Nature from the bit and beyond by Sergio Miguel

Vladimir Rogozhin

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]

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

Sergio Miguel

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]

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

adel sadeq

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

Sergio Miguel

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

Vladimir Rogozhin

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

Sergio Miguel

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.

Sreenath N

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

Sergio Miguel

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

David Levan

Hi Sergio,

well done, the first brick in the wall

David

Sergio Miguel

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

Sergio Miguel

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

WANG Xiong

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

Sergio Miguel

Thanks for your words.

I am reading it and I write you in your area.

Best regards,

Sergio

Sreenath N

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

Sergio Miguel

Dear Screenath,

Thanks for your words. I am happy you read my article and you understood it very well. I look your article not doubt :).

Best regards,

Sergio

Michel Planat

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 Miguel

Dear Michel,

thanks for your time I hope you enjoyed the essay.

Best regards,

Sergio

Michel Planat

Dear Sergio,

On July 25, I gave you the rate 6 to promote your well written and enjoyable essay.

Best wishes,

Michel

Joe Fisher

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

Sergio Miguel

Thanks for your words Joe.

I am monist, physicalist, and reductionist.

I will look your essay but explain me more the problem about the main goal of science .

Not offendind not at all.

Also explain me, why real Nature is simple? I see the nature very complex, and why information and computation are no simple? I see them amazingly simple.

Best regards,

Sergio

« Previous Page Next Page »