\"It from Bit or Bit from It?\" by Giacomo Alessiani

Giacomo,

I entirely agree with the principle of physical objects being essential, along with measurability. I apply and carefully define those in my own essay with interesting results, confirming their importance.

I do like your simple analogy, which in a way I've extended, covering all the infinite intermediate angles the straw end could be bent to, along with each 'rotated' angle of the straw, giving a 'Bloch sphere' of infinite detail to nature between binaries 0 and 1. I hope you may read it.

Well done for your clear fundamental description and realist view, always difficult to achieve in a strange language ..like physics!

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Giacomo,

You are correct, Thank you for the reply.

I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. FQXi should have issued a notification that you have replied....

It was my proposition, it was not an inference to your essay. What I mean is that we should be more close experimental results for our propositions.

I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.

Now in this context, can we create material from information...?

You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Hello Giacomo,

You make a very valid point, that we as humans can indeed influence information and reality. This is something that needs to be said, but hasn't been put across in other essays quite so well. I think you're right! My essay deals with observers and being observed, so perhaps touches on an aspect of what you say in conclusion about acquisition too. Please take a look if you get the chance.

I agree that the Uncertainty Principle was one of the most important milestones in physics in the last century.

Best wishes,

Antony

Giacomo,

There is a link, which is the correspondence between the sphere and a plane, or the circle and a line. The intersections with the perimeter will be a non linear relationship as the line moves across the circle, giving the cosine 'wave'. This is of absolute fundamental importance in explaining the EPR paradox without FTL.

Adding a good number of points to yours now (I hope you may have done or do the same for mine).

Perhaps the rotating straw with infinitely varying angles may become an icon in unification!

Best wishes

Peter

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

Dear Giacomo,

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.

Based on your title, I was hoping you were going to directly address the topic, but what I see is something about a straw bending and I'm not sure how this relates.

Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Dear Giacomo,

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

Mr. Paul Borrill,

thank You for visit my page in this contest.

Can I think, do You read my essay ?

What do You think about it ?

It is possible for example that the Uncertainty Principle can be rewritten, a new version, as I do into my essay ?

It is possible, as in our scale , bending an object we produce together a change into

the impulse ? And also in the quantum scale ?

Clear, the impulse of a body in motion.

This kind of argument is what I would like share with other

physicists or else field of science and knowledge.

I hope , this is a new important page, I mean the essay, as many other ones ,

I have read during this month.

Thank You Mr. Borrill , My Best Regards.