Information, Numbers, Time, Life, Ethics by Lorraine Ford

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

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

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. ;-)

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

Ms. Ford,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your very fine essay. I hope you will forgive me, I am a decrepit old realist and the realism I deal with comes neat; it does not have any abstract foundations.

You wrote: "There are still the questions of what, absolutely, is a number? And is a number really what is found when nature is measured?

As I truthfully pointed out in my essay BITTERS, the absolute of number is 1, once. All of the philosophers and physicists and computer programmers who have ever lived have failed to notice that one real Universe can only produce one real thing once, therefore, only 1, once could ever have been accurate.

Ma'am, reality is not difficult. All you have to do is Wheeler it.

Is the real Universe simple? Yes

Is the abstract universe simple? No.

Is unique, once simple? Yes.

Is 0 and 1 simple? No.

I wish you luck in the contest; the quality of your writing certainly deserves a prize.

Joe.

Dear Lorraine,

I have rushed through your essay. It may not agree with mine but it does not have to. Meanwhile...

As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there...

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Dear Lorraine,

No harm meant at all. You dont have to answer correctly! But I would wish that you at least answer.

Best reggards,

Akinbo