No It without Bit by ALBERT KING

Hi

You argued Jaynes work on the relationship between infrmation science and statisitical mechanics. In his work, what do you think about the evaluation of temperature? As far as I understand, the temperature does not come in from the physical assumption but is defined so that the free energy thereby

obtained coincides with the Helmholtz free energy.

Best,

Yutaka

Mr King,

If you do not know what reality is, asking yourself what it is might not solve your problem. Why did you not Wheeler the question?

Is reality simple? Yes.

Is information simple? No.

Dear King

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

.....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

===============

Please try Dynamic Universe Model with some numerical values, give initial values of velocities, take gravitation into consideration( because you can not experiment in ISOLATION). complete your numerical experiment.

later try changing values of masses and initial values of velocities....

Calculate with different setups and compare your results, if you have done a physical experiment.

I sincerely feel it is better to do experiment physically, or numerically instead of breaking your head on just logic. This way you will solve your problem faster.....

Best

=snp

Mr. King,

Your essay describes the debates between Bohr and Einstein about the nature of physics, and you seem to take the side of Bohr. In contrast, I take the side of Einstein; physics is about real objects moving in real space, and all information follows from these real objects, so Bit from It. In my essay ( "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotations and Relative Time" ), I present a simple realistic picture of quantum waves based on special relativity, and show how this leads naturally to a form of general relativity, with no additional assumptions. The famous paradoxes of indeterminism and entanglement disappear.

Alan Kadin

Dear Albert,

You have offered shortest essay, but I think you have clear answer to topic. I am fully with you and thinking that just no need to break swords on the such questions. (Maybe on this we not getting ratings or we get too much units!)

I rate your essay as truly decision of the problem, let even it is written short!Check please my work, Essay I hope you will find some confirmation to your point.

Best wishes,

George

Hello Albert,

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

Dear Sir,

Your essay is short, but sweet, because you have covered some vital aspects that need to be focused properly. You have rightly claimed that "physics is all about 'information' ". Information is specific data reporting the state of something based on observation (measurements), organized and summarized for a purpose within a context that gives it meaning and relevance and can lead to either an increase in understanding or decrease in uncertainty. Information is not tied to one's specific knowledge of how particles are created and their early interactions, just like the concepts signifying objects are not known to all. But it should be tied to universal and widely accessible properties. Mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics.

However, Bohr errs when he says: "physics is about how to make use of information" by equating technology with physics. Physics is the concept and technology is its application. The validity of a physical statement rests on its correspondence to reality. Your description of 'where the apple is' following Bohr model is also erroneous, as "the apple is somewhere in 3+1D space-time" imposes our ignorance on its existence or non-existence at any specific position. Similarly, "it's a uniform distribution throughout space-time" implies that it is present everywhere, which is again contrary to experience. If it "move randomly like brown motion", then it is having a mobile coordinate, but is present at one position at any instant. We can verify this by setting up a detector and know its instantaneous position when it crosses the line of the detector.

The above example is often used to describe the position of an electron. Its position could not be predicted, but when it could be measured, the electron is always found to be at a certain location. In both the above examples, we are looking at the wrong direction - at the object rather than the force moving it. If we look at the force that moved the apple, we will find its trajectory. Similarly, electron is not a 'particle' in the sense of proton or neutron. Just like solar wind and solar flares, the conversion from proton to neutron and vice versa releases energy that is trapped in the 'sea' outside it. This creates an impact, which we call as electron. Depending upon the intensity of release, it is detected at different distances we call orbits.

Your description of "the distribution with the largest entropy should be chosen" is correct, because the largest entropy could only be at the universe scale. Once the internal dynamics of the universe smoothen out or cancel out each other, it reaches a state akin to the initial epoch, but retains some inherent instability, which leads to what quantum gravity refers as the 'Big Bounce'. In this, the singularity is the condition of uniform density, which gets disturbed due to the instability. This creates a set of complementary inertia - inertia of motion that spreads out at great speed through total equilibrium and the complementary inertia of restoration of the medium (elasticity) that tries to contain it. After a great distance both equal each other, which forms the boundary of the universe. From there, the reverse reaction starts, albeit slower, gaining momentum as it moves towards the center. This process goes on repeating leading to non-linear interaction that leads first to generation of charge and then to structure formation. Thus, inflation is a misguided concept. The background structure reveals itself as dark matter and the so-called dark energy. You can refer to our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra " published on May 31, for further details.

Regards,

basudeba

Is your name Albert or Alert as stated on your essay?

Nonetheless, I truly enjoyed your insight and exploration of the Einstein/Bohr debate. Although you have a different approach than I do, I find your analytical findings inspiring and most worthy of merit. As such, I have rated your essay highly.

I wish you well in this competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Hi Albert,

I enjoyed your essay.

What you wrote: "...if nothing is know about the it, then what we can claim should be anything possible given some common assumptions. For example, where is the apple? If there is no information about this apple, we can only say, the apple is somewhere in 3+1D space-time, or it's a uniform distribution throughout space-time..", I agree with you. That is our knowledge is practically limited up to our range of information about 'It" and beyond that limit (if there anything) might be a speculation.

In my essay I also thought in almost similar way.

I invite you to read my essay too.I will also going to rate you.

Thanks

Dipak

Dear All,

It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

the second sub series is always defined by the equation

Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

Examples

starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

-27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.

As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

d-super.pdf"> The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory](https://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin

d-super.pdf)

Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.

I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.

All this started with a simple question, who am I?

I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.

I super positioned my self or I to be me.

I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

I am phi, zero = I = infinity

I am human and I is GOD.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Alert Albert!,

If you're there? ..I'm away for a few days but I've printed off your 'No It without Bit' as it sounds fascinating, (quack!) with some others I hope to read, so will hopefully comment and score it when I get back. I do hope you might also manage read and score mine. To try to tempt you I include a few of the more flattering comments so far below.

Joe; I accept unequivocally your solution to the unique/identical problem.

Phil; you have made a valuable contribution to the essay contest. It is a pleasure to read.

Akinbo; Very thought provoking essay... ..Many thanks indeed,

Edwin; As always, you're impressive!

Anthony; This seems to be one of the more interesting approaches I've read ... ...That's testament to your great writing ability - I think you've done a fantastic job.

James; one could make a career out of studying your piece.

Richard; Your essay has clarified the whole issue of no-go theorems.

Jeff; Peter and others interested in his wonderful essay,

John S; I think your work is clearly significant, and will resolve certain apparently 'metaphysical' aspects of reality to the 'physical' Cosmos.

Ralph; I am deeply impressed with your depth of knowledge. I am also struck the depth of your thinking, your graphics, and your willingness to 'put yourself on the line' intellectually.

Michel; Your essay is attractive and I read it with much interest.

Than; we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Helmut; Technically challenging and philosophically deep - very few papers meet both. This is one of them.

And; I hope this astonishing paper finds many many readers, especially among theoretical physicists: It is groundbreaking.

Thanks and look forward to any comments.

Peter

Albert,

Short and sweet becomes ever better! I agree with Einstein that we need to understand, but Bohr that we sure don't yet! If you're reading essays I hope mine helps improve comprehension, bringing the two back together.

Do comment.

Best wishes

Peter

Many thanks for the very kind words Peter!

Albert,

I like the comment - isn't reality just all the information we can get from it? Simple but logical. I like that you've touched on entropy, as I have in my essay, which I hope you take a look at.

Anyway well done on a nice essay.

Best wishes,

Antony

Sorry just re-read to see that those were my comments to you Peter. But very true, please read Peter's excellent work Albert!

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

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

Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Dear Albert,

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