meaning of the uncertainty principle and the measurement problem.

The uncertainty principle tells us, in its general formulation, that when two observables, say, A and B, do not commute it is not possible to determine their values simultaneously. The relation between two non-commuting observables is AB-BA=ih where i is the imaginary number and h is the planck constant divided by 2pi. When we work out the math we obtain that DeltaA*DeltaB=h/2, this is the expression of the uncertainty principle. Two observables that do not commute are, for example, the position X and the velocity V (or momentum P=mV) of a particle. So, according to the latter expression, we cannot measure with precision V and X simultaneously, because the measurement of V will affect the actual position of the particle and viceversa. Thus, in the case of the double slit experiment, the detector is placed to measure the X of the particle but the measurement of X affects its velocity. The more accurate the determination of X the higher the ignorance of V (and viceversa).

Now, before the measurement, in theoretical terms, the quantum state of the system IS WELL DEFINED, but given that the measurement affects the state of the system it is said that the state collapses, that is, it becomes unknown. It's unknown because we don't know how the measurement will affect the system. Thus, that the detector "interferes" means that the detector perturbs the initial quantum state of the particle by either affecting the particle's velocity or its position (depending on what we are measuring). As you say, the particle is in one of many possible states and, according to the theory, the state before the measurement is WELL KNOWN but the measuring process destroys the knowledge of the state. Does it make sense?

With respect to your 5th paragraph. I don't remember Andrew but I do remember the article, it's very interesting. Actually, you can see a new and beautiful video of that phenomenon here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE. The droplets are called walkers for two reasons, because the last name of the discoverer of this phenomenon is walker and because the droplets appear to walk on the liquid. In the most recent reports, researchers seem to reproduce quantum phenomena such as interference. These results suggest that the microscopic world is not different from the macroscopic one. In this analogy the droplet represents the resonances or excitations (that we see as particles) of space and the water represents the medium, i.e., the substantial space (the substance for me is matter). Again, I would like to insist and make this very clear, the water is the absolute system of reference just as space is. The velocity of the particles is defined absolutely not relative to other objects in space, as relativity affirms, but with respect to the water (i.e. space). Do you agree? Do you understand why the kind of resonating space (that you, Devereux, me and others support) implies an absolute system of reference? In relativity the velocity of the particles is defined relative to other objects because space itself is not a substance and cannot be taken as a reference system. Space in relativity is neither a fluid nor a material medium. Do you now understand why this contradicts relativity?

You: Yes, I surely do, even though I --in my naivete perhaps-- also differentiate in the types of.. signals? it can carry. For example, EMR is a transverse wave and gravity is supposedly longitudinal (in 4D), but in addition, it can carry the resonances of vibrations, no?

Hmm, it seems that you have a mixture of the notion of "medium" and that you use the word "milieu" as synonym of "medium" or "environment". From your comments I have the impression that you also understand "medium" as something that carries energy or information. I sense that you are considering a wave also as medium. No, I think that notion is sort of colloquial (no offence). In physics, in particular, in mechanics of continuous media (check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics), when we say medium we mean a continuous distribution of a substance (usually matter), lets say like water, that extends over some region. For instance, the waves in the ocean are perturbations of water (the medium), without the medium waves cannot exist. On the contrary, Einstein argued that EMR needs no medium (the so called aether) and that EMR can move in empty space. According to him electromagnetic waves are not perturbations of space. It's as if we removed the water and left the waves alone moving without water, the waves are not perturbations of nothing, not even of space. Do you see what I mean by medium?

Regards

Israel

Deat Marina,

I noticed your last lovely message yesterday, and today it disappeared! By the way, I noticed also another message from you few weeks ago that disappeared (it was written before the one that is answered in my post). I read it in bed during the night, and the day after I thought that I had just dreamt it. Now I know that it was there. Two messages from you have been lost. Do you know what happened? Can you replace them?

I just arrived to Chicago from Italy yesterday. I will answer in my blog tomorrow.

My best regards

Mauro