Hello Xiong,

As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there...

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Xiong,

Thank you for your explanation of how information arises from symmetry breaking. Your exposition was very clear.

The emergence of information can also be explained as the loss of quantum entanglement, which is time-symmetric in Lagrangian mechanics. Whereas you see a Matter-Energy-Information trinity, I formulate a duality between momentum/energy and position/time symmetry. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

You have given me food for thought. My theory is also a trinity if the observer is included as a third subsystem in the creation of information.

Best wishes,

Richard

    Dear Richard,

    the observer is quite an important concept to information...

    if included as a third subsystem in the creation of information.

    this is a very important issue, which deserve more future research

    Thanks for your nice essay, i rated it with high mark

    Regards,

    Xiong

    Dear Wang

    You are right.

    Symmetry as a silence.

    Breaking of symmetry mean birth of information

    Regards

    Yuri

    Wang,

    I commend your excellent essay, with a well considered proposition well argued and in a nice writing style.

    I also thank you for your very kind comments on mine.

    I agree with you that "the fundamental concepts of physics are matter, space-time, and motion" but firmly disagree with using 'partial time derivatives' as I've found they are the root of all nonsense in physics. If they are replaced with a real physical mechanism for transforms we can then recover linearity and full coherence. Do see my previous essays (both 7th in the Community rating lists). A simple change of speed by inertial system v from propagation speed c in one frame to c in the other implements the Doppler shift (contraction/ dilation) and recovers all laws of physics. A similar observer acceleration ensures REAL findings are then also co-variant.

    I'd be delighted to answer any queries on the above which will not be at first intuitive. I confirm your good work has earned a high mark from me, and wish you luck in the final 'roller coaster' ride home.

    Peter

    Dear Wang,

    Your idea about "symmetry breaking gives rise to information" it is very interesting.I give you a good rate. However, you know better than me that conservation of quantities is a key element to calculate and predict the evolution of a physical system. So, at the same time, symmetries give us a lot of information because conservation comes from symmetry. Have you thought about it?

    Best regards,

    Sergio

    Interesting idea that symmetry breaking is related to increase or coming into existence of information. Certainly symmetry breaking in modern field-theoretic accounts of the early universe is intimately related with the coming into existence of most of the structured content of the universe.

      Hello Wang

      Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

      said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

      I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

      The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

      Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

      Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

      I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

      Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

      Good Luck,

      Than Tin

      Dear WANG Xiong,

      I have read your pretty Essay as I promised in my Essay page. The idea that breaking of symmetry gives rise to information is very intriguing and the example of the SIM card of iPhone is both simple and enlightening. Do you think that your conclusion "Bit is from breaking symmetry of it" could be conciliated with my statement "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"? In any case, I strongly appreciate your Essay and, in turn, I will give you an high score.

      Cheers,

      Ch.

      Dear Wang,

      Very good presentation. Clearly links symmetry and information and brings it to the forefront. If I may add it links directly to complexity via your Sim Card example. I am a visual thinker and I appreciate your making information visual.

      Worthwhile essay to which I give a good mark.

      Don Limuti

      Dear Howard Barnum

      Certainly symmetry breaking in modern field-theoretic accounts of the early universe is intimately related with the coming into existence of most of the structured content of the universe.

      Yes,

      very awesome to ask who/what break the symmetry at the very beginning? and which determine most of the structured content of the universe today...

      Thanks for your comments

      Regards

      Dear Wang Xiong,

      We humans are like children, we always keep asking WHY and HOW.

      The origin of creation of information by symmetry breaking may also pose us the question What was the origin of the FIRST symmetry breaking ? Accepting the idea means that the ORIGIN was symmetrical, and something had to happen to CAUSE this event.

      This kind of thinking is indeed causal and deterministic, if we agree that the origin of our causal universe has a non-causal base and accept the possibility that causal universes cannot be infinite, then the problem is partly solved.

      Infinities exist in our consciousness but not in the materialistic universe, singularities have no dimensions, no CAUSAL dimensions, so they are not existing in the causal universes. But they exist in our minds .

      In my essay : "THE QUEST FOR THE PRIMAL SEQUENCE" I try to explain these perceptions, which might also be the origin of the symmetry breaking.

      I hope that you can find some time to read/comment and also rate my contribution. I am not a professional scientist, it is more the philosophical side of the latest results of physics that I try to interpret.

      I respect your essay and give it a good rating.

      best regards

      Wilhelmus

      The fact that a broken symmetry gives rise to some additional information does not imply that information is broken symmetry. For instance, sometime is the opposite: there is no information in a random pattern, but one with symmetries allows us to code information. Physical laws give us information about reality by indicating patterns of symmetries. No?

      carlo

      Hi Xiong,

      I agree with you.

      In my essay I say that "existence" is a disruption in the standard pattern of alternating black and white CBUs. (you will see what I call a CBU if you read my essay). And for me, existence and information is the same thing.

      If you have the time to read my essay, it would be great to have your feedback. If you like it, you can read more here.

      I enjoyed reading yours,

      Cheers,

      Patrick

      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 Xiong:

      Nice essay!

      I think that you are absolutely correct in pointing out that symmetry breaking and information are related. In fact your point can be made clearly using Shannon's original definition of information. The information produced by cutting off one side of the square SIM card would then be 2 bits. In my essay I focused not only on the symmetry breaking itself but more on the dynamical aspect of generalized rigidity in an attempt to provide an internal definition of information.

      All the best in the contest.

      Cheers

      Olaf

      Dear WANG Xiong :

      I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

      I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

      I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

      Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

      I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

      With my best whishes

      Héctor

      Dear Wang,

      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.

      Dear Wang,

      My later comment, sorry :

      When you proposed that 'one day a more complete theory should unify all the three basic concepts Matter-Energy-Information ' , you probably made an assumption that the law of information conservation in future physics is quite possible.

      But, sceptics may suggest that in comparison with energy conservation law , Hawking -like law of information conservation (The information remains firmly in our universe. Thus, if you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe but in a mangled form which contains the information about what you were like but in a state where it can not be easily recognized.( Hawking, 2005 )) can be violated ? Moreover, speaking exactly, there is no such thing as physical measurement of bits of thermal information or generally - universal information in physics.

      Best

      Michael