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

    • [deleted]

    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

    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

    Hello Lorraine,

    Thank-you for your kind appraisal - I am glad that you see some parallels between our work.

    On your objection to DNA evolving from micro-organisms: Though there is simple DNA in microorganic life, these creatures nonetheless live in an environment that is dimensionally different from our own - ie: they are closer to the omni-dimensional fabric of the Cosmos than are the more complex organisms. The DNA of the latter - of creatures 'fully in space-time' - is what represents the Composite Particle in the Organic Vortex. Thus, complex DNA evolves from its simpler counterpart.

    It was not possible to explain this in detail in the essay, because so much else needed to be said in the space allotted. But the subject is treated at length in my book - 'The Nature of Particles in the Unified Field' (Amazon). If you get a chance ....

    Thanks again for getting back to me. I can't tell if you rated my essay, but if so - thank-you!

    John

    Manuel,

    please post all questions about my essay here, because then anyone can make a comment, and not just me. I, in turn, look forward to hearing from you.

    Cheers,

    Lorraine

    Georgina,

    Thanks so much for reading and reviewing my essay, I appreciate your comments.

    Re "In the end I'm not sure that you answered "it from bit or bit from it?"":

    I think that might be said of a lot of the essays. However, with my essay I pointed out that what we call "bits" are not information in themselves - its only in a certain context that they can be said to represent information. Also with the "bits" that are claimed to exist at the foundations of really, I suggested that these "bits" really are just a discontinuous change in the orbital angular momentum and spin etc. of an electron, and so therefore they are not really more fundamental than orbital angular momentum and spin etc. of an electron; and so therefore "bits" are not an appropriate basis for a fundamental theory of reality.

    So in effect I denied the reality or importance of bits as a fundamental aspect of reality. With bits "out of the way" so to speak, I concentrated on the question posed in the essay blurb: "What IS information". I wrote about subjective information and represented information, and I think I didn't make clear in my essay that bits fit into this second category i.e. they are a type of represented and/or coded information. This is my opinion after very many years in the IT industry.

    Of course represented information is fundamental to reality especially living things. But represented information only represents information to a subject. Without a subject, i.e. without subjective experience, represented information doesn't represent information at all. I'm claiming that there is something like a subject/object structure to information: information is not like a flat plane of objectively existing information; there is no objective information.

    I hope I can get to read and comment on your essay in the next few days.

    Cheers,

    Lorraine

    P.S. As far as I can see, all missing posts I know about have been restored. I knew that FQXi COULD restore the posts, but I wasn't confident that they WOULD!

    P.P.S. I'm currently spending so much time on the essay competition, that my bearded irises badly need weeding!!

    Thank-you Lorraine; and yes, there's a lot of off-site collusion going on. As soon as my score goes up two points, it goes down two or three. I can only hope the organizers know about it, and are deciding in some fair manner who will be among the finalists.

    If not ... well, it is sometimes a greater honor to lose: Simple survival is not evolution, and evolution has been our true success through the ages, right?

    John

      Hi Jacek,

      Thanks for commenting on my essay.

      You repeat the Lee Smolin part-quotes from my essay: is the future "already written" or "does what we choose to do really matter?" But clearly choice indicates something much more specific about the nature of reality than saying that "the future is not already written" or that "the universe evolution...is non-computable and non-deterministic" or "smaller- and larger-scale behaviors remain unpredictable".

      In "Precedence and freedom in quantum physics"* , physicist Lee Smolin says:

      "...whether human beings or animals have freedom to make choices...[it] would be necessary to...discover that the outcomes of neural processes are influenced by quantum dynamics of large molecules with entangled states...This could very easily fail to be the case."

      But, I'm less cautious than Lee Smolin. As I posted to Georgina Parry (below), I contend in my essay that information in the universe has a subjective structure, that information is subjective experience. Choice only makes sense from the point of view of a subject. It means that from the point of view of a living thing/subject there is more than one possible physical outcome for the next moment in time AND that a subject can make a choice based on the information it has about reality.

      Regards,

      Lorraine

      P.S. I'm spending so much time at present on the essay competition that my plants, including the pelargoniums, are not getting the attention that they deserve!

      * Precedence and freedom in quantum physics, Lee Smolin, May 2012, Page 11, http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3707

      I think I would prefer it if, in order to rate an essay, you had to make at least a one line non-anonymous comment about the essay. That's the theory, but perhaps it wouldn't really be a good idea in practice!

      Cheers,

      Lorraine

      Incidentally, the future is in my opinion both written and unwritten. Potential sensory data exists in the environment which may be intercepted and formed into a present experience.So with hindsight it can be said that prior to interception it was a -future experience- relative to the observer who will intercept it, (later on), and form an experience from it.

      The unwritten future relates to observer choice, as what data will be selected, forming the individual world line has not been pre-written. The structure that allows this is uni-temporal space (same time everywhere) in which potential sensory data relating to different times (when it was formed) is distributed. This arrangement allows the Andromeda and barn pole paradoxes to be intuitive solutions of -what should be observed-, (ignoring motion blur) and the Grandfather paradox will not occur because though there can be movement through potential sensory data there can not be movement through time, back to the material sources of that data as all material things exist at the same and only time.

      So in answer to your final question; yes there is a place for morality and ethics as choice has not been predetermined. (Unless one thinks about the subconscious mind, which can choose before the conscious mind is aware of making a decision but that is a different issue.)

      Georgina,

      I think you are right, often "the subconscious mind...can choose before the conscious mind is aware of making a decision". I think in many ways we are a bit like a democracy of individuals i.e. individual cells, and also organs like the heart and stomach are semi-autonomous entities which have their own neurons. Also, researchers have found that 90% of our cells are (I think) bacterial cells: humans, and presumably other animals, have only 10% of "their own" cells. (This puts a different slant on the effects of the widespread use of antibiotics!).

      I appreciate what you mean when you say that "the future is ...both written and unwritten". But I would interpret "the future is ...both written and unwritten" in a more simplistic way: choice doesn't mean that we can choose just anything e.g. we can't choose to be a bird and fly away in the next moment. The reality we know is pretty stable i.e. mostly deterministic (written): living things seemingly only have choice (unwritten) in certain areas like change of relative spatial position, and perhaps change in energy distribution.

      Cheers,

      Lorraine

      Lorraine,

      The questions I would like to run by you is not for public comment.

      Best wishes,

      Manuel

      Dear Lorraine,

      We are at the end of this essay contest.

      In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

      Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

      eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

      And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

      Good luck to the winners,

      And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

      Amazigh H.

      I rated your essay.

      Please visit My essay.

      Manuel,

      I notice you prominently display the FQXi Community logo on your http://temptdestiny.com Home page, and your "Science" page. Are you endorsed or funded by FQXi? Similarly, you display the NASA logo - are you endorsed or funded by NASA?

      Also, why are you seemingly asking everyone for their email addresses?

      Cheers,

      Lorraine

      Lorraine;

      I apologize that my request so deeply offended you. My mistake.

      Best wishes,

      Manuel

      • [deleted]

      Lorraine,

      I happened upon a conversation you were having with Carlo Rovelli, in his thread and I wasn't quite sure whether you were arguing for or against "free will," so I thought I'd get around to reading your entry to understand your position. It seems that by your concluding statement, it is more of a question you are asking, then a particular position you have taken.

      May I offer a few insights and speculation on the general topic?

      For one thing, "free will" is a bit of an oxymoron. To will is to determine. We don't go to the effort of distinguishing between positive and negative choices in order to randomly select. Our selves and our decision making processes are part of the larger reality that both affects us and we affect in turn.

      This goes to a point I keep making here, the subject of my last year's entry, that time is not so much a vector from past to future, but the process by which future potential become past circumstance. For example, does the earth really travel some dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?

      This makes time an effect of action, similar to temperature. Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude.

      Thermodynamic activity creates the effect of temperature and temperature is a measure of thermodynamic activity, as change creates time and time is a measure of change.

      The problem here is that narrative and cause and effect logic emerge from the sequential effect of time, so we tend to view this vector of events as foundational, but sequence and cause and effect are not the same thing. Yesterday doesn't cause today, anymore than one rung on a ladder causes the next. Cause and effect is a function of energy exchange, ie. the sun radiating on a rotating planet creates this sequence of events we call days. So our start/stop measures of sequence are no more foundational than the level of a thermometer on a hot day. Duration is not some vector along which the point of the present moves, but is the dynamic action occurring between points of measure, like the wave cycling between peaks.

      So this issue of free will is based on the notion we are traveling along a narrative vector and as all prior events seemed to coalesce in a deterministic fashion, doesn't it logically follow that all subsequent events will do so as well and doesn't this then mean that all of time must necessarily follow a singular course?

      As I point out, that narrative sequence is emergent. Past and future do not physically/ontologically exist, so it is difficult to assign "carved in stone" status to something which doesn't even physically exist. As you point out in your essay, all information is subject to perspective, so even when these events are actually occurring, it is difficult to actually assign objectivity to them, so when they are past as well, perspective continues to evolve, so this is compounded. All we can really say is that "something happened."

      Now what does happen is determined by laws of nature, or they wouldn't be laws, so it can be said that what does happen is determined, but the actual input into any event cannot be fully known prior to that event, as the total input only arrives at the moment of occurrence. Prior knowledge of this input would require faster than light transmission of the information and if that were possible, than input could take a similar route and the problem would only repeat itself.

      So there is no frame in which the input into future events can be known. Is it possible there is some "God's eye view," that could "know" where everything is and thus all outcomes?

      The fallacy there is that an ideal is not an absolute. Our concept of Gods, platonic models, unified field theories, etc. is the ideal. That perfect formulation that explains all. Yet an absolute is a universal state and the problem with a universal state is that it irons out all detail and complexity, which as you pointed out, are subjective. There can be no differences, distinctions, gradients, etc. in an absolute state. Like the temperature of absolute zero, it is completely static and unchanging.

      This can be either end of the spectrum, as nothing, the absolute zero, or as everything, infinity, where everything cancels out into fathomless white noise. What we experience inbetween those parameters is relational and subjective.

      Regards,

      John Merryman

      Hi Lorraine,

      Comment I left on my thread:

      Thanks very much for your kind comments and rating. I'm also relieved that I won't be marked on the answer to your question as I don't think my nerves can take another contest ;o)

      I think you are dead right that hidden information exists. I explain spooky action at a distance as hidden fixed constants, a play against hidden variables.

      My geometries explain the cosine non-linear relation between entangled particles in spin Alice/Bob type experiments exactly!

      As mentioned to Margriet - I think at least in the case of Fibonacci numbers, that they represent real geometry in the form of simplexes.

      From this I get symmetry breaking from complete nothingness, that also conserves the nothingness. In short it solves Baryon Asymmetry.

      I think this should apply to all numbers and that they apply to dimensionality and simplexes are the most fundamental geometry in n-dimensions.

      Great question!

      Best wishes for the contest!

      Antony

        Dear Lorraine,

        I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

        I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

        You can find the latest version of my essay here:

        http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

        (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

        May the best essays win!

        Kind regards,

        Paul Borrill

        paul at borrill dot com