Nature from the bit and beyond by Sergio Miguel

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

Dear Sergio,

Thanks for your nice comments and a few queries on my essay and I am glad to answer them convincingly.

I will go through the article "Causation as Folk Science of John D. Norton" as suggested by you and I want to know how you have grasped my views on causality.

You have asked a very good question to clarify the meaning of the hypothesis that I have framed at the basis of my thoughts on biology and this hypothesis is, "The evolution of Life is analogous to the evolution of the knowledge of mind". The theme behind framing it is that 'the evolution of Life' and 'the evolution of the knowledge of mind' are not simply 'wholly conscious purposes nor simply 'wholly unconscious purposes' but a combination of both of these purposes. This can be realized if you go through my views on mathematics in my essay; when a mathematician frames his axioms he will not have grasped completely what conclusion (reality) he is going to get but will have a vague picture of it and is the same theme that underlies at the bottom of the evolution of Life. So 'the evolution of Life and the evolution of the knowledge of mind' are 'trial and error processes', of course, depending on the opportunities available to them. Whenever you are in doubt and having problems regarding 'the evolution of Life' at any stages in its evolutionary history you can try to understand it by reverting back to 'the evolution of the knowledge of mind' and comprehend how it could have evolved and similarly whenever you have doubts regarding 'the evolution of the knowledge of mind' you can try to understand it by reverting back to 'the evolution of Life' and try to comprehend how it could have evolved. If you want more discussions on this point (I think there needs to be) we will try to dwell deeper in to it.

To your third query, regarding our 'intellectual' and 'imaginative' powers of the mind, I can confidently say, based on my wisdom, that there is no limit or boundary to them because it is the question of 'time' before we find answers to our present problems, say, in physics such as wave-particle duality, dark-energy, dark-matter, etc. But then we will have other problems as a result of our advancement in knowledge and this is a perennial process. Now considering the advancement in the knowledge of man during the past, say, one lakh years, we can only imagine what would be his magnitude of knowledge after, say, another one lakh years because we have no precise laws to describe and predict this evolutionary process of 'the evolution of the knowledge of mind'. It is immaterial whether we live that long or not.

To your final query, I agree with you when you say, "the brain it is only a physical system although probably one of the most complex of the universe".

I thank you once again and also for rating my essay and now I am too going to rate your well written essay with much more favor.

Best of luck,

Sreenath

Dear Sergio,

I have rated your well written essay with maximum points possible.

Best of luck,

Sreenath

Hello Sergio,

You said you wrote essay in a hurry but I find it very good. New way of thinking. Also you mention a number of historical people who have contributed to science. In my essay, I also mention people like Plato, Aristotle and Newton, just like you. I think you will like it. Also let me know more about your PEIP principle.

Regards,

Akinbo

Dear Sergio,

I red your essay another time and now have a question. You don't seem to consider the quantum bit concept (qubit) as a new epistemic scheme, this is surprising in view of the 'quantum information breakthrough'. Myself I have been fascinated by this ongoing progress and I have a lot of papers on the topic as

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0803.1911

Also in my essay

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

bits are inherent, although the precise nature of information/computation content is not yet made explicit. You may have ideas how to do that.

I just gave you a high rate for a very relevant and well written essay.

Best regards,

Michel

Hello Sergio

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 each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

Good luck and good cheers!

Than Tin

Dear Sergio,

I have read your essay that seems to me as good review/analytical work, and I appreciate your methodological offer as interesting, deserving to serious study.

Meantime I will tell you honestly that methodologic questions are not the main theme for me (despite I have started my work with these questions!)

Most important thing for me that you has clearly dividing ,,bit,, and ,,it,, as a totally different kinds of categories (that shows the contentless of topic!) I think any healthy brain must quickly to comprehend that talks is about physical reality (it) and encoded information (bit), (which is human' creation only!)

Thus, I am going rate your essay as fair & professional on ,,high,, core. Hope you will visit my forum! Es link text

Sincerely,

George

Dear Sergio,

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

Best wishes,

Michel