I have not understood the relation without Causal Dynamical Triangulations. Can you day more about it. carlo
How to Build a Universe from Wheeler’s Immaterial Source, in Nine Pages or Less. by Stephen James Anastasi
Thank you Carlo
As is pretty obvious, the Harmony Set as shown is a one-space interpretation. Simply, because this model has to be a proper world model (for reasons shown) it remains for the investigator to find how the system gives us our world, as opposed to 'a' world.
After a long, long period of thought (which of course doesn't make me right) I tried to interpret the system by maintaining equivalence (under the GPE) and distributing the values into three dimensions, assuming that the formulas of mathematics applied to this distribution as much as it does in our present models (this is not strictly allowable for the endpoint rationalist because first one must show how Pi comes to be, but I have no really big concerns there for the moment).
Doing this redistribution is allowable because of Kant's argument about our never being able to say that a particular world model is reality, meaning 'the' world model (I know this seems to be the antithesis of Kant, but it has the opposite effect for an endpoint rationalist--I can explain in more detail if needed). All models that add up to the values of the Harmony Set are valid.
Doing this redistribution brings the number i into existence, as the square root of a negative pointing vector, which, combined with the exponential nature of the Harmony Set suggests a possible connection to Schrodinger's equation, and hence Feynman's Path Integral, but in a summation form (as in CDT). The redistribution however, provides an almost flat universe in all but the center, in a region that might be around the Planck scale (one would have to show equivalence between the scale of the Harmony Set and that of the real world, but there are ways to work with this). This flat system applied to the real part of the solution. The imaginary part could be doing anything -- I don't know how to work with this second part in this very different context. While the real part suggests that space is essentially flat except locally, I'm looking for an interpretation that implies more interesting structure.
One way to achieve this is to begin the development probabilistically. That is, consider the boundaries to be point like structures, and ask oneself where the next point must go, given the boundary condition of maintaining equivalence. In two dimensions, one gets into bothers quite early. In three dimensions placing the first four points is easy, and, with the digraph connections they produce first a line, then a triangle (implied 2-space, not embedded in higher spaces) then a tetragon, and all forms are equivalent under the GPE (e.g. any interaction can be swapped with any other and the same form results). The form of CDT has it that triangles are 'glued' together along their lines, but in the Harmony Set these lines are necessarily glued, because they are ontologically dependent, so if this is a valid world model one might expect CDT to be an expectation. The difference of course is that CDT, if I understand it correctly, assumes a much larger world model initially, where mine brings the world into existence a step at a time (literally).
To continue adding points and their interactions starts to get more challenging after this. Equivalence can be maintained by assuming extra spacelike dimensions, but doing so leads to another tetragon in 4-space, then another set of these in 5-space and so on. I don't know what to do with these, but this seems to be a bit like CDT's idea of 4-simplices. Another way is to simply add the point to the outside of the initial tetragon, which under equivalence might go in any of four places, but, in the absence of an oriented space, all four places are the same place (meaning the same form arises). The same applies as one adds the next three points. My concern here, as endpoint rationalist, is that I'm not completely convinced of this approach because the bi-vectors have to be 'stretched' to make it fit. But such stretching seems to be the same form as CDT's simplices, as best I can tell.
Lastly, one interesting thing for me is that CDT hits a wall when it aims to reduce its length scales to zero. They can't do it, and I don't think they should be able to do it, if the tenets of my armchair universe stand (which, under endpoint skepticism leading to endpoint rationalism, they ought, which is a stronger argument than that of empiricism).
Of course, there is a long way to go with this development. I need someone with a strong knowledge in philosophy (metaphysics), mathematics and physics to talk to about it, but, as this is so far away from present science, finding such a person is likely to be difficult.
Thank you for your question. Feel free to ask other questions.
Stephen Anastasi
Stephen,
This "ontology" does not even mention any substance? There is an infinite number of truth systems that may describe the universe from a specific point of view. Each truth system requires at least one rule of impossibility that defines it along with the mother of all impossibility, the rule of non-contradiction, required for the system to be internally consistent or "logical". I think, that all points of view require two or more impossibilities while the universe could require two rule of impossibility, that of the non-contradiction and the rule of existence. This is because beyond the question of the logical consistency, there is the question of "existence" and substance. So, the universe needs this other rule, either of impossibility or one boundary rule on the possibilities of existence. This last one would give direction to the whole thing; evolution, time, future ...
[12] is missing. I have Lowe's possibilities of metaphysics... I did not give him good reviews...
Marcel,
Hi, Stephen,
Wow, what an impressive, well-written and literate essay! I wrote more details after your comments and questions on my essay, "It from Bit from It from Bit..." This seems a good way of tying feedback and nonlinearity into the picture. Also, as I noted there, I'm looking forward to your book when it becomes available.
Best wishes,
Bill McHarris
Thank you Marcel
Thanks for your very valid questions. You said:
'This "ontology" does not even mention any substance?'
There is no need for the use of 'substance' in this development. You will see that the meaning of substance is dependent on one's idea of equivalence anyway.
You said:
'There is an infinite number of truth systems that may describe the universe from a specific point of view.'
I see your point, but there are not an infinite number of perspectives that conform to the general principle of equivalence, and initially all perspectives collapse to a minimally simple omnet, under the GPE. All well-founded models must 'add up to' the evolving one dimensional values in the Harmony Set in one way or another, and one cannot apply contemporary mathematics to the set without an understanding of the foundations of the mathematics being used (for it went down the tube with the world, at the first step). Truth systems must first be well-founded, if they are not actually just belief systems. That is perhaps the key point. This system is well-founded, being immune to Cartesian doubt.
The Law of Non-contradiction is obvious and true, but is founded upon the General Principle of Equivalence, and epistemologically dependent upon it, not the other way around, for the LNC is accepted as self-evident, while the GPE is accepted because it is immune to doubt. Let me derive the LNC from the GPE to make it clear. Simply, the LNC is necessarily true because to suppose that an omnet can both have, yet not have a particular asset, would violate the GPE. This remains true independent of the nature of an asset.
This 'rule of existence' is unnecessary, so can be dropped under Occam's razor, replaced by the recognition that what is implied to be by the GPE exists. It's purely nominal. Also, there is a problem in trying to have a universe that comes from more than one principle because more than one principle implies that there are differences between them, and this difference drops one back into the bundling problem.
You said:
'So, the universe needs this other rule, either of impossibility or one boundary rule on the possibilities of existence. This last one would give direction to the whole thing; evolution, time, future ...'
I wonder if you are describing the evolution of the Harmony Set here, which is good. My initial derivation was for a particular situation which I found was a form of Zeno's paradox. Then someone asked me what I meant by 'a boundary'. Ouch. It took me a while to realize that the 'boundary' is a word covering an omnet that exists due to an ontological condition, and from there I generalized the whole argument to find that it all reduces to one's idea of equivalence, as captured by the GPE.
You said:
'[12] is missing. ' My apologies: Lowe, EJ 2005, 'Ontological Dependence', in EN Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summer 2005 edn, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2005/entries/dependence-ontological/.
'I have Lowe's possibilities of metaphysics... I did not give him good reviews...'
I hope you can see my development toward providing me a good review, so we can together work out the very great challenge of interpreting the Harmony Set in higher dimensions. Please recognize that this is a work of foundation that starts from a single principle and produces a mathematical world model. This was thought not possible.
Feel free to ask more questions or provide ideas on how to work with the one-space Harmony Set.
Best wishes
Stephen Anastasi
Yay Bill!
Your encouragement made me feel great. My aim is just to get into the top 40 papers so that the experts read it. To get there I need some big numbers.
It's so abstract! What I love is that it implies that the world will be kind of non-linear, being sets of similar but not exactly the same sets.
Stephen
Hi Stephen,
I read your essay and helpful replies in this discussion thread but I'm afraid I am not "someone with a strong knowledge in philosophy (metaphysics), mathematics and physics to talk to about it". I don't think I have the necessary background to fully appreciate what I have jut read. Sorry.
Are you talking about a process of elimination from all possible model universes ? Would this accomodate the possibility of universe within universe? In the way that a fantasy world can exist within a book. The world being constructed by the reader from the information contained in the book itself. Sorry if that seems obscure and irrelevant it relates to the framework I mentioned in reply to your question on my essay thread. Regards, Georgina
PS I've replied again to your reply in my essay thread
Hello Georgina
Firstly, I hope that my comment on the 'knowledge of philosophy...' statement didn't seem to put you down. If so, my apologies. Because of your interest, I am attaching a copy of a portion of a chapter of my book, The Armchair Universe, which is written in a way that most people can engage with it. I hope you like it, and find it interesting.
You said:
'Are you talking about a process of elimination from all possible model universes?'
Yes. The GPE then implies that all universes that we might suppose to be are degenerate to a single simple initially, then this evolves into a complex entity. It happens to also provide a new foundation for mathematics (some mathematicians might choke on this claim) free of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems (oops, there I go again. These theorems imply that contemporary mathematics can never be proven to be complete - one can never be completely sure one will not bump into an inconsistency).
You said:
'Would this accommodate the possibility of universe within universe? In the way that a fantasy world can exist within a book. The world being constructed by the reader from the information contained in the book itself. Sorry if that seems obscure and irrelevant it relates to the framework I mentioned in reply to your question on my essay thread.'
Um. What a marvelous idea. As a writer of alternative world fiction, but not here (!) (Amazon me!) I appreciate the concept, and one ought to recognize that this crowds the mind-body problem. Under the GPE, it is not that there are universes inside a universe, but that there seems to be different interpretations of the Harmony Set, any one of which is a proper world model. Which is 'our' universe? I think there are layers of universes. Under the GPE none has ontological priority, meaning none can be said to be 'the top layer'. But the 1-space interpretation has many interesting properties that, if carried into higher dimensions seem to answer fundamental questions, such as why there is a minimum length and time.Attachment #1: The_fireside_armchair_universe.pdf
Stephen,
A quite unique essay that I found uncannily analogous, in terms of many concepts and descriptions, to the fundamental discrete field model (DFM) underlying my own and previous two essays. I think we may find we might have many points in common!
I loved your most fundamental approach and interesting use of logic. How nice to be able to build an ontology (which I do in mine) free of all doctrine, preconditioning and hidden assumptions.
I agree "Aristotle's idea of place, in which everything has its place, and place too has its place." (I derived an almost infinite hierarchy last year) As also in; "If a boundary exists, it too has an end; it too has a boundary."
Also your perceptive; "such difference implies the existence of some kind of dimensionality, a space in which the boundaries exist, and exist separately. The causal dependence relation between boundaries prescribes an interaction, and that interaction has a value."
Your 'harmony sets' also mirror DFM frame domain transitions, but again mostly in the basic model not the particular 'Intelligent Bit' I discuss from a very practical standpoint this year. Which you may not at first recognise as I describe. I think I do however show the power of extending your approach to some logical conclusions.
Anyway, I suspect we may both have heaps of points to apply. I look forward to your comments, and think I'll also look forward to your book.
Very best of luck
Peter
Dear Stephen,
You are correct, Thank you for your comments.
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 / question, that can we produce matter from our thinking 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
Thank you Peter.
Dear Stephen,
Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical idea. "The trouble with physics" push ... In your essay deep original ontological analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, new concepts, new images and conclusions.
Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":
«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.»
http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm
In the russian version of a article: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators.»
Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?
Please look also my essay and essay FQXi 2012 related to the ontological justification of "Absolute generating structure"
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1796
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362
We have the spirit of close reserch. We have a common reference "point" and "vector" the road to the truth. Is this the right way - time will tell and others. My mail ideabank@yandex.ru
Best regards,
Vladimir
Stephen,
I found your approach to the topic at hand fascinating 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
Stephen,
Thanks for your post on my blog. I responded in both places but both have been lost with others in the server change (along with some scores, including from mine it seems!) Brendan seems to think we may get the posts back so I won't repeat it yet.
I hope you've read my essay now and that it lived up to it's promise (I need the points!) If you have scored it please check again, I note I'm also down as not having scored yours yet, so a nice lift on the way now. I look forward to discussing the areas of commonality, which may appear more directly from my previous two essays (domain boundaries with boundaries etc.)
Very best wishes
Peter
Dear All
Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman.
In the Character of Physical Law, he talked about the two-slit experiment like this "I will summarize, then, by saying that electrons arrive in lumps, like particles, but the probability of arrival of these lumps is determined as the intensity of waves would be. It is this sense that the electron behaves sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave. It behaves in two different ways at the same time.
Further on, he advises the readers "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it. 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."
Did he says anything about Wheeler's "It from Bit" other than what he said above?
Than Tin
Stephen,
Thanks for your initial comments on my blog (at least I think it was you!- anonymous and unsigned). Do let me know if not!
I've responded there and look forward to discussing the points when you've read it.
Best wishes
Peter
Dear Stephen,
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.
Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I've Read
I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented your essay in what follows.
Of the nearly two hundred essays submitted to the competition, there seems to be a preponderance of sentiment for the 'Bit-from-It" standpoint, though many excellent essays argue against this stance or advocate for a wider perspective on the whole issue. Joseph Brenner provided an excellent analysis of the various positions that might be taken with the topic, which he subsumes under the categories of 'It-from-Bit', 'Bit-from-It', and 'It-and-Bit'.
Brenner himself supports the 'Bit-from-It' position of Julian Barbour as stated in his 2011 essay that gave impetus to the present competition. Others such as James Beichler, Sundance Bilson-Thompson, Agung Budiyono, and Olaf Dreyer have presented well-stated arguments that generally align with a 'Bit-from-It' position.
Various renderings of the contrary position, 'It-from-Bit', have received well-reasoned support from Stephen Anastasi, Paul Borrill, Luigi Foschini, Akinbo Ojo, and Jochen Szangolies. An allied category that was not included in Brenner's analysis is 'It-from-Qubit', and valuable explorations of this general position were undertaken by Giacomo D'Ariano, Philip Gibbs, Michel Planat and Armin Shirazi.
The category of 'It-and-Bit' displays a great diversity of approaches which can be seen in the works of Mikalai Birukou, Kevin Knuth, Willard Mittelman, Georgina Parry, and Cristinel Stoica,.
It seems useful to discriminate among the various approaches to 'It-and-Bit' a subcategory that perhaps could be identified as 'meaning circuits', in a sense loosely associated with the phrase by J.A. Wheeler. Essays that reveal aspects of 'meaning circuits' are those of Howard Barnum, Hugh Matlock, Georgina Parry, Armin Shirazi, and in especially that of Alexei Grinbaum.
Proceeding from a phenomenological stance as developed by Husserl, Grinbaum asserts that the choice to be made of either 'It from Bit' or 'Bit from It' can be supplemented by considering 'It from Bit' and 'Bit from It'. To do this, he presents an 'epistemic loop' by which physics and information are cyclically connected, essentially the same 'loop' as that which Wheeler represented with his 'meaning circuit'. Depending on where one 'cuts' the loop, antecedent and precedent conditions are obtained which support an 'It from Bit' interpretation, or a 'Bit from It' interpretation, or, though not mentioned by Grinbaum, even an 'It from Qubit' interpretation. I'll also point out that depending on where the cut is made, it can be seen as a 'Cartesian cut' between res extensa and res cogitans or as a 'Heisenberg cut' between the quantum system and the observer. The implications of this perspective are enormous for the present It/Bit debate! To quote Grinbaum: "The key to understanding the opposition between IT and BIT is in choosing a vantage point from which OR looks as good as AND. Then this opposition becomes unnecessary: the loop view simply dissolves it." Grinbaum then goes on to point out that this epistemologically circular structure "...is not a logical disaster, rather it is a well-documented property of all foundational studies."
However, Grinbaum maintains that it is mandatory to cut the loop; he claims that it is "...a logical necessity: it is logically impossible to describe the loop as a whole within one theory." I will argue that in fact it is vital to preserve the loop as a whole and to revise our expectations of what we wish to accomplish by making the cut. In fact, the ongoing It/Bit debate has been sustained for decades by our inability to recognize the consequences that result from making such a cut. As a result, we have been unable to take up the task of studying the properties inherent in the circularity of the loop. Helpful in this regard would be an examination of the role of relations between various elements and aspects of the loop. To a certain extent the importance of the role of relations has already been well stated in the essays of Kevin Knuth, Carlo Rovelli, Cristinel Stoica, and Jochen Szangolies although without application to aspects that clearly arise from 'circularity'. Gary Miller's discussion of the role of patterns, drawn from various historical precedents in mathematics, philosophy, and psychology, provides the clearest hints of all competition submissions on how the holistic analysis of this essential circular structure might be able to proceed.
In my paper, I outlined Susan Carey's assertion that a 'conceptual leap' is often required in the construction of a new scientific theory. Perhaps moving from a 'linearized' perspective of the structure of a scientific theory to one that is 'circularized' is just one further example of this kind of conceptual change.
FQXi commentary iiii Aug 5
Hello Anastasi
Your essay left me breathless - !!! - am I allowed to say that ?!!! I had to use ten different coloured markers to highlight my favourite passages. Phew, bravo. I don't remember the last time reading something that was ten-colours-worthy !!
Not the least of your analysis' good points was the fact that you ended with a 'Perhaps' !!
As you will see in my essay I have committed myself - on the very best of evidence mind - to the notion that 'information' is none other than the full set of (real) geometrical objects present here in our universe (in contradistinction to those of the abstract variety otherwise quite properly present in mathematicians' & theoretical physicists' minds & textbooks). (Nor does this definition include any Einsteinian space-time curvatures, precisely because I am convinced that 'light bending/lensing' around massive bodies is due not to gravitational warping of aforesaid space-time but to the always-attendant heliopauses or magnetospheres or solar winds which perennially accompany such bodies - which latter entities are quite 'material'.)
'Constructor theory' ? I came across this approach to describing & understanding our universe only as I watched David Deustch's 'Edge' video (edge.org) a few months ago in which he too explains that he is searching for 'information's' exact ontological identity, all as in his wider search for a final constructor process. I quote him in my essay but I repeat it here as I found that his question as to information's identity literally handed me my very own definition thereof, 'on a plate' as it were - indeed as I think of it, 'on a silver platter' no less !!!! ('Silver' in reference to such an august source !!! if I may be so intemperate to note.)
'I'm speaking to you now : Information starts as some kind of electrochemical signals in my brain, and then it gets converted into other signals in my nerves and then into sound waves and then into the vibrations of a microphone, mechanical vibrations, then into electricity and so on, and presumably will eventually go on the Internet, this something has been instantiated in radically different physical objects that obey different laws of physics. Yet in order to describe this process you have to refer to the thing that has remained unchanged through out the process, which is only the information rather than any obviously physical thing like energy or momentum.'
Although David hasn't found this elusive 'thing', it is geometric objects plain & simple.
Geometric objects are the one & only phenomena here in our universe that can be & routinely are copied / transferred on to consecutive sequences of widely different physical objects - from medium to radically different physical medium to radically different physical medium to radically different physical medium - & yet retain their shape - at least this obtains as to certain mediums as on many others they fade quickly away. (Which is why we ourselves choose our mediums with a careful eye to their ability to carry information (in its native that is geometric form) on themselves with optimum stability.)
Among a very numerous & full complement of other properties, features & assets which in addition to their penchant for being copied ad infinitum on (certain) mediums, which all together go towards a successful recommendation of these particular geometrical entities for their job of being the (one & only) purveyors of information here in our universe is the fact that although real, each & every one is completely immaterial, wholly insubstantial, totally weightless, intangible, utterly invisible (or more correctly completely transparent), not to omit completely tasteless, odourless, soundless, wholly without temperature or density or Ph balance or colour, utterly insensate, totally passive & completely pawn-like, inert, wholly without any forces of any kind or amount either associated with or emanating from, them, totally without any energy or agency of any kind or amount.
With this amount of existential impoverishment to their credit one might well ask 'do they exist at all'. Fortunately - at least fortunately for my case - in spite of this woeful handicapping, geometric object do verily indeed possess/evince just enough observable, measurable, identifiable, demonstrable, verifiable 'physical' features elevating them up to the realm of reality - of physical reality.
A list of these measurable features includes such phenomena as length, breadth, size (obviously a relative metric), shape, location, temporal duration & life history.
Admittedly poor little (real) points have neither length nor breadth & can be located only by measuring the things around them, nevertheless each & every real point here in our universe (& not the infinite number with which mathematicians & theoretical physicist populate their imaginary worlds) does verily indeed possess measurable location, temporal duration & life history. Lines fare a lot better as in addition to size (obviously a relative metric), shape, location, temporal duration & life history they also have length; & of course planes go one better still by having breadth as well as all of the other measurable features listed above.
Planes are infinitely thin; lines are not only infinitely thin but also infinitely narrow, while poor little points - although real !! - are not only infinitely thin & infinitely narrow but also infinitely short to boot.
But as we all know none of these lower dimensional objects possess any depth which is presumably why they don't have any mass - having nowhere to pack any even if they did happen to chance upon some, & it is precisely this lack of mass, or substance, which renders them all so existentially impoverished in the eyes of us 'solids'. Without any mass to their credit they possess the very quality you yourself are so desirous of in what you consider to be at the base of 'everything'.
Yes, your own analysis was adamant that there is something immaterial at the bottom of everything. It is my position that these wholly immaterial (yet real) entities are verily indeed at the very bottom of information, but are not at the base of hard, physical reality.
In establishing a full ontology/taxonomy of these critters it became amply apparent that it is matter & matter alone which possesses whatever agency & energy & power to DO things here in our cosmos (including clinging onto each other in many & various ways & strengths by way of making up the full complement of solid objects here in our universe) BUT that these fat, busy, solid, powerful critters ALWAYS used each other SHAPES (each others' GEOMETRICITIES) as that which (helped, but critically so) guide & direct their every move. 'Fat' ? Lower dimensional objects are all infinitely thin, some are also both infinitely thin & infinitely narrow with poor little points running a dismal last being not only both infinitely thin & infinitely narrow but also infinitely short.
Information as geometrical objects can not DO anything & so cannot be the bedrock bottom of our own particular very busy highly interactive densely populated universe. My analysis compels to conclude that matter is, but that it (again) uses each others' shapes - in conjunction with subject's own - to guide & direct each of their every moves.
Actually, this observation led me to a definition of 'thinking' which is 'using information (always in geometrical form) to guide & direct action' - & as this is the way all solid bodies use each others' shapes, then we are compelled to conclude that thought is an innate capacity of matter & occurs on the most routine of bases no less than each & every time any two solid bodies interact.
Our own thoughts are distinguished from those of the rocks & stones beneath our feet & the atoms & molecules in the air 'in degree' but not at all as to 'kind'. The distinction lies in the proximity of the information we use to guide & direct our actions. Inanimate objects have no option but to wait until they bang right into whatever then can become the subject of their thoughts (whatever then can they only 'take the measure of' & respond appropriately thereto) whereas we humans are able to use 'distance information' which information we glean off of mediums, which means among other things that we can react proactively - or postactively - towards all kind of things & events which remain at some certain spatio-temporal remove from us. ..... .. .
I'm very cross at myself for not starting to review essays much earlier in the game as had I done so I would have enjoyed getting into a lot more back & forth with you, dear fellow essayist !!! Anyways here is my little 'blanket comment' which I am popping into all of the contributions I do actually get to read & rate at this very late stage. It stresses a feature of 'information-as-geometrical objects' that I failed to emphasize sufficiently in my essay, specifically the fact that 'thinking' & 'computing' are two entirely different phenomena, each requiring entirely different elements to 'run'.
My own investigations have led me to conclude that 'information' is NOT digits - no kind nor amount of them (including any that can be extracted from quantum phenomena!), nor how algorithmically-well they may be massaged & shunted through any device that uses them.
Unequivocally they - digits - make for wonderful COUNTING & CALCULATING assistants, witness our own now many & various, most excellent, counting, calculating devices BUT according to my investigations real thinking is an entirely different phenomenon from mere counting, calculating & computing.
For which phenomenon - real thinking - real information is required.
My own investigations led me to discover what I have come to believe real information is & as it so transpires it turns out to be an especially innocuous - not to omit almost entirely overlooked & massively understudied - phenomenon, none other than the sum total of geometrical objects otherwise quite really & quite properly present here in our universe. Not digits.
One grade (the secondary one) of geometrical-cum-informational objects lavishly present here in our cosmos, is comprised of all the countless trillions & trillions of left-over bump-marks still remaining on all previously impacted solid objects here in our universe - that is to say, all of the left-over dents, scratches, scars, vibrations & residues (just the shapes of residues - not their content!) (really) existing here in the universe.
Examples of some real geometrical objects of this secondary class in their native state are all of the craters on the Moon. Note that these craters are - in & of themselves - just shapes - just geometrical objects. And the reason they are, also one & at the same time, informational objects too, can be seen by the fact that each 'tells a story' - each advertises (literally) some items of information on its back - each relates a tale of not only what created it but when, where & how fast & from what angle the impacting object descended onto the Moon's surface. Again, each literally carries some information on its back.
(Note : Not a digit in sight !!)
How we actually think - rather than just count, calculate & compute - with these strictly non-digital entities, specifically these geometrical-cum-informational objects, in precisely the way we do, please see my essay.
I did not make the distinction between computing with digits & real thinking with real information, sufficiently strongly in my essay.
This contest is such a wonderful 'sharing' - Wow - & open to amateurs like myself - Wow. How great is that !!! Thank you Foundational Questions Institute !!! What a great pleasure it has been to participate. What a joy to read, share & discuss with other entrants !!!
Margriet O'Regan
Thank you Margriet
It is just wonderful that you found my essay to be so interesting!
I think the idea of information is purely nominal in this context. My concern is that it is a bit presumptuous to talk about it from bit when one can't say what either is at its core, so I wanted to show how one can jump the epistemological to ontological divide, so I had to identify First Cause. Not too many have recognized this in my essay, or my rating would be different, perhaps.
Keep in touch. Best wishes. Have you rated me yet?
Stephen.