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

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

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

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 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.

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

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

Dear Lorraine,

You have asked very important question: "is the future "already written" or "does what we choose to do really matter?" and you have shown that you are familiar with some Lee Smolin's publications.

My own view seems to support the view of Smolin in the meaning that the universe is a dissipative coupled system that exhibits self-organized criticality. The structured criticality is a property of complex systems where small events may trigger larger events. This is a kind of chaos where the general behavior of the system can be modeled on one scale while smaller- and larger-scale behaviors remain unpredictable. The simple example of that phenomenon is a pile of sand.

When QM and GR are computable (during Lyapunov time ) and deterministic, the universe evolution (naturally evolving self-organized critical system) is non-computable and non-deterministic.

Now, not being so technical, I would say that the future is not already written, because Lyapunow time is only a while in comparison to our life.

Best regards and successful pelargoniums' growing!

Lorraine,

Thanks. Don't be put off by the dense abstract. Georgina was, but then found it very readable. I hope the flattering blog comments give a better idea, including; "groundbreaking", "clearly significant", "astonishing", "fantastic job", "wonderful", "remarkable!", "deeply impressed", etc.

I've just checked you score stuck, and confirmed it did. I and others seemed to shoot down! I wonder if 'the origin of the discontinuity really does ...represent something foundational about reality'.!!

Very best wishes

Peter

Lorraine,

I found your approach to the topic at hand intuitive and would like to rate your essay highly. However, before I do may I run some questions by you via email? Please let me know at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Manuel

Hi Lorraine - I replied here but the system bug has removed my comment - just so you know I didn't ignore you!

Hopefully it will return!

best wishes,

Antony

Hi Loraine,

your missing posts plight nudged me to read your essay. I'm glad I did. It is very readable and I can see a number of places where I agree wholeheartedly with what you have written.I tried to 'pin down' the subjective nature of meaning gleaned from information near the beginning of my essay but was relating it my earlier work and explanatory framework so the language might seem a little unusual to people unfamiliar with it.I think your explanation is much clearer.

In the end I'm not sure that you answered "it from bit or bit from it?", it was an enjoyable overview of the subject of information nonetheless. The question of morality is good and a profound question to end on.

By the way, I also think bearded irises are very beautiful especially the big flag irises. Regards Georgina.

Ha - he should have thought about himself in the box - at least I imagine falling into a Black Hole in my essay.

Best wishes,

Antony

Thanks very much Peter for your kind words about my essay, and for rating it well. I hope to read your essay before the 7th. I know what Georgina means - your ideas can be so densely packed in a sentence that the normal human brain can barely cope with them!!

Best of luck to you too, but I hope to get back to you later.

Lorraine