Wow. Thanks Rick!

It's good to have you commenting here. Sorry I haven't seen an essay from you, but not every topic is a winner for everybody. I really like what you had to say, as it manages to condense the content of my whole paper down to the single statement "The invariant portion of 'It from Bit' and 'Bit from It' is 'from'!" And of course, as you point out; any choice of from is a conscious act.

Indeed; the very act of invoking a 'from' mentality implies there is a sense of origin and product, that is in some ways artificial. It is certainly accurate to say that our society is too hung up on pinning down causes, where causation can be like tugs to the fabric that have a cumulative effect, rather than blows to the object itself that shatter it immediately.

When the vase ends up on the floor; it is equally shattered, even though no one tug moved the tablecloth much, nor did any one bump jiggle the table to a great degree. But to assume that the last nudge or vibration of the floor is the cause is erroneous, because every little tug on the fabric contributed to the vase's fall. One might just as well blame the fact the table was not level to begin with, but choosing any single cause is misleading.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Jonathan,

This is what I did go into in my entry, about how knowledge is fragmentary and distinctions have to blur in the bigger picture. It is this contextuality of perception and information which goes to the heart of why "bits"(and information as emergent from distinction) are so fundamental to knowledge.

" 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.

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."

So, yes, this isn't a complete meeting of the minds, but there is some convergence. I view the situation dynamically.

Hi Johnathan,

I love your opening introduction below: "In an ancient tale (as once told to me); Spirit takes on the myriad forms to learn by becoming, and being, and doing, what it is to live in the world of form. Then after immersing itself in the universe of form and its living inhabitants, it begins the upward journey back to oneness, rising above the world of separate forms as it has learned all there is to know in that manner, and becomes unified again - so the cycle can repeat. Though told in this way it is an epic saga, at each step and every stage there is an exquisite interplay - a dance of information and form, where they take turns being creator and observer. 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?" This remains me of the great Carl Sagan: "The cosmos is also within us, we're made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." i totally agree with him. However, rather than the Cosmos within us, it is our Ancestor FAPAMA is within us and within everything that is. Below you stated that it from bit is more fundamental than bit from it, if you must decide. I understand what you said and what you are struggling with. Nature is infinite, thus it must contain all including itself as an empty set that contains itself that Russell found to be inconsistent and contradictory from Aristotelian logic worldview although Russell struggling with whether or not Aristotelian A = A is true, and think this question does not exist. at the same time his thought was controlled by A = A as was Ayn Rand's Objectivism and as you pointed out, this logic controls scientific inquiries that have been brilliantly successful that we cannot live without such as electricity, computer, phone, airplane and Starbucks.You and I have the same worldview in the sense that nature encompasses everything and both and in between. I read and rated your essay. Wishing you the best in this contest, Leo KoGuan.

    Thanks so much Leo!

    I am appreciative of the time taken to read and comment. It is wonderful that this forum allows so many words that are educational and informative to be preserved, so they may later be digested. I am glad that your perspective is now a part of my landscape. I think perhaps the three-fold nature of your FAPAMA metaphor is reflected in my words, in a different form. But whether it is the eternal absolute or energy and forces - that fill the space between It and Bit - is open to discussion.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Dear Jonathan,

    Your interesting philosophical essay reminds me of spirituality and the ancient Hindu wisdom that the universe is a cosmic play and the Observer and the Information are basically One! I agree with your view that the "It from Bit or ...?" question depends on how it is perceived and interpreted.

    I rated your essay high and wish you best of luck in the contest.

    ___Ram

      Thank you Ram Gopal,

      This year's essay is certainly more Philosophy than Science. Given the question posed; I was inclined to approach the subject that way. This time around; I just started writing, and kept going until I had enough content, but that bit of ancient Hindu wisdom was my seed or starting place. The rest just happened.

      I also rated your excellent essay highly, a day or two ago.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

      Mr. Dickau,

      I wish to congratulate you for writing such a fine essay. I have no criticism, however, I do wish to emphasize a point that has been overlooked in all of the essays except my own essay BITTERS.

      Only unique is real, once. As the only real form Spirit could ever take on would be unique, once, Spirit would never have to rise up to resume a state of oneness. Oneness is the only real natural state.

      Wheeler ought to have asked:

      Is the real Universe simple? Yes

      Is the abstract universe simple? No

      Joe

        Then, Joe, what is the answer to:

        Is the abstract universe contained within the real universe?

        Tom

        Thank you Joe,

        I'm happy my essay does not warrant your criticism, or give you cause for complaint, and your suggestion is duly noted. And of course; even in a branching view of reality, each outcome is unique and non-repeatable. That is part of what makes life so precious. As we are entering the stream, it is already moving along, further downhill to find its way to other waters.

        And of course Tom;

        While the whole of the abstract may never find its expression in the universe, or even in a collection of universes, the seed of the abstract must reside in all things for them to exist at all. To an extent; Joe's statement above sets out the condition; the abstract admits the complex which gives rise to the possibility for form beyond oneness. The simple condition of 'oneness is' is not sufficient, of itself, to give rise to the universe.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        • [deleted]

        • Post #60

        Respectfully Jonathan, and Tom

        The real eternal unique Universe could not arise. The real unique Universe does not have an inside or an outside. Insides and outsides are not unique. The quality of physical rising and falling is not unique. There is no seed of abstraction anywhere in the real Universe. There is nothing but an ocean of abstraction into which modern man is presently drowning. It is one thing for a man to admit that he may not know the truth about a certain condition. It is quite another matter for that man to invent and pretend to perfect an instrument that could accurately identify the supposed condition for him. Each real snowflake is unique, once. It follows that each unit of heat must be unique, once. Temperature is not a series of repeatable numbers.

        Man may build a computer programmed matrix, but any active actor in the matrix would have to behave uniquely different from a real person in a real situation. This means that the temperature surrounding the actor in the matrix would have to be different than every other amount of temperature so far recorded anywhere on earth. This law applies to holographs as well.

        Joe

          Ah yes! But also...

          You are absolutely correct, and definitive up to a point. But there is more to the story. Let me start my response by saying that people are biased to understand all things in terms of the behavior of fermionic matter, and this is endemic to living in a world made of protons, neutrons, and electrons - not just a matter of human perception. I'll accede that within that realm, your answer makes perfect sense.

          But why only uniqueness and oneness? I understand there is a balance there, or something that is preserved, but there is more. The next level up from unique would be completeness; in Physics this is preserved by Electricity that only flows when the circuit goes all the way around, and in Geometry the simplest figure with this property is the circle. Of course; the circle contains space and thus represents the next property which one could call nothingness.

          Taking this to logical conclusion; I'd make enoughness or sufficiency the next preserved quality, and then a property that could be called agreement or equality is needed - which bespeaks the connection of such a hierarchy with oneness, or the totality of being. I spell out some of this in Physics terms, in my essay from the FQXi contest on What is ultimately possible in Physics.

          More later,

          Jonathan

          "There is no seed of abstraction anywhere in the real Universe."

          Then these word symbols communicate nothing, and anything we say is pointless.

          Hi Jonathan,

          I liked your very readable essay. One of the best for staying on target and going right to information and form. As you show both do not mean much with taking into account that most slippery of all things "human context".

          If my own work drives you a little crazy, please forgive me I was just doing my best to give the flavor of the Bhagavad Gita.

          Don Limuti

            Gee whiz, oh scrupulous one..

            The Bhagavad Gita? I should have known that, but didn't quite have the realization surface. I knew there was something eerily familiar about the tone of your essay. And of course; I had the sense that it was all Siri's writing, after all. But I enjoyed your paper Don, and I gave you an uplifting score.

            Thank you for your appreciation. Have an enlightening day.

            All the Best,

            Jonathan

            Jonathen,

            Your usual very intuitive and pertinent insights into learning, but I did notice why you felt the need comment on the unstructured approach. It would have been better for some organization. None the less that's the only and very small criticism as the content and prose were very valid and highly readable, which for me justified a good score. I particularly gelled with some very pertinent comments such as;

            "...in many natural systems; the most interesting place to look is along the fringes, such as a shoreline or the boundary between forest and field, where the boundary is a fractal."

            "seeing there is a similar interplay between form and information, which ensues from an exchange of "It from Bit" and "Bit from It" roles, allows us to make better sense of a complex reality"

            "...it must be acknowledged that information can play a broader role, as architect of the theater that is space and time..". and..;

            "It is presumed there can be no 'It' beyond the Planck density, but clearly the primal basis of information can and must still be well-defined - even in the matter free regime of the Planck era - for the universe to exist."

            The critical concept of motion seems to be a subliminal coherent theme, or "-a Cosmic Dance." You also importantly identified up front that "the real challenge is to understand what plays the role of object, and what takes on the role of information, at a given point in the process." I'm also reminded of a couple of Einstein quotes: "Play Is The Highest Form Of Research." and; "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

            Thanks for your kind comments on mine. I do hope you get to re read the 2nd half slowly as that's where the ontological construction all comes together. The resolution of the EPR paradox (Bells inequalities) is dead serious and a very important new finding, see also the blog comments and explanations.

            Very best wishes.

            Peter

              Hi Jonathan

              The theme of your essay is quite in line with a point of view I hold which is that recycling between energy and matter is a general principle worthy of consideration, not only in terms of information. It is virtually a necessity for a static cosmology, which is at the extreme limit of the recycling premise and one of my current interests.

              As for continuous information, I think that depends on whether energy is quantized. There is a natural quantum of energy, Hh, Hubble constant times Planck constant or about 10^-51 joule. This is the amount of energy that Hubble's law implies would be lost per cycle from all photons, no matter what their wavelength. The process of losing Hh in energy every cycle corresponds to exponential decay. That is about as close to a universal quantum as you are going to get. Hh is small enough that the difference bewteen discrete and continuous would be negligible.

              Anyway that's my two bits. Best to you.

              Colin

                Thank you Peter!

                I appreciate your kind words and your high regard. And yes; I understand the seriousness of Bell's experiments and related results. I am certain there is resolution of the paradox for EPR, but I am not convinced there is a (singular) resolution which explains the results handily and thereby locks out all explanations. That is one of the things I disliked about McGucken's paper and forum responses; it is as though he expects you to drop all the old dogma and accept his new dogma instead. That does not suit me.

                So I will re-read and comment, but I sense that you do not need my support, in order to get your point across effectively. And be aware; you may not ever win my agreement in toto, but that would not keep me from recommending your work to others.

                All the Best,

                Jonathan

                that should be; I'm not convinced a result that definitively explains EPR should be considered one that 'thereby locks out all other explanations.'

                Jonathan