Matter and its Configuration States in the Making of Information by CS Unnikrishnan

Dear Sir,

You have correctly pointed out that "Newton could not present the arena of space and time for dynamics without referring to matter." This is because space and time are the intervals of objects (matter confining energy) and events (energy acting on matter) respectively and these two are inseparable complements. There is nothing like bare charge or bare mass. In this sense Newton was right, but he erred due to a different reason.

An object is stationary when all the different forces acting on it cancel each other out. Block any one of the forces - the other forces collapse in a set of linear and non-linear interactions that continues till it reaches equilibrium again. By trying to bring in partial stability (blocking one force), you have introduced motion to the whole system. Similarly, try to introduce motion, i.e., accelerate a moving body. After the initial application of force, the body will move due to inertia with reference to its container field, which is at rest relative to the body. The acceleration being different from the state of the field, it generates a bow shock effect (due to friction) we see when a boat moves in the river. This slows down the motion and unless additional acceleration is provided, it comes to a halt. Newton failed to incorporate this factor in his equation F = ma. After application of the initial force to accelerate the body; the body moves with a different but constant velocity due to inertia - 'mv1' that gradually reduces due to friction and not 'ma'. By trying to accelerate, you bring the body to a halt. Thus, motion and equilibrium are two composite aspects of the same thing. By trying to introduce one, you introduce the other over time. In fact, this process gave rise to our notion of time.

There is an ancient Text named 'Padartha Dharma Samgraha' - Compendium of Properties of Matter, by Prashastapada, where the equivalence principle has been discussed and rejected as wrong description of reality, as leads to a problem akin to the Russell's paradox of set theory. We have discussed it in a book on Number Theory. Also we have written in various threads here (specifically Dr. Paul Reed) without any contradiction. Mach's distinction between 'information about reality' and 'reality itself' implies observation and observable leaving aside the observer. In many threads here and elsewhere we have proved that physical reality is not observer dependent - the Moon will continue to exist when we are not looking at it and will continue to move at a predetermined rate irrespective of whether someone is observing it or not. Observation only reports its state at that instant to the observer to be stored in his memory and used for comparison with fresh impulses/data later. This makes the information limited. The probabilistic or statistical treatments do not address the problem of limitation, but build structures on limited data, which in many cases turned out to be misleading.

The "Boolean 'yes' or 'no' nature of physical realization of phenomena" refers to information about something predefined. We have discussed about this in detail in our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published here on May 31.

Wheeler says: "In some ways, the electron, before the physicist chooses to observe it, is neither a wave nor a particle." But "what" is an electron or a photon? There was no clear answer. We have discussed it in our essay. If you closely examine the profile of elementary particles, you will see two important aspects. The fermions interact through bosons, which are said to be carriers of this interaction. But how do they carry out these interactions? The so-called masses are actually different temperature gradients indicating different states. In the case of strong and weak interactions, the temperature threshold dramatically increases like those in transition states of chemical reaction and in the other cases, it reciprocally decreases. Black holes are more a magnetic phenomenon than a gravitational phenomenon. Similarly, the up and down quarks exchange; so are protons and neutrons. We call this 'ashanaayaa vritti'. But afterwards, the atoms and molecules are pairing of equal numbers of protons and electrons. We call this 'mithunam'. This change over from 'ashanaayaa vritti' to 'mithunam' is at the root of all creation. We have described the mechanism elsewhere.

Both space and time are related to the order of arrangement in the field, i.e., sequence of objects and changes in them (events) as they evolve. The interval between objects is space and that between events is time. Both space and time co-exist like the fundamental forces of Nature. Similarly, the sequential arrangements of letters form words with different concepts conveying fixed meanings. Fresh impulse (readings, symbols), when cognized by a conscious agent (compared with memory as those known concepts or otherwise - yes/no), is information. Otherwise, it is data.

Regards,

basudeba

DEAR PROFESSOR,

I WELCOME YOUR WORK AS ONE OF BEST!

GEORGE K.

Dear Professor Unnikrishnan,

In your essay, you eloquently argue several points which I believe more people should consider when thinking about foundational issues like the relation between information and matter.

As I was reading your essay, I was frankly struck by how much it appears that the fundamental concepts I hold that shape my worldview are similar to yours. Take for instance your concept of three levels of reality: matter, physical state, representation of state. As I was reading this I thought to myself that this was exactly what I wanted to express when I made a distinction in my essay between substance, patterns of distinction, and the formatting of those patterns into information. I must admit that I think you did a better job of differentiating between the three levels. I also recognized essentially my own thoughts about the primacy of matter in light of absolute space in Newtonian physics, the equal status between matter and its gravitational information content in GR, and the identification of a pre-measurement quantum state with a form of pattern, though not of the same kind as in classical physics.

I have now read many of the essays in this contest but with none of them did I have the kind of deja vu experience that I did while I was reading your essay. I wonder whether if you read my essay you would experience a similar sense of familiarity?

Curious about this experience I took the liberty of looking at some of your past work, and saw from the titles of your papers that many of the subjects you have worked on are exactly the specific topics that I have spent time thinking about. For example, I came across your paper from almost 15 years ago which shows very clearly that Alice's measurement of state a does not collapse the entangled spacelike separated state b before it is measured by Bob. Both during last year's essay contest and this year I had discussions with other authors trying to correct precisely this misconception, yet I was completely unfamiliar with that work of yours until now. I wonder why your work is not better known?

I am working on a framework meant to help make sense out of QM which I am certain is very different from any of the theoretical explanations for quantum mechanics that you work on, but one of its suggestions is that the key to understanding entanglement more deeply is the phase factor. I was therefore shocked to read in that work that you pointed at the phase factor as the key to understanding how the correlations come about.

I really hope that you will find the time to read my essay because I am very curious to find out whether you would find my work similarly familiar in its conception. In the second half of the paper I propose a principle that underlies the framework that I am working on, and I would really like to know if it resonates with you. I find that different people have different sensibilities and therefore, just as a matter of psychology, the same kind of argument can have different levels of persuasiveness for different people. I very much look forward to your response,

Warm Regards,

Armin

Dear Professor Unnikrishnan,

I like how you've highlighted that in both classical and quantum physics the importance of an observer's role. I also appreciate any piece of literature which explains infinite regress so well, as I'm a huge pupil of cosmogony and am working on a theory of everything that addresses the three paradoxes of existence.

As an aside though I have entered this contest, so although not this precise area, it touches upon Black holes, entropy and observation and transmission of information. Also the Fiboancci sequence - hope you take a look.

I think you've explained your argument for matter's place of supremacy over information well.

Excellent essay - well done!

Best wishes,

Antony

Professor Unnikrishnan,

Please forgive me. I am a decrepit old realist and unlike your abstract reality that appears to come in three abstract levels, my unique realty only occur, once.

As I have explained in my essay BITTERS: The real Universe only deals in absolutes. All information is abstract and all and every abstract part of information is excruciatingly difficult to understand. Information is always selective, subjective and sequential. Reality is not and cannot ever be selective subjective and sequential.

One (1) real unique Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real "speed" of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.

Wheeler ought to have asked the following questions:

Is the real Universe simple? Yes.

Is the abstract universe simple? No.

Is unique, once simple Yes.

Is quantum theory simple? No.

I do hope your fine essay does well in the competition.

Dear C. S. Unnikrishnan,

I found your essay compelling and insightful. In your conclusion you mentioned about taking the map out of the city which I found to be the only way for me to evaluate the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. Although you have a different approach to the essay topic than I do, I found your conclusion inspiring and most worthy of merit.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Dear Professor C.S. Unnikrishnan,

Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical idea. "The trouble with physics" push ... In your essay given new ideas and conclusions. I especially like the radical dialectical materialist and a great lover of geography (before going to bed always looking maps and moved to life for 67 years -73 times from place to place), I liked your conclusion: " However, we do not make a any speculative judgment on the relative priority of matter and information in the singular context of the origin of the material universe .... A self generated universe should also be a self consistent universe where matter and information stably participate in a mutually sustaining evolution .... A true representation will need to display the map in its location, which in turn requires a series of 'Russian dolls maps'. This is avoided by resorting to approximation of truncated representation, possible precisely because information as a physical entity takes its support on matter and its configurations. One has to give up exactness of representation when limitations of handling matter makes it impossible to represent information, even in principle. The difference is that in the case of the map, the dilemma can be avoided and 'true' representation can be claimed by taking the map out of the city, whereas there is no such choice in the case of the Universe.»

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.»

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

In the russian version of a article: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators.»

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

Please look also my essay and essay FQXi 2012 related to the ontological justification of "Absolute generating structure"

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1796

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

We have the spirit of close reserch. Is this the right way - time will tell and others. My mail ideabank@yandex.ru

Best regards,

Vladimir

Dear CS Unnikrishnan :

I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time". No one that I know ever said what I say over it and I am convince that I prove that with our clocks we measure "motion" and no "time.

:

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

With many thanks and best wishes,

John

jselye@gmail.com

Dear sir,

I have posted the above general comment to everyone, but your essay has piqued my interest and I will return to it in two days and post a review. I will also rate it, of course.

Best wishes,

John Selye

Dear CS Unnikrishnan,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Dear Unnikrishnan,

You have mentioned about Hawking's result in your essay. As we know, the quantization of the right hand side of Einstein's equations, in a given spacetime, has yielded the effects of the Hawking radiation. Though the role of back reaction has not been fully taken care of here, let's examine this result in another perspective. Recently it has been shown that the right hand side of Einstein's equations, i.e., the energy-stress tensor T^{ik}, has serious problems [arXiv:1204.1553]. Hence, the results obtained by using it also become doubtful. Would you like to comment on this issue?

Best Regards.

___Ram

Dear prof. Unnikrishnan,

In your highly intriguing article, you have clearly distinguished between matter and its physical states on one hand and also between bits and their information states on the other. You have substantiated it with your elegant logical arguments. According to you 'matter is more fundamental than information'. So we can know of matter only through its physical states but never directly. To substantiate this you have given the famous example of 'serpent and rope' which is illustrated in Advaita Vedanta. A confused observer sees 'serpent in the rope' as long as he is in that state, but once he realizes (Gnanodaya) that it is indeed a rope but not a serpent he acknowledges his mistake. But in your case it is not possible as one can never know matter (underlying reality) except in its physical states. In the words of Advaita, this is tantamount to saying that you can know of world as a 'phenomenon' but never as a 'noumenon', although Advaita allows one to know of reality (noumenon) in 'mystic experience' as it is. So your metaphor is valid in Kantian philosophy where he clearly distinguishes between noumenon and phenomenon and we can know of noumenon as phenomenon only but never as noumenon itself. That is we don't have direct access to noumenon.

The one question I want to ask is, when you say that "information is the physical state of the 'it', and in turn that of the 'bit'; we now see clearly that 'it' is indeed the 'bit'", how do you come to the conclusion that 'It' is indeed the 'Bit'? I need some clarification here. In my essay also I have come to more or less the same conclusion but in a different way as you have already seen.

In your essay, you have clearly elucidated the role played by information in different branches of physics. You logic, I feel, is flawless as conclusions follow from the premises inevitably. The role played by the observer is in physics as a whole and in QM in particular is clarified convincingly. Thanks for writing such an articulate essay and it is an eye opener for those who are puzzled by the role played by the observer in QM.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Dear Sreenath,

Thanks for your kind message. First let me clarify my claim that It is Bit - it is in fact not a very deep statement. I am just saying that just as one should distinguish between Matter and its physical state one should distinguish between a bit and its information state (matter is one entity and states could be many - so the same material entity is capable of transformation within its states). If one says that a two state quantum system is a bit, in real terms one is just indentifying an ion or a quantum dot or something like that with the bit. To encode information onto that one needs to create a specific physical state, and even that is relative, since any information refers to a change from one configuration to another. So, at the lowest level there is some material entity capable of assuming different physical states (information potential) - it is this SAME entity that we call a bit. A bit is not yet information, unless endowed with a 'state' (like orientation of a spin), but that needs a reference orientation (another bit with a specific state, chosen by convention)! I have pointed this out to Carlo Rovelli as well, since he deals with relative information in his essay.

Now about the 'serpent and the rope'. Yes, what you say is correct as what is said in Advaita, but one should also recognize that the informational values of bot, in strict physical terms, could be the same whereas the fear goes away when one realizes that it is a rope precisely because ropes cannot bite and kill. They are sufficiently different in their MATERIAL properties to allow Gnaodaya. What if the difference was subtle? One will take more time and effort to realize the difference. Finally, it depends purely on whether there is knowable difference between the physical states of the two objects - that is all what counts. As long as there is knowable difference between physical states, the information is distinct, and the rope and the serpent are different. Otherwise, the difference is not knowable, even by mystic experience. Yes, that is my stand. (fear can go away by mystic practice, and one might not care whether it is a serpent or a rope, but that is a different matter.)

Unnikrishnan

Dear Professor Unnikrishnan,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com