Essay Abstract

Information and computation are two concepts that are being applied every day more and more in science. However, these concepts are sometimes misunderstood about what they imply by several physicists and several computer scientists. Information and computation are not mathematical concepts as computer scientists usually think and also they are deeper physical concepts than what physicists usually assume. For this reason, this essay is dedicated to explain why information and computation are physical concepts and why they are deeper concepts. Until now, computation and information are concepts derived in the epistemic scheme of energy but they could be taken as fundamental concepts allowing us to understand nature from a new perspective.

Author Bio

Bachelor in Computer engineer, Master in Computer Science, Master in Intelligent Systems, Master in Neurosciece, phd. student in informatics and automatics

Download Essay PDF File

You say that at as to the nature of the bit you have not any idea, and I can happily admit to being in he same boat.

I think it is keen to employ bits for the purporse of explaining "its", ie physical matter, and not so important to explainng bits themselves

    Thanks for reading it. Sorry if the English was not good in the article because I was terribly busy in my company and I did it for the night almost no sleeping. Yes, you are right; I think the same; time has come to use the concepts of information and computation to explain nature because as I say in the article we are living in a special moment to jump to a new epistemic paradigm. The issue is that many people identify information and computation with discreteness, but one could formulate theories with concepts of continuous information and computation without any problem. Information and computation can be as fundamental as the concepts of force and energy in his respective epistemic schemes. Energy is quantified due to experiments and if information and computation could be discrete or continuous. For me, the key is that we must think about a new epistemic scheme, or epistemic paradigm. Information and computation are not mathematical concepts but physical concepts, and we must not define information or computation inside the epistemic scheme of energy if we want to go further using the concepts. Let me ask you, what do you think about my idea of look time as a channel of communication?

    Sergio,

    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

    Dear Sergio,

    Thank you for a good essay on information and computing. You have given out good concepts. Why do you think they both are not mathematical but they are physical concepts, they are in the minds of human only............

    meanwhile,

    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 SNP Gupta,

      I have read it your article and now I understand why you make me that question.

      I agree that all is created by our mind so I agree with your conclusion of it from bit from taht point of view, but you can not stop there. I have evolutive arguments to think that what our brain creates it is because something exist also outside and we need to know about it(although there are many things about what we do not know of course). But if we accept that the universe is real let's go to your question. Many people take historical roots of information and computation to label the concepts but information and computation are no mathematical. For example, if hypercomputation is possible the limit of computation is different that if it is not possible. It is similar to states of matter, it is not the same if superposition is possible or not. However, transfinite numbers are mathematical concepts they are independent of the universe where we are living. Information and computation depend on the universe where we are living as the mass of quarks.

      I am very impress about you are fighting with the problem of where all come from. I have not enough knowledge to say if you are right or wrong about the CMB but finally the only method to fight against the main stream are predictions and experiments. If I can give you an advice it is that you must do predictions and experiments to see the difference between your proposal and the main stream.

      Sincerely,

      Sergio

      Hi Sergio,

      I have read your essay carefully and I think that it fits more to the FXQi 2011 contest "Is Reality Digital or Analog?" and it is rather a philosophical essay (as the epistemology itself). Or maybe I do not comprehend your concept?

      However I would try to paraphrase your statement about the simplest model of communication:

      - Source: a wavepacket (deformed spacetime)

      - Sink: a wavepacket (deformed spacetime)

      - Channel of communication: the spacetime itself

      In the quest for the simplicity.

      Best regards

        Thanks for reading me. In my opinion if reality is analog or digital is not a discussion but an issue which must be resolved with experiments. The essay is not philosophical although yes epistemological about information and computation. Many people argue against the concepts of information and computation that the universe is continuous or analogical. When I read these arguments, I see that they unknown that information and computation are concepts which can be defined in a continuous domain. That is the reason because I consider information and computation are fundamental concepts, which is one of the issues of this contest. Also I see many people claiming information and computation are mathematical concepts but that is not possible because they are linked to the universe, or even better, every universe has its proper information and computation as its values of mass and charge for the quarks. The limit of computation is not a mathematical issue but a physical issue, and many people are wrong about it because the demonstration of the Turing limit of computation is mathematical. That demonstration is about the mathematical model of Turing no about the nature. We have to find the computational model which fix with nature to know the limit of computation.

        My proposal of the simplest model of communication is that it is a framework to elaborate theories; one theory could be your idea on how to interpret the simplest model of communication. People speak about information as element for a concrete theory but it is an element of epistemic scheme. Let us look the concept of energy, energy could be continuous or discrete, we can formulate both theories because energy is no a concept of a theory but a concept of a framework. Hence, information and computation can let us understand better nature because they give us a new framework where formulate new theories. So if one identified information and computation with the concrete information and computation of a theory and say information and computation are wrong because the experiments showed different features it would be a terrible error, because many other theories could be formulated with different values for information and computation.

        I hope I answered to you

        Hello Sergio,

        I am pleased to read your essay and especially liked the conclusions. Totally agree: «The epistemic scheme of information it is no only a hope to go further in physics but also and epistemic scheme to achieve one of the biggest challenges of the humans, the unification of science.» See my essay, maybe you'll agree that the central core of the new "epistemic scheme" will be the idea of "ontological (structural) memory"? Tell me, please, your e-mail. Good luck and regards, Vladimir

          Dear Sergio,

          thank you for your contribution, i enjoyed reading the essay a lot. You are bravely opening a controverse field of discussion. I consider your arguments as interesting, but I agree with snp gupda on the fact that it is lacking experimental practice. Would be curious about the epistemic scheme of information, but still not sure about the unification of science.

          all the best for your work,

          AF

            Thanks for your words. is your idea of the "ontological memory" similar to the idea of cell automata? I need more information about that concept to give an opinion. For me the core of the new epistemic scheme is that information is the cause of all phenomena, as energy is the cause of all phenomena in the actual epistemic scheme of physics. The definition of information must be the first target of every theory.

            You are right about foundations of mathematics but I do know how information and computation could help to it. Information and computation are physical concepts no mathematical concepts. Category theory was the last attempt to give foundations to mathematics but although I like it because it is very powerful I see some problems. You are right people avoid that subject in mathematics.

            There is a link between computation and logic but in my opinion no all computational notions can be interpreted as physical process. So I would need to see the rules of the Delta-logic to give an opinion. Delta-logic is a kind of dynamic epistemic logic?

            My e-mail is sergiom (at) usal.es

            Hello Sergio,

            The idea of "ontological (structural) memory" and «Delta-Logit» born of the search and the nature of the information previously constructed by constructing the fundamental ontological structure of existence - "Absolute generating structures." For more details about it in my previous essay in 2012: «Paradigm of the Part Vs. Paradigm of the Whole ... The Absolute Generative Structure» http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

            Was used in constructing the idea of N.Bourbaki - "generating structures" (mother). Their Bourbaki - three. But it was not the main and only structure that Umberto Eco described as "missing." On the basis of dialectical logic, ontology and dialectic "coincidence of opposites" I built, as you well named, the initial "epistemic scheme" that represent the simplest mathematical symbol generating fundamental structure - a "structure-mother." So that the very piece of information «Delta-Logit», reflects the dialectics of generating new structures of nature, it is based - the dialectical logic. In principle, it can be called a «dynamic epistemic logic». The main thing - to grab the first generating structure, "missing" today in basic science. This is the solution to the problem of the essential justifying knowledge, especially basic sign systems, mathematics and physics. Solving the problem of justification of knowledge solves the problem of the nature of the information. Regards, Vladimir

            • [deleted]

            • Post #14

            I mean, dynamic epistemic logic is a well developed logic which is used in Artificial Intelligence in multiagent systems. Have you worked with this logic? Let me know because I have a good background in logics and I can give you mathemathical advices if you need it.

            Best regards,

            Sergio

            Dear Anna,

            Thanks for reading me and your words. I have to tell the idea of epistemic scheme or epistemic paradigm is not a issue of experimental practice upon the following. A epistemic scheme, or a epistemic paradigm, is a framework where develop theories. The theories must do predictions which must be true in the experiments, but the framework does not do predictions. One needs a framework where build a theory. The epistemic scheme (the framework) gives the fundamental concepts which will be used in the theories but the theory is the element which specify values and relations for the fundamental concepts. Of course it will be a problem for a epistemic scheme if none achieve a theory which does not do new predictions or right predictions; but as I cited in the article there are at least some theories proposed that belong to the epistemic scheme of information.

            Unification of science is the gold dream of scientists. Of course I am not sure about it is possible but actually the notion of information and computation are fundamental in cognitive science, artificial intelligence. At this moment, biology can not be understood with out the concepts of information in the genetic code and the send of signals among cells. In sociology the nets of communication among individuals are a key concept to understand complex behaviors. Nature, without doubt, must be described with a hierarchy of languages, my opinion is while energy or force doesn't work as concepts in all the levels of the hierarchy, only in the level of physics, information and computation could be used in all the levels because already is being used in many of them.

            Best regards,

            Sergio

            • [deleted]

            • Post #16

            Dear Hoang cao Hai

            You are right; computation and information are different concepts but they are complementary. Information is the state of nature and computation evolves the information. However I was long time worried about theory of information speaks about transmission of symbols and theory of computation speaks about operations of modification on symbols, and they did not seem related. It changed when I understood that a process of computation is a channel of communication, being the message transmitted all the state of the computational system. So, as I have stated in my paper: the theory of computation and the theory of information are sides of the same coin.

            Let me tell you I have a problem with your claim that the relative is created by us. Einstein showed that the position and the time of an event are relative to the observer but it is not because we created but due to the system of reference of the observer. It means it is relative to the position and the time of the observer, so space and time is intrinsically relative. We know that a combination of space and time let create a quantity which can be conserved letting create and order between cause and effect. However for events which are not related there is not way to establish and absolute notion of where and when it happens, all depends of the observer. So, we can see that it is in contradiction with your claim of all the things are absolute. Sorry, but special relativity is very well established and checked. Also, out of physics I don't see absolute around us; the same fact can be happy for you and sad for me. Eg. If you win the contest then I lost so it is happy for you and sad for me. You need specify relative to who is the event to give and answer. Yin and Yang. There is only one answer but when you specify relative to who you give the answer. I consider relativism a feature of nature.

            Best regards,

            Sergio

            Hi Sergio,

            I agree with your basic premise(I have rated you good). Moreover, I show in my essay what you wonder about. Also because you are a programmer my system is very well suited to your ideas.

            Please if you have the time run The programs which are at my website

            http://www.qsa.netne.net

            please make sure you unzip the file properly, the code is in JavaScript, the programs are very simple. also see the posts in my thread for some more info.

            you can find my essay at this link

            http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

            see the amazing formulas in section 6, like this one

            alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

            M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

            P.S. you mentioned Khwarizmi

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%E1%B8%A5ammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB

            he lived one hour flight from my ancestral home in Iran.

            Adel

              Hello Sergio,

              Unfortunately, I did not work with dynamic epistemic logic. In my essay I used the dialectical logic to construct only the first of the generating structure of nature. It was an attempt on the one hand to go beyond the "edge" on the other, to build a fundamental framework structure. Regards, Vladimir

              Hello Adel,

              thanks for your rate. I am looking your paper. I am trying to see how your programs work. These days I am Little bussy but I will write for the weekend some question in your profile.

              Best regards,

              Sergio

              4 days later

              I am hapy that you want to discuss about it. You are right, the result is you are happy and I am sad but that is not what I am trying to show you. The issue is if I ask u for : is the event of you win the contest a happy or sad event? You can only answer my issue if we fix relative to who, because the answer is going to be different if it is relative to me or relative to you. Even in logic one has to fix an interpretation for some formulas because the value of true is different if one change the interpretation. I have seen no absolute notions in mathematical-logic, in physics and in feelings. I find relativeness in everywhere.

              Dear Sergio,

              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