Essay Abstract

The terminological contrast between "it" and "bit" marks at least three distinctions. Using this language, we might be talking about the differences between analog and digital structures. We might be talking about the differences between physical principles and more abstract informational and computational principles. Somewhat nebulously but perhaps also intriguingly, we might be trying to reach for something about a relationship between "every item of the physical world" and "an immaterial source and explanation". Because the first distinction (i.e., analog versus digital) has been extensively discussed earlier, this essay focuses on the other two contrasting pairs. With respect to the contrast between physical and informational-computational principles, two conclusions are reached. Nature does not in general operate computationally. Nonetheless, the informational concepts of complexity and entropy are significant for our understanding of existence, although the respective roles of information and of matter and energy are unclear. The last topic is approached by considering the possibilities for computation and complexity as factors in the explanation of consciousness. Neither proposed explanatory factor is helpful. It seems that consciousness does not reduce either to "it" or to "bit" or to any combination of them. The final conclusion is that, if we could better understand the connections among "it", "bit", and consciousness, then we might also make some progress on the even grander question, "How come existence?"

Author Bio

Laurence Hitterdale holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Maryland. Having worked for both business firms and academic institutions, he is currently a professor of information systems at Glendale College in California. His philosophical work is focused on ontology, philosophy of cosmology, and philosophy of mind.

Download Essay PDF File

Hello Dr. Hitterdale.

I found your essay informative, but I disagree with your characterization of "observer-participants", i.e. conscious beings, as not belonging to the question of "It from Bit or Bit from It", and in that sense not central to the enquiry stimulated by this competition. But then, I agree with you when you say that consciousness is not to be identified with complexity. Within the context which my essay provides, I answer questions posted, and in one post I answer the essay question, the answer is "It from Bit", but this answer does not contradict the "Bit from It" proposition, and in not being a conundrum it offers up an answer to the nature of consciousness and the nature of our participation as conscious observers. Moreover, in my essay conclusion, which offers up a new version of cosmology, there is a prediction which if found to be actual, will add weight to the nature of our participation in the conservation of creation. And if not found actual will shoot me down in flames. I enjoyed your essay, and I hope you enjoy my essay and find it informative. I also welcome your comments because my work is in essence a work of philosophy; right up your alley.

Good luck in the contest.

Zoran.

    Laurence,

    "Here is the clue: Look for how come in how."

    Well said! If you are looking for evidence to support your position I have presented such evidence in my essay. I hope you will find value in it towards your research. The how is indeed paramount.

    Best wishes,

    Manuel

    Dear Laurence,

    Two birds with one stone. If that's not worth a 10, I don't know what is! You handle both "bits as fundamental" and "universe as computer" masterfully. I don't see how anyone reading your essay could believe in either when they finished. You sliced and you diced!

    I like the way you held time out as special. Wheeler recognized time as the fly in the ointment. Time is inherent to computation, it is not computed. If it is computed, it is second-order or 'simulated' time; first-order time is necessary for ordering, period. But this, as you note, is an 'it' or physically real element upon which all 'bits' depend, establishing physical reality over information. You also gave quantum computing the benefit of the doubt, as there's no evidence that such computation is suited for much beyond factoring.

    In my essay and elsewhere, I point out that it is energy that is transmitted, and the only question is whether or not the transmitted energy crosses the relevant threshold. If so, it restructures or "in-forms" a structure, and thus becomes "in-form-ation". The "bit" is simply a stored representation of the threshold crossing, and it's binary nature derives from the nature of the threshold. The bit is not fundamental, the threshold is. Except for analog computation (which does not depend on bits) all computation is also a timed sequence of threshold crossings, (or not). Thus you were wise to focus on "the universe as computer", since, as you say: "bits connect information and computation... the common currency for both."

    I also found your discussion of DVD's and engineering specs be masterful!

    Finally, consciousness. I'm very glad so many FQXi participants recognize that "information" cannot be treated properly if one ignores consciousness. The interpretation and meaning of information, the context, and knowledge gained from information -- none of these make any sense without consciousness. You also framed this problem perfectly.

    Your discussion of 'simplicity and complexity' made the multiverse look like a cartoon!

    You mentioned the holographic principle, but I would note that the "area relation" can be derived from energy considerations alone, with no mention of information, although Steven Sax discusses some interesting connections to statistics in his essay.

    Finally you focus on consciousness. I agree with your conclusions. I have, in an earlier FQXi essay, focused on consciousness, and my current essay also deals with the topic. I hope you will read my current essay and comment on it.

    Thank you for an exceptional treatment of it, bit, and something more.

    My best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Laurence Hitterdale,

      Thank you for presenting a beautiful essay here. You have nicely concluded it by saying, ''''' The final conclusion is that, if we could better understand the connections among 'it', 'bit', and consciousness, then we might also make some progress on the even grander question, 'How come existence?' '''''

      We form a picture of every matter in the world in our brain. It may be called consciousness or mind. On our death the whole picture gets vanished. What ever we communicate to other will remain. For communicating we describe the material, that description is called information. This information is written , coded and stored in a computer or it is in our memory.

      So in other words , do you feel this information from the consciousness is sufficient to create matter from nothing?

      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 Laurence,

        You wrote an interesting survey of several important questions Wheeler put on the table. Below are a few comments.

        You: If my world is computed, am I computed too?

        Me: Very good question. I suspect many things are not computed as discussed in other essays of this contest (Szangolies, Crowell, Heinrich...)

        You: the hypothesis that consciousness is a form of computation seems as implausible as ever.

        Me: may be a kind of quantum computation, or a kind of neuronal computation like in the perceptron.

        You: When we talk about "observer-participants", we are talking about conscious beings.

        Me: I don't think so. Currently, quantum contextuality is a way to understand Wheeler's sentence. I does not need consciousness of the observer.

        You: "How come existence?" So, I propose to look at consciousness alongside "it" and "bit".

        Me: I agree, I also found the idea of self-awareness in some essays. But it seems to be non-physical despite Wheeler's viewpoint.

        Even worse the "law without law", but you did not look at this Wheeler's concept.

        Best wishes,

        Michel

          Laurence

          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

          I found your essay very interesting on many points. I like the notion that time is a factor common to both It and Bit. In my view, this leads to the conclusion that It and Bit are correlated, whereas whatever other relationship they may have is more open to conjecture.

          As you say, the universe can't be all Bits, and we must reject 'computationalism'. However, the universe is a projection of our processes of cognition - or more accurately, it is the mind that takes continuous imprints (information processing in nature) of the physical world, and stores them, according to the complexity of the species, over the evolutionary time plane.

          I find that this is well illustrated by your metaphor of the DVD.

          In my essay, the concept of correlation is shown to be the defining relationship between information and the field of observation; otherwise, and I think this is an undercurrent in your work, we're caught up in a variety of problems that are usually founded upon subjectivity: The proposition that we, and the universe are synchronized computers, for instance, is either void of meaning (creating a universe that cannot be distinguished from ourselves), or it illustrates correlation.

          A more direct interaction between Bit and It is manifestly impossible.

          I think you'll find my Paradigm agrees with your thinking. It shows how the correlation between Bit and It occurs as a result of our Cosmic system's interaction with the General Field of Cosmae.

          I describe our four fundamental forces as being the 'splitting up' of a 'Gravitational-Magnetic Force' that comes from the energy field that envelops our Cosmos - a Force that simultaneously affects each of its Particles individually, and sub-divides them into the three groups that define our Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive entities.

          Both the Cosmos and the Observer are similarly affected by this Force, so that it maintains them in Correlation over billions of years.

          Thus, the 'single-field' Cosmos (consisting of the Observer viewing an environment (or universe) founded upon one field), is replaced by a three-field structure that includes the Observer and therefore accounts for our participatory Cosmos - and for the way the Cosmos 'stores information'.

          I'd love to hear what you think of this.

          Lastly, that consciousness is not information processing is absolutely correct. Is it not an imprint the mind takes of itself contiguously with its imprints of the biological and inorganic realms? And, further, is it not a contributing element to our evolution?

          You say: 'If there is a unified world picture, consciousness belongs to it in some other way.'

          Then, let's consider this: If the mind, the organism, and the inorganic elements of the universe are distinctly produced by a General Field of Cosmae, and held in a Correlated relation by this Field, is it not possible to speak of the General Field as exerting an Evolutionary Impulse upon all three spheres?

          In this case - please tell me if you agree - consciousness would be the correlating element between the General Field and the organic and inorganic components of the Cosmos.

          Many thanks for this serious work, and all the best!

          (Though my post is appearing as anonymous I am a contestant - John Selye, 'The Correlation of It and Bit in a Cosmic System' - I hope to fix this problem soon!)

          John.

            • [deleted]

            • Post #10

            Hello Dr Hitterdale

            I very much appreciate the care you took in teasing out the very complex, some might say unwieldy, synthesis of concepts Wheeler used in his talk. I too found the connections in that talk to be quite nebulous, perhaps even disconnected.

            I found the section on consciousness to be the most interesting, especially the allusion to the mind-body problem, in the recognition that the experience and the underlying computation cannot be the same thing. Unfortunately I was unable to address this issue in my essay due to a lack of space. I see what you mean about the illusion of the illusion of seeing, as an infinite regress, implying that conscious experience cannot be a type of information processing.

            Because of your connection to philosophy, I am keen you will consider my essay also. Feel free to challenge it.

            Best wishes

            Stephen Anastasi

            Bother!

            The last post was not intended to be anonymous; the system logged me out.

            Stephen James Anastasi

            What I meant to say is that the topic of observer-participants is not obviously related to a question about the relations of "it" and "bit". At a deeper level, however, there is a connection, because it (physical existence), bit (informational order, more comprehensively viewed as abstract mathematical order), and consciousness all three seem to be fundamental factors in reality. But to elaborate this guess about the nature of things is a difficult task.

            First, my thanks for the kind and generous over-all judgment. I much appreciate your comments.

            The subject of time is, it seems to me, fundamental to any understanding of how things are. I would distinguish two basic strategies for dealing with time. One is to accept all the apparent properties of time as fully real and objective in nature. The other is to consign some of time's properties to mere appearance. Passage or flow (i.e., the river of time) and asymmetry between past and future are two features that many thinkers have tried to explain away. As I understand the situation, time as experienced and normally understood is hard to reconcile with reality as presented in contemporary physics. On the other hand, features of time demoted from objective reality have to have their apparent reality explained somehow, and that is not easy to do.

            In particular, if the flow of time is not objectively real, the obvious explanation for the "illusion" of flow is to say that subjective consciousness projects a sense of passage onto the world. This proposed explanation is evidently inconsistent with the position that consciousness itself is not a fully real aspect of existence. Sweeping something under a rug is not a useful technique when the rug has already been sold as surplus.

            Finally, on information, I think the concept of information which is the basis for these essays is the minimal structural notion of distinguishable states. This is not information in an ordinary sense. Information in the very abstract sense of Shannon does not say what we are talking about. The compensating advantage of this concept of information is its comprehensive applicability. We can use it to measure the "bits" necessary to describe anything. The essay topic, as I interpret it, is about the relationship between such an abstract structural order and the more concrete existence that we think we find in nature.

            Laurence,

            You say, "The subject of time is, it seems to me, fundamental to any understanding of how things are." I fully agree. I would also point you to a current essay, Time is the denominator of existence, and bits come to be in it by Daryl Janzen. In this and his previous essay, he develops a 'presentist' view that is nevertheless consistent with General Relativity (his specialty).

            I also agree with you that: "I think the concept of information which is the basis for these essays is the minimal structural notion of distinguishable states. This is not information in an ordinary sense. Information in the very abstract sense of Shannon does not say what we are talking about."

            Thanks again for your excellent essay, and good luck in the contest.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            I enjoy your appreciation that the problem of consciousness doesn't seem to reduce to bit, and your proposal that it doesn't reduce to "it" either. There's been some speculation that the "Something More" is perhaps quantum at some level in nature (in my paper I neglect much dealings with consciousness, but I talk about a similar issue of the problems of describing some aspects of reality). Your ideas are reminiscent of the ideas of Chalmers who I admire- I'm glad we have some philosophers in here as well as the usual physics/engineering crowd :)

            Have skimmed so far since I'm trying to take in a number of interesting essays, but wanted to let you know I appreciate what you're working on here. I'm not going to beg you to read or rate my essay but I would enjoy any discussion from a philosopher's perspective if you find my approach interesting or enjoyable :)

            Good luck !

            Cheers,

            Jennifer

              Thank you for your comments. I will try to read your essay, and will comment on it there.

              With respect to quantum approaches to consciousness, as for example, the ideas of Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, I would question whether such an hypothesis, if true, would of itself solve the problems of (1) what consciousness is and (2) how it is connected to the rest of things. It is not easy to see how quantum states could actually be conscious, particularly when other seemingly similar quantum states are not. The problems are not solved, but are merely transferred from neurons and neuronal assemblages to smaller and stranger constituents of nature.

              The second paragraph of this comment poses the mind/body problem. What is the relationship between "in the brain" and "in the mind"? I don't think we really have a definitive answer to this question yet. The third paragraph asks whether I believe information is sufficient to create matter from nothing. No, I do not. Information, in the abstract sense understood for these essays, is a type of abstract mathematical structure. Which mathematical structures apply to physical existence is a fact external to the mathematical structures themselves. It is a further fact, the fact of contingent existence. One way to see this is to notice that some mathematical structures are physically relevant, but others, which as pure mathematics are just as good, have no physical relevance at all. The only way to evade this conclusion, it seems to me, is to embrace modal realism. That doctrine has problems of its own.

              Responses to three items in this comment:

              (1) Whether consciousness is any kind of computation would seem to be an important question. So far it doesn't look as though the kind or location of the computation ("a kind of quantum computation, or a kind of neuronal computation") would make a difference.

              (2) I agree that some thinkers believe that non-conscious, strictly physical processes, reduce the quantum wave function. As I understand it, this view is often called an "objective reduction" interpretation. Hence, on objective reduction interpretations, conscious observer-participants are not needed for this important transition. I suppose it is a matter of semantics whether or not one chooses to call these reducing entities "observer-participants."

              (3) In his original article Wheeler did not talk about "law without law." You say that concept of his is "even worse." It does seem to me that the concept will not work as a foundation for the existence we see. I do not see how pure indeterminacy and indefiniteness can lead, either in time or in logic, to specific details. "Law without law" sounds too much like Hegel's attempt to derive everything from pure and empty being as such.

              This posting raises a number of issues, and it would not be possible to respond to all of them. However, to items can be discussed. First, I am not sure what proposal is being made about the relationship of the cognizing mind to the external world. "The universe is a projection of our processes of cognition" sounds like some sort of subjective idealism. However, this is immediately modified to something that sounds like representational realism. The latter view seems more plausible to me. Second, I agree that reality as we encounter it appears to contain diverse elements. We think these elements fit together in ways that we do not understand. There seems to be a proposal here to postulate a large "master field" which will hold all other things together. This raises such questions as the evidence for this field, the nature of its intrinsic properties, and an explanation for the capacity of the field to act upon the lesser entities immersed within it.

              Hi Laurence,

              I enjoyed your essay and thought that you brought up some valid points. Overall, though, I would have to classify myself as a "computationalist" and so will play devil's advocate to your position here. You wrote:

              1. "Clearly the cosmos could not contain the information describing such a small though intricate subpart of itself. Still less could the cosmos compute that description."

              Why would a virtual world have to contain the resources to compute itself? It seems possible (in theory) to stipulate any finite capacity for the computational substrate. For example, that substrate can take as "long" as it needs to compute each "timestep" of the virtual world, even perhaps starting and stopping while it does so. Within the virtual world it would appear that the clock ticked once regardless.

              2. What data types are used? What mode of representation for each type?

              I give one possible answer in my essay Software Cosmos. I also treat what I think Wheeler means by "participatory universe".

              3. "Another thing to say about computationalism is that, if it be true, computations do not merely supplement what we now take to be the workings of nature. Instead, the computations would operate instead of natural laws. Natural laws would not directly determine that electric lights work, that tables and chairs stay solid, and that food nourishes."

              I do not see why the computational model could not be understood as just the implementation of natural laws. We take macroscopic objects to be composed ultimately of sub-atomic particles that follow physical laws. If the compuational model of the lowest level particles causes them to behave as physics describes, why is this a worse explanation than some abstract mathematical description of the same thing? In the latter case we have an explanatory gap: how is it that an abstract mathematical equation is realized in the behavior of a part of nature?

              4. "If everything is really "it from bit", then we shall have to find some other and more specific way to differentiate between the "bits" of mind and the "bits" of everything else."

              I agree with you on that. The conclusion in my essay is "It from Bit and Bit from Us" and I offer an analogy for the conscious observer within a virtual world.

              Hugh

                Dear Laurence,

                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