Jonathan

Congratulations for this well reasoned, sensitively expressed essay. Everything you said rings true - I admire your stamina in examining all the possibilities that the essay question invites and as it were answering them simultaneously with a koan-like wisdom.

As Edwin also stressed, you mention the focused and scientific way small children try to understand things. As we grow older we lose a lot of subtlety as our minds cling to one overriding theory or another. This is an important period for physics and an open-minded 'philosophy' of knowledge such as yours is very important if long held theories that do not quite work well are to be replaced by better ones.

Your thinking seems to be influenced by "The Tao of Physics" a marvelous book. Having lived in Japan for the past 42 years I can testify that religion and the language it is expressed in has a great influence on how we think, about science among many other things. This is a broad off-topic subject but it came to mind. You yourself quoted the Native American myth so I think you agree.

I expected but did not find a reference to a Yang-It-Yin-Bit!

With best wishes

Vladimir

    Thanks so much Ed,

    I appreciate that you grasp some of the subtleties I was trying to highlight, and can redact salient details so skillfully. I did see one other author mention the idea that a concept of 'It' is deeply embedded in our conditioning, but indeed he made no mention of when those perceptions were formed. So the fact that object constancy is something we learn at a very early age, well before the age of 2, was imagined to be significant to understanding our conditioned view of 'It.'

    I love the work of Alan Watts, though I have not read very many of his books. He is great at re-casting Eastern thought in a way that is accessible to Westerners. Regarding human awareness; I guess part of Chalmers' assertion that the subjective experience of consciousness is the hard problem of understanding consciousness. But I certainly could have said more about how consciousness is a vehicle for information, or vice versa.

    More later,

    Jonathan

    Gracious thanks to you Vladimir..

    Understanding the need for childlike openness is key. An image comes to mind 'lantern vs searchlight' is the metaphor; I think it was on Alison Gopnik's website, but I'd have to check. When experimental researchers and theorists have the freedom to playfully explore, great things are discovered. I've heard that story from Nobel laureates and top Physics researchers. So it works for adults too! But being forced to be too focused on specific results can kill progress.

    I did read Tao of Physics, Dancing Wu Li Masters, and other related volumes. Yes I see the relationship to the Tao, and I am a student of those teachings, so it might have made it in - especially via the Yang-It/Yin-Bit reference - but I had to draw the line somewhere. The great thing about the way I approached things is that the topic is expandable. Perhaps the Yin/Yang Tao symbol will be one of my slides, if I present this work as a lecture. But for now, thanks for your kind remarks.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Jonathan,

    As of 7-6-13, 7:44 am EST, the rating function for your essay is not available. Sorry I can't help you out right now by rating your essay. NOTE: I have logged in using a PC and a MAC and different browsers but it appears to be a site function issue.

    Manuel

      Jonathan, It's good to see you make it in. This is a well reasoned essay and I like the analogy of the actors and dancers.

      I think from a philosophical point of view thw best case to make is that IFB and BFI are both valid. My starting point is more pragmatic in that I want an idea that will lead to a theory. I think the IFB idea is better from that point of view. Of course information on its own is meaningless as you and others have rightfully argued. You need to add at least some structure such as an ordering of nits in a sequence. I prefer to add structure by adding the role of quantum uncertainty.

      Hope they fix the rating system soon, the contest has gone into limbo at the most exciting moment!

      Thanks anyway Manuel,

      Hopefully that will be fixed soon.

      Jonathan

      Thanks greatly Phil,

      Your comments and insight are appreciated. Hopefully the glitch will be fixed soon.

      Regards,

      Jonathan

      Jonathan,

      This is a well thought out exposition of the relationship of knowledge and information, but if I may, I would like to tug on a particular thread and see where it leads. Consider:

      "Does life descend to play in or with form, bestowing consciousness and creativity? Or does form rise and evolve to acquire these attributes, so it may play in the heavens?"

      The logical fallacy in theology is that the absolute is apex, when it is in fact basis. A spiritual absolute would be the most raw essence of awareness from which we rise, not an ideal form of knowledge and wisdom from which we fell. The more appropriate symbol for a spiritual absolute would be the new born babe, not an old man with flowing beard. It is only as this awareness grows, multiplies and interacts that it develops ever more complex form.

      As for form, you assume it exists as a platonic realm, because it follows invariant patterns, but is this because these patterns exist in some pre- spatial/temporal state, or because identical cause yields identical effect? Which would best suit Ockham's razor, that there exist an infinite range of deterministic laws on some other realm, or that processes within this realm naturally generate them?

      If you have nothing, the absolute state, do you need laws to govern it? And as this state divides/multiplies, are not the laws a function of the form of this growth, and both laws and form are in constant feedback loops, creating ever more complexity?

      Isn't the guiding principle of science to explain the complex in terms of the simple and to peel away the layers? Requiring the pre-existence of every possibility seems to defeat that task.

      What is nothing? It has no shape or position, energy or action. So it cannot be bound by any limiting factors and thus must be infinite. As well it cannot move or reflect and thus is inert, like a temperature of absolute zero. What it is, is the void. Filling this void is matter, which seems motivated by inertia and radiation, which seems intent on expanding to infinity.

      Not to mention that element of consciousness motivating the tenacity of life on this "pale blue dot."

        Jonathan,

        If I may, I would like to post a small portion of my own entry, explaining why knowledge is inherently fragmentary:

        " Bias is fundamental to the construct of knowledge, so it needs to be factored into the

        model. Whether it is a particular perspective, or a generic model or pattern inductively

        distilled from circumstance, knowledge is a focused distillation of a larger context. Much

        as a telescope would give us much deeper depth of vision, but also limit the field of

        view. Thus the very process of definition imposes limitations and introduces further

        layers of context.

        This factor is incorporated in physics as the Uncertainty Principle, though the full

        consequences do not seem fully appreciated. Knowledge does not go to infinity,

        because it is a function of distinctions and judgements. Measurements, if you prefer. So

        combining multitudes of such bits of information cancels out detail, like colors running

        together. They can be networked into a larger body of knowledge, much like various

        colors can create a picture, if they remain separate and distinct.

        What we think of as knowledge is that border between distinction and continuity, as the

        making of connections and relations among and between the distinctions, we glean the

        broader patterns. The consequence is that broader, generalized perspective does blur

        the fine detail and loses some information, just as a detailed view limits the broad

        perspective."

        Jonathan,

        I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.

        My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online competition which assures me that the competition will be back up and running soon. Ironically, the inability of not being able to rate the essays correlates with the TD experimental findings, as presented in my essay, which show how the acts of selection are fundamental to our physical existence.

        Anyway, I hope that all entrants will be allocated the same opportunity to have their essay rated when they are posted, and if not possible due to technical difficulties, will have their opportunity adjusted accordingly. Best wishes to you with your entry.

        Manuel

        PS I will be reviewing and rating your entry after this function has been turned back on.

        A lot to think about John...

        The designation of base or apex is a matter of perspective. It's the same structure, really, only inverted or reversed. Is the upright cone of more value; or is it the inverted cone greater - because its emptiness will hold a fluid like water? Actually; the cone extends to encompass both upright and inverted sections, though we normally see one or the other depicted. Was the cone always there, in the realm of possibilities, and does that constitute a Platonic archetype or ideal?

        My object of contemplation was, for a number of years, the Mandelbrot Set. And I played endless tricks with the algorithm and rendering, to reveal faces of that figure most people have never seen. It was more than 25 years ago now, that I had a few phone conversations with Professor M, to discuss the relevance of the mapping of form at the periphery to the cosmological epochs. I was slated to give a talk about this at FFP12, but unfortunately I didn't make it to Udine. However; this topic got me to wondering about how something mathematical might exist apart from our derivation or discovery of it - for obvious reasons.

        Slides for FFP12 talk

        More later,

        Jonathan

        Hello again John,

        I just wanted to say that in my view, the archetypal and emergent existence of ideal forms are identical. This comes about because of the dual nature of determination in constructivism. That is to say; the process of learning about or creating anything are two sides of the same coin. But in some measure; the role of theoretical Physics is to correctly intuit what some of the ideal forms are, that emergent forms in nature are approaching.

        Using iterated function systems, a wide variety of fern-like forms can be created, and the Math is simplicity itself. The collage theorem of Barnsley is basically a 'copy and paste' formula, where an image can be stretched or rotated. If one notes where the self-similar forms within the fern shape reside, and creates a map of how fern maps to branch, which maps to frond, which maps to leaf, then this becomes your formula. Amazingly, the shape of the fern emerges from the copy and paste algorithm itself. And we are left to wonder if a fern has a mathematical ideal it is reaching toward.

        Have Fun!

        Jonathan

        Thank you for your insights Hai Caohoàng

        Much of what you say in your comment makes sense, but I imagine I will better understand your intent by reading your essay. This I will attempt to do. Indeed; I do favor 'It from Bit' and then 'Bit from It' - because I feel that the relationship between the two defines each outlook, rather than giving either one supremacy.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        Jonathan,

        I have to say one of my earlier influences was complexity theory, but lost track of it, as it became something of a business mantra, so I was quite excited to read Nature and Nonlinear Logic by William C. McHarris.

        I think people like he, who have spent their careers on the subject, are better able to explain how the development of patterns really does depend on dynamic randomness. We logically assume the causal link of effect is effectively predetermined, but patterns create their own instability. They rise up and crumble. The belief in deterministic outcomes is in fact part of the pattern prevalent in human action, as stability leads to stagnation. So yes, in a linear sense, I can understand how bottom up dynamic processes follow all possibilities and top down ordering self selects sustainable patterns, but I know that thread will eventually fray and fade. The cone of prior cause is ultimately random, as is the cone of consequent effect.

        An ideal form is still contextual.

        That said, I do believe in emerging ideals. I think life on this planet is building a central nervous system, with humanity as the medium, but it will require a phase transition we care not to imagine.

        Ah Yes..

        The butterfly emerges not by transforming, but by consuming its prior form. The butterfly's genome is distinct from that of the creature it emerges from. Little by little, the imaginal discs link up, until the caterpillar becomes a soup and the butterfly continues to develop its winged form.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        Jonathan,

        And that goes to the point I keep making about time; That it is the changing configuration of what is, rather than a vector of duration from past forms to future forms. This change being a thermodynamic, non-linear process, with the measure of duration is only an effect, like the scalar of temperature. The present doesn't move, only changes shape.

        Regards,

        John

        "The butterfly emerges not by transforming, but by consuming its prior form."

        Pushing the reset button. Part of the pattern is erasing pattern.

        I'll pick up the thread here...

        I want it to be clear that I don't think the Platonic view is the last word on everything in Physics. Instead; I feel that the idea of a mathematical universe is an essential piece of the puzzle to understand. It is fruitless to debate the notion of the pre-existence of the orderly form that appears in Math. The point is instead the unvarying nature of some aspects of mathematical reasoning, or persistent objects and principles within Math - which come out the same regardless of how you get there.

        These patterns appear in nature, as well as in abstract studies like Mathematics. It is freely admitted that some attempts at a constructivist formulation for Math have been disappointing, but I see nothing wrong with the basic mechanics of that approach. My guess is that there is a constructive proof possible for any mathematical statement that is generally proved in other ways, but I could be wrong. The nice thing about constructive proofs is that they can be turned into computing algorithms with great ease.

        But as many have pointed out; Physics is all about how natural law and the universe unfold whatever underlying principles exist into observable form. I think the underlying principles are identical however, and it's a matter of whether concrete or abstract information is desired. I may talk more about this idea in the page Zeeya Merali and FQXi have opened up for discussing Dimensional Reduction in the Sky, because of its relevance to the topic of that paper.

        Have Fun!

        Jonathan

          To clarify further;

          I think that following the emergence of natural principles which inspire Math, and assuming there are pre-existing mathematical archetypes which shape physical form, takes you to the same place, ultimately. The act of determination in a constructivist sense is both measurement and construction. That is; observation is creation, just as with Quantum Mechanics.

          What I am proposing is that the way we learn about the universe is a model or simulation of how the universe gives rise to form - through a dynamic process of determination, which serves both to make things observable or measurable, but also makes them actual. I'll have more to say on this later.

          Have Fun!

          Jonathan