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

CS Unnikrishnan,

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

Hello Prof. Unnikrishnan

I found your essay both interesting and generally precise in its exposition; however, in some areas it was unexpectedly less clear, indeed, on one occasion it was almost unintelligible; and I quote:

"Hence the key concepts are specification of a physical state of the physical system whose dynamics is monitored and that of the external world."

Notwithstanding this, you go on to say, and I quote:

"It is the property of the potential of matter to possess physical states we call information potential, or the ability to have information content. It is precisely this property that endows the material entity, like the electron, the serve as a bit. However, 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', both with information potential. But neither is information itself."

In the first quote you say the environment is a key player in the determination of the materials physical state, at least that's what I think you say. And by that you must mean the observational environment which constrains the electron to a set of distinct states, and that number of distinct states, whatever they may be, is made possible by the set of measurements capable of being made on the electron within its environment. Without an environment the electron would have only its abstract attributes, and no other information carrying ability, and so the environment and the measurements made possible by that environment must own the information carried by the electron's possible states, not the electron. Apart from its abstract attributes the physical states of an electron are not its own, and so your statement that 'It' is indeed the 'bit', is invalid. For those who try to encode information below and within the electron's generalized state, I suggest they need to work from within the electron because I suspect its abstract attributes are the set of states of sub entities made possible by the environment within which they exist.

I don't know who rated you (1), but I gave you a (7)

Regards, and best of luck in the competition.

Zoran.

Dear Prof. Unnikrishnan,

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 Prof Unnikrishnan,

Thank you for preparing a Excellent essay. So you think Dynamic States of matter are important, thinking of taking into consideration Newtonian gravitation into consideration, Well and very good.

But why do you want to take into consideration some Blackhole thermo dynamics. Blackholes are just mathematical singularities. They were not found in Astronomy or in Micro world even after searching them for the last 100 years?

Mean while...

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.

Very much liked that you put matter, space and time together. To me, spacetime highlights the intertwiningof space an time but leaves out matter.

Maybe it should be called spacetimematter.

The reason consciousness may be excluded from the laws of physics is because the laws of physics are but patterns in the measurements produced by observers.

Dear Prof Unnikrishnan,

I find it difficult to give any constructive comment/critique to your essay; in general you have echoed the contemporary paradigm but that is also good.

I for one cannot agree with the contemporary paradigm and thus we could debate, however this debate is not granted to me. I thus challenge you as a teacher to explain the space-time information paradox in the same context as you explain to your students the twin, Ehrenfest, ladder-and-barn, etc paradoxes are in effect not paradoxical.

Professor Unnikrishnan,

Thank you for the clarification.

Best Regards.

Zoran.

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