Hello Lorraine!

There are very few women participating in this year contest and I am sure to read all their essays. I like to hear sensible and pragmatic female voices in the discussion that has traditionally been dominated by males. I very much enjoyed your essay. You give a very good analysis of what is information and emphasize that it is a subjective and contextual experience that requires awareness. Well done!

However, your analysis deals with more advanced levels of information, mainly as it is perceived by humans. In my essay I address information at the basic level of sensors capturing the' bits' and argue that our idea of 'It' is only as good as 'bits' our senses and sensors can deliver. I allude that there are other types of information 'out there' waiting to be discovered by means of improving existing or developing entirely new technology. I invite you to read and comment on my essay :)

    Hellow Lorraine, Excellent essay. However, if I may say that nature is infinite, thus, no finite concept can defines the infinite. Furthermore, as nature is infinite I believe it is, if not tell me how big or how small it is precisely. In other words, no finite law can restrict the movement and creativity of the infinite even in principle. Thus, any idea, law or definition must NOT limit nature but it must enhance it. Thus I agree with you that subjectivity defines the objects but the objectivity simultaneously defines the subjectivity. If I understood you correctly. Thus both subjectivity and objectivity are intertwined and in the dance of helical entanglements that enhance both these subjectivity and objectivity in a trialectic dialogues and exchanges. Please look at my essay Child of Qbit in time, more or less we are on the same page, as we are together seeking for the truth no matter where this truth will lead us using both subjectivity and objectivity perspectives whatever they might mean. Best regards, Leo KoGuan

      Hi Zoran,

      Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

      I think you are right about the definition of information being lax, and not just in physics and quantum mechanics. But I don't think it is necessary to drop the word "information" - I just think that for clarity of thought, the objects that merely represent information (i.e. from the point of view of a subject) should be appropriately named "represented information". To my way of thinking, the word "information" can only properly be applied to subjective experience. If something is incorrectly categorised in the first place, then it can lead to a compounding of mistakes, which is what I think we are seeing today in the discussion about information.

      I found Prof. Unnikrishnan's essay very dense reading, but as you say he does speak of the context in which quantum states represent information - I think further study of his essay is required.

      Cheers,

      Lorraine

      Hi M.V.,

      Thank you for taking the time to read and assess my essay, and for your positive assessment. But I feel that you are mistaken when you say that I only deal with "more advanced levels of information". For example:

      - In section 2 I question whether the "bit" that physicists Seth Lloyd and Paul Davies seem to refer to could really be a more a fundamental category of information than the energy, orbital angular momentum, magnetic moment, or spin of an electron. I question whether there really are grounds for making this "bit" the basis of an explanatory scheme/ theory of reality.

      - In section 3 I suggest that information is apprehended at the PARTICLE level, and that this information is (proto-) subjective experience, being the basis for all other subjective experience.

      - In section 4 I suggest that e.g. mass and charge at the particle level might be understood as categories of information existing at the foundations of reality.

      - In section 5 I suggest that numbers found via measurement must be properly accounted for, and suggest that numbers might be understood as hidden category self-relationships at the foundations of reality.

      - In section 6 I suggest that law of nature "equations" do not imply that calculations (as we know them) occur at the foundations of reality; and suggest that time at the foundations of reality does indeed "unfold".

      - In section 7 I suggest that the structure of information at the foundations of reality has a direct bearing on whether we can in fact really make choices (as opposed to the future being "already written", thereby making a charade out of what we ever-so-earnestly think are our choices).

      I had already downloaded your essay to read, but I haven't as yet had a chance to comment on it.

      Cheers,

      Lorraine

      Hi Leo KoGuan,

      Thanks for looking at and commenting on my essay. I will make a comment about your essay on your essay blog.

      Cheers,

      Lorraine

      Dear Lorraine, yes I saw it and replied to your perceptive comment. I also think your view really says correct me if I am wrong that Quantum Mechanics combines us, the subjective being into the bossom of nature (objective being if there is no subjective being around to interpret her state of being)? I would further argue that this means we indeed are one with nature scientifically discovered and proven. If I may quote Zhuangzi who said that he and Nature are born together and are one. Again I am really happy reading your penetratingly subjective perspective and an outstanding literature on reality as we perceive her to be. Congratulation for work well done! Regards, Leo KoGuan

      Dear Lorraine,

      I have read your nice essay that catching of reader because fairness of polemic.

      You clearly has defined what is the ,,bit,, and what is ,,it, and how these related each to other. You have demonstrated with the same the contentless of problem! I am inclined to explain your right approach conditioned with your right life style. I often see in my dream when I will go my village and live there in right way. I am very inclined to see your work as one valuable for me confirmation to my own worldview. I hope my work Es may deserve your attention then we can exchange our opinions.

      Best wishes,

      George

        • [deleted]

        • Post #15

        Dear Lorraine Ford :

        You said you are interested in "time" also in the nature of reality, I send you a summary of my essay "The deep nature of reality" this way would be easy to decide if you read it or not, I congratulate you for your essay but I am not agree with: "The most important property of time is that it unfolds... You can predict the statistics of

        what is likely to happen but not the unique actual physical outcome, which unfolds in an

        unpredictable way as time progresses" physicist George Ellis [21]

        "The activity of time is the process which generates the future out of the present"

        physicist Lee Smolin [22]" And if you read my essay you will find why.

        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, 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

        Dear Lorraine Ford :

        You said you are interested in "time" also in the nature of reality, I send you a summary of my essay "The deep nature of reality" this way would be easy to decide if you read I or not, I congratulate you for your essay but I am not agree with: "The most important property of time is that it unfolds... You can predict the statistics of

        what is likely to happen but not the unique actual physical outcome, which unfolds in an

        unpredictable way as time progresses" physicist George Ellis [21]

        "The activity of time is the process which generates the future out of the present"

        physicist Lee Smolin [22]" and if you read my essay you will find why.

        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, 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

          Hi Leo,

          I think Zhuangzi was right: we living things "are one with nature", we are part of nature and are not different to nature. I contend that we know nature (i.e. ourselves and the rest of reality) because of subjective experience of (i.e. information about) ourselves and the rest of reality. I think that right down to the foundations of reality, there is no objective information, only subjective information. We can represent this subjective experience (i.e. information) with various codes: words, symbols, letters and numbers, or even strings of bits.

          Thank you very much for your kind words and congratulations.It's a pleasure to discuss these important issues with you. Best wishes, Lorraine

          Dear George,

          Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I have read your essay (twice), and although we are both looking for a "Physics That Can Be Realistic", and although we agree on some points, I fear that we have a major area of difference.

          When you make statements like "The quantum phenomena must have cause-effect explanations", you seem to be implying that reality is 100% deterministic. In my essay (section 7) I attempt to explain the consequences of a reality where, from the point of view of a subject, only one outcome is possible for each next moment in time. The deterministic view of reality doesn't just apply at the particle level, it applies at the level of living things: the deterministic view says that we living things are idiot cyphers going through the motions in lives where our day-to-day fates are already sealed. As physicist Lee Smolin puts it: is "the future...already written...or does what we choose to do really matter?"

          I am saying that our day-to-day lives are themselves evidence about the nature of information and the nature of reality.

          I will also post this comment on your essay blog.

          Cheers,

          Lorraine

          Lorraine,

          thank you very very much for bringing my spelling glitches to my attention :) The funny thing was that I looked at them.. and saw nothing wrong ..at first. I even thought that I should capture a native in my environment and make him explain where my errors lie. And then I saw! Thank you :)

          Wow woman, you have an eye!

            Dear Lorraine,

            Many thanks for answer.

            On your remarks I can answer as follow:

            1. Yes! I am saying that the behavior of single quantum object controlled by cause-effect (deterministic) laws. We are able to describe it, however we have no possibility to confirm those by direct observations. Why? - because of restriction of our direct measuring capability (see Hidden Variables) So, to be free from headache we just declare it as a ,,probability,, and have trying to move ahead! Let me see this not only empty declaration but I have pointed on the proofs (see references and my works)

            2. In macroworld we are sure on deterministic character of laws controlling the behavior of single objects, as we can it proof by direct measuring (it is the classical physics.) However we can not use these to describe a lot of live cases because it demands take in account many of factors that make the problem as unsolvable practically. Then we going to use the average-probable description again to be somewhat solve our questions.

            I think this the life and reality!

            3. About information (and encoded information - ,,bits,,) I am just agree with you - it is human' creations and no need here to breaking the swords!

            It is nice to meet with people with healthy and witty brains!

            I am going rate your work as a very valuable for me (nine only). You see as it is right!

            With honor and good wishes,

            George

              Hi Lorraine,

              I am just curious if you noticed how much similarity there is in our views.

              I did postulate quite early in my career the principal role of classes/categories in the informational organization of the Universe, but as is always the case in science, I needed a formal language to clarify the situation. However, it turned out that the new formalism required several decades just to be outlined. Fortunately, since I'm a mathematician by education and a great admirer of philosophy, this didn't prevent me from pursuing the goal. ;-)

                Dear George,

                thank you very much for rating my essay so highly. Even though we disagree about reality being deterministic, we can agree about other things.

                I have very much enjoyed our discussion and exchange of views, and I intend to read your vixra papers/preprints when I get more time.

                Best wishes,

                Lorraine

                Hi Lev,

                I HAVE noticed the similarity. I have previously briefly looked at your essay, and I hope to find the time to study it more carefully and comment on it.

                Cheers,

                Lorraine

                Hi Héctor,

                I have read your essay, and I will comment on it soon.

                Cheers,

                Lorraine

                Thank you Dear Lorraine,

                Now you have better position by rating.

                I can only congratulate you and wish you wealthy,

                with your lovely ducks and puppy.

                My best wishes again,

                George

                Hi Héctor,

                In your essay, you say that time is a useful concept that early humans created, with the "day" being an example of a time concept created by humans.

                You say time can't be sensed or described like gravity and inertia can be sensed and described, because time doesn't really exist. You say that a lot of confusion would be avoided if we realised that time is actually motion. You discuss factors like temperature that affect motion.

                You say that there is a psychological present separate from the physical present, and say that the psychological present is approximately one second behind the physical present or "now" .

                But I think that time (properly understood) DOES exist. In my essay I contend that "laws of nature" represent static information category relationships: they do not represent nature actively performing mathematical calculations, so laws of nature do not represent change in numerical information. I argue that time and change of number is injected via quantum decoherence. In other words "time...unfolds...[and] the unique actual physical outcome...unfolds in an unpredictable way as time progresses" (physicist George Ellis).

                I am sorry that I cannot agree with you. Best wishes,

                Lorraine

                (I will also post the above comment your essay forum)