Hi Lorraine,

I was happy to read your essay. You managed to tie together many of the concepts. You have a very interesting picture. Wonderful chain: Information - Numbers - Time - Life - Ethics. I just remember the famous words of Kant: "Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence."

World contests FQXi - it contests new fundamental ideas, new deep meanings and new concepts. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions.

Your words are wonderful in conclusion:

"Whatever the final shape a physical theory of information takes, you can be sure that what physicists say about information and the nature of reality will affect the attitudes of very many people: is the future "already written" or "does what we choose to do really matter? "

I'll put a rating of "happy nine"...

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

I have only one question: Why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

Please read my essay this year, and if you have time - an essay last year. I think we are the same in the spirit of our research

I wish you success,

Vladimir

    Hi Rob,

    Thanks for your perceptive comments which challenge me to explain my viewpoint better.

    I didn't explain what I meant very well. When I said that causation is a first principle, I meant that when we represent physical information as a law of nature mathematical equation (after years of experimentation) we have already assumed that the interconnections in the equation, including the "=" sign, represent causation in physical reality. This causation assumption is the basis of deterministic explanations of reality.

    I think many/most determinists believe that there is a deterministic explanation underlying quantum processes. Determinists seem to deny that, when it comes to living things, the outcomes of quantum processes ("choices") could be a source of non-deterministic information that has any net effect on the system.

    I contend that there is nothing external to the universe, there is no Platonic realm. In my essay I contend that law of nature "equations" represent information category relationships, but they do not indicate that computation as we know it is taking place, because there is no evidence for all the machinery/baggage associated with computation.

    In my essay, I explain why numbers should be considered to be (in effect hidden) information category self-relationships. I surmise that the input of a new number via quantum decoherence is like adding a new relationship to an existing set of (law of nature) relationships: as numbers derive from relationship, it in effect changes some other numbers in the system (from the point of view of a subject). So I contend that quantum mechanics is driving change in the system, NOT mathematical computations.

    So maybe quantum decoherence should be envisioned as the creation of a physical number outcome, rather than the "choice" of a number outcome. In my essay I note that the creation of a new number (i.e. the creation of a new hidden information category self-relationship) is an everyday process that seems to be very much like the creation of a new law of nature (i.e. the creation of a new information category relationship); and that the evolution of complex life requires the continual evolution of new information categories and relationships.

    I like the story about Claude Shannon. Complex living things (they are all complex) also require an internal system of "knowledge communication", i.e. they need to utilize molecules as symbols to represent complex information. I contend that this represented "information" doesn't become information until it is apprehended, i.e. until it is subjectively experienced (e.g. by the molecular components of cells etc.).

    Cheers,

    Lorraine

    Hi Vladimir,

    Thank you very much for your kind words about my essay, and for giving it a good rating.

    I think the famous words of Kant which you quoted are so true: reality is not "veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision", and reality is connected with "the consciousness of my existence".

    Thanks also for sending the Alexander Zenkin article, which I have read. I must say that I agree with your essay :"And mathematics and physics have one foundation - essential primary structure of Nature". (I haven't read your essay as yet, it's just that this sentence caught my eye).

    That is a beautiful Nikolai Noskov song on youtube - I had never heard him before. I also like his song:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJqVlwHyVc&feature=endscreen . We need more inspiration in our lives - I find it inspiring to think that we live in a world of subjects, not of objects.

    Best wishes,

    Lorraine

    Lorraine,

    "we have already assumed that the interconnections in the equation, including the "=" sign, represent causation in physical reality"

    Exactly the problem. It is a bad assumption. a(b+c)=ab+bc is a mathematical identity, but not a physical identity. The physical manifestation of one side of the equation requires two multipliers, the other requires only one. The math equation only equates the "result" of the computation, not the computation itself. This is a point that has confused so many physicists, that it has spawned this year's essay contest. That fact that a "result" of a mathematical physics computation may perfectly "equal" an observable measurement, provides *no* evidence whatsoever, that the underlying physical manifestation is even remotely similar to the structures in the mathematical theory. Many physicists have assumed otherwise, which is the source of the unending confusion. All the weirdness in modern physics, including decoherence, are manifestations of this bad assumption.

    You are aware of the problem with reconciling a deterministic future, with free-will. And with the problem of having enough hardware to "compute the cosmos", and with the problem that the equations of physics do no distinguish between forward and backward time-travel.

    You can kill-off all three of these problematic "birds" with one stone:

    The cosmos computes itself, by simply being itself. An electron is employed both as itself, and as a symbol for itself. Hence, predictions of all events, are "physically" equal to, not just "symbolically" equal to the event itself. This "cosmic" computer employs all the available resources. Hence, no other computer is as powerful, since they cannot employ all the resources. But even for this most powerful of all possible computers, the amount of time required to compute/predict a future event, is exactly equal to the amount of time required for the event itself to unfold, precisely because they are one and the same thing. Consequently, even if the laws of physics are entirely deterministic *after the fact*, they can never be used to predict the future, except in cases "devoid of information", which is to say, events that do not depend upon knowing anything other that a tiny subset of the initial conditions required to describe the entire cosmos. Such a tiny subset *Can* be built into a computer, built, in turn, from a tiny subset of the matter in the cosmos. In other words, trivial events, devoid of information, like all those described by physics, may be predictable. But complex events, like living entities, remain unprediatable, even in a universe with fully deterministic laws.

    Rob McEachern

    Dear Lorraine,

    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

    Rob,

    I think I we agree that "That fact that a "result" of a mathematical physics computation may perfectly "equal" an observable measurement, provides *no* evidence whatsoever, that the underlying physical manifestation is even remotely similar to the structures in the mathematical theory."

    But I don't agree that "This "cosmic" computer employs all the available resources". There is no evidence of any type of computation infrastructure, which would have to underlie the normal physical reality that we observe and measure. There is no evidence that law of nature "equations" represent calculations taking place. And without a Platonic realm, a place to dump all awkward problems, we have to say that law of nature "equations" represent something about physical reality: categories of information in relationship with other categories of information; equation symbols like "=" and "" must represent something about physical reality (but not something measurable).

    Categories of information like mass, momentum and relative spatial location ARE (usually) measurable, which means that they have a number associated with them. The aspects of reality that "=" and "" represent don't have numbers associated with them. I propose in my essay that numbers obtained from measurement are hidden information category self-relationships, or ultimately derive from hidden information category self-relationships. Numbers are not Platonic objects, they are not points on a line, they are physical reality. Physics can't make sense of reality until it makes sense of numbers (i.e. number information).

    I make the point in my essay that there seems to be two types of information (information being subjective experience): information about current physical outcomes and information about potential future outcomes. So for a subject, decoherence would mean that an actual physical outcome has been "selected" out of a range of potential physical outcomes: I wouldn't think that there is any "weirdness" about this at all (so I disagree with you here). If decoherence didn't exist, you'd almost have to invent it, given my contention that there is no underlying computation going on that deterministically calculates what the next physical outcome will be.

    Law of nature relationships ensure that whatever number, associated with whatever category of information, results from decoherence, it doesn't appear that anything out of the ordinary has occurred (unless you look very closely). Also, the above "mechanism" introduces an arrow of time.

    So I think we can agree to disagree about the solution to your three "problematic birds"!

    Cheers,

    Lorraine

    Lorraine,

    The It from Bit, or Bit from It? question, presupposes, without any evidence, that a dichotomy exists. My point is, there is no dichotomy. That is why people cannot agree upon which it is. Bit==IT. The "thing" and the natural "symbol for the thing", are identical.

    "There is no evidence of any type of computation infrastructure, which would have to underlie the normal physical reality that we observe and measure." I agree, the infrastructure does not underlie reality, it is the reality. There is no dichotomy.

    Rob McEachern

    Dear

    I like how you focus on the 'real-world' aspect of information, and I agree with your broad-based, common-sense approach.

    My view is that much of the confusion concerning information stems from physicists ignoring the role of the observer in the field of observation. This should not be the case - as you put it: 'We have physics at the level of the particle, and physics at the level of the cosmos, but the bit in the middle where living things reside is also the domain of physics.'

    That's well said, and I agree with you that information is subjective experience: The persistent conundrum is to figure out how we can account for 'objective experience' - or facts and truths.

    I show in my essay that the objective truth (or, at least, any significantly less subjective truth) only exists for a certain time, and relative to a particular group of evolving observers. The same applies to numbers - they only have significance relative to an observer - and as distant space, quanta, or great speeds become involved, the fundamental nature of numbers - and even law-of-nature equations - changes.

    A Bit is not necessarily information - but something that can be perceived. Everything is positive-negative (and derived from the original proton-electron), but whether the observer perceives a Bit-structure, and how he perceives it at a given time and speed, and from a given location, is variable. Ultimately, whatever reading is taken, whatever information is considered as existing, will not be permanent - because what makes the cosmos 'fly' (or 'breathes fire' into things, as you quote Hawking) - is simply the observer's correlation with the inorganic realm of the cosmos.

    This correlation is caused and maintained by the same energy-field force that defines a proton and an electron, and makes each separate from the other - therefore creating the original positive-negative charge that initiated the cosmos; it is the 'non-Platonic physical/information structure' that you mention.

    This also means, if you agree, that there are other 'categories' besides those you mention - and that these must be the most fundamental: namely, the inorganic, organic, and sensory-cognitive realms that emerge from this correlated system. As you say: 'It seems to be clear that the evolution of complex life requires the evolution of new categories of information, and this in turn requires the construction of new categories interconnected to currently existing reality.'

    Given your broad perspective, I'm sure you'll find many points of interest in my essay - as I certainly have in yours: it is a well-written, clear and focused work for which you should be congratulated. I have rated it highly, and wish you all the best in the competition -

    John.

      Hi Lorraine

      Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

      said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

      I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

      The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

      Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

      Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

      I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

      Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

      Best of Luck,

      Than Tin

      Dear John,

      I appreciate your reading my essay and giving me feedback on it. And thanks for rating my essay highly.

      From what you say, I see that there are a lot of similarities in our views, so I definitely would like to read your essay in the coming week. I do agree that there seemingly must be some sort of "most fundamental" category/categories of information perhaps underlying even basic categories of information like mass and charge.

      Best wishes,

      Lorraine

      Hello Lorraine - thanks for commenting; yes, I do believe you'll find many points of interest in my essay - and I very much look forward to your insights.

      Best Regards,

      John

      • [deleted]

      • Post #53

      Hi Lorraine,

      Right now I'm at the start of your essay, I like very much how you start with definitions and historical perspective. An yes Shannon did not deliver the goods philosophically, but he sure did in an engineering sense. He developed the science of how to get information out of noise. Very important when you are trying to transmit information over real transmission lines. Shannon may have not delivered the goods in philosophy, but he sure did in engineering and science.

      I have just finished the essay and can say: Honestly, this is the best essay in the entire contest. I have done my best to raise your score.

      You ended with: what physicists' say about information and the nature of reality will affect the attitudes of very many people: is the future "already written" or "does what we choose to do really matter?"

      This category of question also contains Wheeler's (and anyone that thinks) "Why Existence?", This category of question is the category of question that is not legitimate to ask because the answers is at the level of being and not at the level of knowing.

      Your fellow countryman (educated guess ?) Zoltan (who is also underrated) went into the philosophy of Emanuel Kant who said: The thing in itself (IT) is unknown and unknowable by the categories of the mind (BIT).

      Visit my blog I think you will like it.

      Sincerely,

      Don Limuti

        Hi Don,

        thank you for reading my essay and for your very kind and generous words about it. You mentioned the beginning of the essay and the the last sentence, but do you have any comments about the bit in the middle? I'm not clear why you would sincerely think that "this is the best essay in the entire contest". Your comments are of a very general nature and seem to have nothing to do with the content of my essay.

        What do you mean by "I have done my best to raise your score"?

        Sincerely,

        Lorraine

        Hi Lorraine,

        Lorraine has the best essay in the contest. This is either true or it isn't. Is there an excluded middle?

        I rated you essay a 10 because I like how you expressed:

        1. Information is representative.

        2. Information is subjective depending upon context of individuals and the categories that they use.

        3. That information has a moral ethical-dimension and subjects are not objects (my phrasing).

        Yes, I really liked it. Does this help?

        Don L.

        Don,

        My most humble apology for doubting what you said about my essay, I'm sorry if I offended you. Naturally, I'm delighted that you really liked my essay and thought it was the best in the contest. I'm really, really into the issues I write about in my essay - I think, write and read about them all the time, I'm a bit obsessed.

        I have had a look at your blog, but I haven't read much of your essay as yet.

        Cheers,

        Lorraine

        Hello Lorraine,

        Nice essay, well written and very interesting. I like that you've explored the "bit in the middle" with regard to our choices and whether we even have them. You have asked the right questions and it is nice to see ideas which challenge physicists.

        Your bio caught my eye as an animal lover and particularly me being a big fan of cats! Same on Schrödinger ;)

        I like the term "knowledge communicated" as my essay explores this. In fact the other old meaning you mention was knowledge gained. I prefer the former since my essay looks at information exchange, as I would consider Bit to be a two way process.

        I think your essay is very well presented and you deserve to do well. Hopefully my rating helps. Please take a look at my essay if you get the chance.

        Best wishes & congratulations,

        Antony

          I agree Antony; someone should have told Schrödinger to leave that cat alone!

          Thanks very much for reading and evaluating my essay, and for giving it a good rating. I do hope that I can get to read your essay also in the next week. I am interested to see what you say about Bit as a two way process/information exchange.

          Cheers,

          Lorraine

          Hi Lorraine,

          Thank you very much for your comment, and a high rating!

          Great song performed by Nikolay Noskov! Thank you very much!

          I was lucky enough to meet the author of this song composer Alexandra Pahmutova in 1995. She wrote the song "LEP - 500." The song is about how to build a 500-kilovolt power transmission line in Siberia, where we lived. It was built by my father and mother ... I told her about it. She was very happy....

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-4aOQ5tAD4

          With best wishes and regards,

          Vladimir

          Lorraine,

          Beautiful essay, thank you. It warmed me to read it. I particularly commend you for; "...to label this discontinuity a foundational "bit" is to give up on the search for the origin of the discontinuity which really does seem to represent something foundational about reality."

          I hope my essay shows that you may be correct, by exploring that "bit in the middle" denied by mathematics and QM's assumption of 'point' and identical particles.

          A really nice read, well organized and argued. Well earned top marks on the way. Perhaps you can comment on my similar proposition that (after also better defining 'observation') a 'computation' is required for the artifacts of emitted EM fluctuations to be turned into meaningful information and interpreted (and not always interpreted infallably!).

          I hope you'll ignore my (too dense) abstract and go by some of the blog descriptions; "valuable", "wonderful", "thought provoking", "clearly significant", "deeply impressed", "philosophically deep", "groundbreaking", "nonsense" (OK I'm joking with that one)! I'm sure you'll like it heaps, (and it does need about that many points). Sorry about the promo but Georgina and others did not the abstract seemed a put-off at first.

          Very well done and congratulations for yours.

          Best of luck in the final stretch.

          Peter