How to Build a Universe from Wheeler’s Immaterial Source, in Nine Pages or Less. by Stephen James Anastasi

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

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

Stephen,

Thanks for your question on my blog, answered there (no infinities in the DFM) but do please discuss if needed. I may be helpful to look at my last two essays.

I also confirm I recently rated yours (well) as deserved.

Best of luck making the cut.

Peter

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for an intriguing simplification in what takes to make a cosmos. You wrote:

> There is already evidence that our universe can be reduced to lower dimensions in the form of a holographic universe. Perhaps there is a further reduction to the one developed here.

I was wondering conversely what it would take to give your cosmos the power of a Turing machine, i.e. universal computation. Take a look at Joseph Weissman's Universal Computation and the Laws of Form for some ideas.

If a cosmos could compute, then it could run the Software Cosmos described in my essay, and not be such a simple cosmos after all.

Hugh

Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Right o he chase, nice work.

I rated yours a ten:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616

Dear Stephen,

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

Posting just to sign this.

Stephen, I will admit -initially I thought Rubbish! and saw this as vague playing on language. Then the discomfort began to creep in, and I had to really struggle with myself, because I was trying to validate my own hypothesis, trying to fit it into your framework. I slept on it after 2nd pass, then read for 3rd. I am coming to grips with it now, and for me it is a real truth exercise. I got caught in a trap between empiricism and rationalization. The same trap I preach to others to avoid, I found myself in. Your framework shows that we need to look hard at fundamental truth before we move further. It is hard to do, as it sometimes means a lot of work has to be challenged, anew. I am thankful for the eye opener though, and I wish you the best in the reception of this! (you are going to need it, this one's a real tree shaker!) I do see possibilities for a wave function, and hopefully a better framework to settle the duality question once and for all. I still want to try to apply riemann geometries/non-euclidean waveform to this, I will discuss at a later date. Your essay reminds me of the day I heard a 1 bit recording from a Korg (MR2 i think) that a tech brought into the recording studio. I was livid he bought it (with my money) I exclaimed in protest "why the hell would you waste my money on that! Then I heard it and was simply floored. the ﾎ"ﾎ｣ modulation is very clever, and far superior to a 24 or 32 bit -even 64 bit recording! Who knew! This is (this) all over again. Bravo Sir!