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

          Dear Screenath,

          I am a little busy but I am looking your essay. I will try to give you some comments for the weekend.

          Best regards,

          Sergio

          Hi David,

          It was really hard for me to write the essay because I am very busy so your words are really wellcome.

          Best regards,

          Sergio

          Hi Sergio, ,

          Thanks for your nice essay, well done

          I enjoy reading it and gave it high rate

          Nice to see idea from you computer scientists

          and from another approach, more physic and math sence, my essay may interest you Bit: from Breaking symmetry of it

          Hope you enjoy it

          Regards,

          Xiong

            Dear Sergio,

            You have written your essay in a highly interesting style and you have said whatever you wanted to say in a clear and elegant manner and this is the plus point of this essay. You have clearly shown why information is both continuous and discontinuous. You have explained the development of the ideas of information and computation with historical back ground. Later you have argued why they are fundamental concepts in science, especially, physics and stressed the need to develop a 'unified theory' of epistemic scheme of information. This is really an original way of not only developing a unified theory but also unification of the concepts behind various fields of science. I hope, in future, you will succeed in your effort to develop the theory of epistemic scheme of information by overcoming the hurdle existing between the theory of computation and the theory of information and that should be your future aim.

            Congratulations to you and all the best in the essay contest, but your impressive essay is currently under rated and I would like to give it a very high rating after you go through my essay and post your comments on it in my thread. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827.

            Sreenath

              Dear Sergio,

              You are right that information and computation should be taken close to each other well in the spirit of Wheeler's 'it from bit'. As I hav ebeen involved in quantum computation I understand your point.

              Best wishes,

              Michel

                Sergio,

                I enjoyed reading your essay even though I am an unschooled realist. May I please make a comment about it without offending you?

                You wrote: "The main goal of science well be (to) achieve a unification of the different natural sciences. All natural phenomena should be explained in the same framework.

                The problem with that as I have thoughtfully pointed out in my essay BITTERS, is that nature is unique, once. The simplest construct one real Universe can adopt.

                When we Wheeler your essay, you will be better able to see my point.

                Is real Nature simple? Yes.

                Are deeper concepts of physics and computers simple? No.

                Good luck in the contest,

                Joe