This is IT - Information Theory by Ralph Waldo Walker III

Dear Ralp,

Brilliant essay! I rated it the highest possible rating. I enjoyed very much reading it. Succinct but comprehensive! Remarkable piece of work. Please comment and rate my essay Child of Qbit in time. In this essay, i believe KQID realized Wheeler's dream using different language than yours that the origin of Existence is so shockingly simple that it is under our nose all along. KQID: To rephrase Pythagoras: All things are one Qbit. This bit is Planck's matrix of all matter and Maxwell 's nfinite being with infinite memory storage. In short, Qbit is Existence and Existence is Qbit. This Qbits A S = E = ψI(CTE) projects its computed Einstein coordinates(numbers) onto the 2D screen Minkowski Null Geodesics in the zeroth dimension that instantaneously project these coordinates into the bulk υτ(iLx,y,x, Lm). Then Existence exist as we perceive it to be as is. You wrote: "...all human beings are meant to understand, awaken to, and embrace the purpose of our existence." Similarly, in KQID, Existence is our Ancestor Qbit's way to experience, to walk, talk and make love.

Live long and prosper,

Leo KoGuan

Dear Walker,

You are correct,

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

Dear Ralph,

Thanks for your comments on my blog. I had earlier rated your essay a 7. I didn't know from your bio that you were an attorney because I needed advice on use of words like *prima facie* and *res ipsa loquitur*, etc.

I recall attorneys can usually be the source of great things in physics and who knows what may eventually come out of your nice essay. Edwin Hubble was one.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Dear Ralph,

Nice essay and some great ideas around information. I like the participatory approach with regard to humans and the computer and Internet analogy. Also the quote that different individuals describe the same event in different ways. Please take a look at my essay, given the time to do so, as it deals with observation too.

Best wishes,

Antony

My pleasure Ralph! Cheers

Hi Ralph,

I've rated your essay now - thanks for reading mine, the kind comments and rating.

Best wishes,

Antony

I concur with Chris on his initial insights concerning Ralph's essay. The essay represents good, expansive thinking utilizing Wheeler's concerns which is the point of this contest. There is quite a bit of analogical material which is both a strength and a weakness in discussing scientific or philosophical issues. It is a strength for it lends to clarity. It can be a weakness as analogies prove little. This essay is worth a read. -Darrell

Dear Ralph,

As I told you in my Essay page, I have read your beautiful Essay. Here are my comments/questions.

1) Your sentence "the discovery of how the universe is assembled and operates would reveal our role within the system" looks to be an elegant finalization of the Anthropic Principle.

2) If the central idea of existence is so simple also Einstein was correct: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is comprehensible"

3) Can you clarify your statement that claims "The hardware's wave aspect is evidence of its connection to software"?

4) Your statement that claims "The Theory of Relativity describes the hardware; Quantum Theory describes the software" is intriguing!

5) You claim that "The hardware systems of communications and fuel equal 24% of the total resources of the universe; they represent the "dark matter" of the universe. The software systems of Intelligence and Consciousness equal 72% of the total resources of the universe; they represent the "dark energy" of our universe"- How do you explain that dark energy is negative?

I appreciated your pretty Essay. Therefore, I am going to give you an high rate.

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for your vision of an information-based universe. I had a question about it, though. You wrote:

> A universe containing only four dimensions is completely un-survivable

Why?

> This means that they must be composed of the smallest possible 'constituents' available to the universe, and can be linked together into three-dimensional 'sheet-like' screens upon which they can be displayed and perceived by the living thing.

This concept is discussed in detail in my essay Software Cosmos in which I describe a software architecture and physics of a cosmos based on the simulation paradigm. I also carry out a test to determine whether we currently live in such a universe. Like you, I think of intelligence animating the physical universe. I hope you get a chance to read it an compare my concept to your own.

Hugh

Dear Ralph Waldo Walker III:

I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But 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 Ralph Waldo Walker III:

I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But 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

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 Ralph -

This is a very beautifully written and compelling narrative for which you should be congratulated.

You employ a broader definition of 'software' than is usually the case, but this is permissible: Because you so convincingly describe the cosmos as participatory, 'forces' truly can be described as software, and as fundamental to physical reality as life itself.

Elsewhere, you state - 'The Theory of Relativity describes the hardware; Quantum Theory describes the software.' This expresses the difference between the two very well, and clearly shows why they cannot be reconciled. They are fundamentally not the same thing.

Your treatment of c2 is also excellent - I too have considered the existence of such a speed, and have written about it in my book - 'The Nature of Particles in the Unified Field.' I see c2 as establishing certain borders and Zones in the cosmos, so that space-time occupies one Zone only, and its dimensional parameters un-ravel in the more peripheral Zones.

I also agree that stars, living things, and human beings are 'information transformers' - and I loved how you showed that these elements are very finely inter-dependent. Life is indeed fundamental to the universe.

Please see my second post to remind yourself about my essay - it's interesting to see how our two approaches correlate.

Thanks for reminding me to visit your page - this is an excellent and illuminating work for which I was happy to give high marks!

Best Regards,

John

jselye@gmail.com

Greetings Ralph,

I appreciate the kind remarks on my page. I'll make every effort to read and rate your essay. And of course we can keep in touch afterward. You can reach me at jonathan@jonathandickau.com, if you like.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Ralph,

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.

Hi Ralph,

I've left this most interesting rating game too late.

I enjoyed your essay & would love to discuss more with you about self-organising entities. I don't like talking about 'systems' - what in heavens name is a 'system' - 20th century scientific literature is full of 'systems' which I think is a very serious weakness.

Indeed I dislike 'systems' so much I set about to see what I considered to be a preferable way to address reality & I realised that science has not yet properly identified or defined just exactly what 'an object' is - that is to say, what the exact ontology of 'generic matter' up here at the macro level, is. Everyone seems to be too busy studying either the very smallest or the very biggest things to pay attention to the middle !!

My own investigations led me to conclude that 'self-assembly' is the defining characteristic of generic solid matter, so you can see why it interests me. My definition of generic matter is that it is anything that has assembled itself all by itself without any external assistants - which is the way in which all single individual free-standing atoms, molecules, crystals, minerals, elements, chemicals & also all life forms come into being - via self-assembly - & they also carry on maintaining themselves in the self-sufficient manner.

I call these self-assembled entities 'proper existents' & note that everything here in our universe 'up here' at the macro level is either a proper existent or composed of same.

'Self-assembly' means putting one's self together exclusively via internally generated forces, mechanisms &/or agencies; this self-assembly process is also self-directed. Which is to say, all proper existents utilise information (in the form of the geometricity of the other bits of matter in their surrounds) to guide & direct their self-assembling process.

It is also a defining characteristic that any proper existent will 'actively & powerfully resist' all & any threats to its integrity of being, whether its resistance efforts (its 'kicking back' behaviour - which even rocks & stone perform) are effective & help preserve its integrity of being, or whether they are unsuccessful & it succumbs to whatever disintegrative act has been perpetrated on it.

Why am I telling you this !?

Because this line of investigation also led me to conclude that it is these proper existents - all of the self-assembled atoms, molecules, crystals etc, & life forms - which alone have 'agency', which are that which here in our universe alone have the power to 'do' anything - move, act, react. Their base power being their very power & ability to exist as single individual lumps of self-assembled matter. As opposed to being in a plasma form, say.

And in some high & certain distinction it is information that is completely agency-less. As geometrical objects - which is what I consider information to be - have no mass, none of them has any power to, as already stated, 'do' anything, including synthesizing itself into a system - or an existent.

My investigations led me to conclude that MATTER USES information - in the instance of the geometricity of any fellow interactees - to guide & direct its every move. That, information does not, because it cannot assemble itself nor make parts nor maintain them etc - whereas this is exactly what matter does, doing it, moreover, via the use of information to guide & direct its every move including its 'base' moves whereby it brought itself into being & carries on maintaining itself in this self-powered, self-directed fashion.

We've each come up with a schema which is almost the direct antithesis of each other!!!!

My own investigations have led me to yet another 'contrary' conclusion which is 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