Essay Abstract

The present understanding of the relation between reality and information theory is for the time being rather vague. There are many speculations about the fact that the understanding of reality may be beyond our capabilities. However the perception of our observed reality in relation to quantum physics and consciousness as per Wheeler's theories may lead to the exploration of some new branches of quantum physics and consciousness theory. For many physicists, this may be something rather troubling but what if non - computability was actually part of reality? What if there were some processes or some kind of information that cannot be understood through algorithms and needed new understanding. In this essay the relation between information, reality and consciousness will be briefly discussed.

Author Bio

I am an undergraduate physics student at King's College London, University of London. I am interested in theoretical physics and Anthropology.

Download Essay PDF File

Hello Slavish,

You are right to question the validity of assumptions which can only be countered via argument, and on that basis question the validity of any understanding of consciousness which has no reasonable prospect of being validated. I propose something more concrete; an understanding of consciousness which extends to absolutely everything, but I also tie this understanding to an astronomical observation which should be possible in the near future. You may whish to check out this all or nothing conception. The title of the essay is "Hierarchical Space-Time".

Regards.

Zoran.

Dear Salvish,

I enjoyed your essay based on the premise that the relation between information, reality, and consciousness exists and is significant. A surprising number of essayists have concluded that information cannot be discussed in any meaningful fashion without bringing ideas of code-book, interpretation, meaning, understanding, apprehension, mind, consciousness, or awareness into the picture. The alternative is a Shannon-like treatment of meaningless signals, which, while important, overlooks the most significant aspects of information and reality, both subjective and objective.

I assume one can suppose that microtubules have something to do with consciousness, based on the mystical idea that consciousness is a quantum phenomena. The only logic I see behind this is the argument that "one thing we don't understand" must be identical to "another thing we don't understand". Did Penrose and Hameroff propose a mechanism whereby microtubules could be related to the delayed choice experiment?

As you seem quite interested in the relationship of consciousness and reality, I invite you to read my current essay, which is also focused on this topic. I look forward to any comments you might care to make.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Excellent effort Slavish. Nice to see someone, so early in the game, putting forward a well constructed paper. There was some original thought here. If you have time, I would appreciate a comment on my own paper, which builds a mathematical universe based on a single principle.

    Best wishes

    Stephen Anastasi

    Dear Goomane,

    I like that you are able to address frontally the connection that consciousness should make with Wheeler's dream. Most physicists shy away from this one and somehow HOPE that a solution can come without first an error of sort.

    You say of many attempts at this connection that "...the theories are rather superfluous and do not relate to quantum physics or any other branches of physics nor relate to conventional neuroscientific theories." But I have in What a Wavefunction is an approach that in hard numbers actually does relate physics and neuroscience and in a testable manner. Even though in merely attempting this I must come across as a "crank" to the "scientist" (might as well be) but please do actually read through and let me have the "hard" questions and your honest opinion.

    Thank you for your audacity

    Best,

    Chidi

    Mr. Goomanee,

    I found your essay to be one of the best written ones so far to be published. Your writing style is extremely economical and there is no trace of obsequiousness anywhere to be found in a word of it.

    I was highly amused by the "self-collapse" remark as it reminded me of the "self-deportation" of illegal immigrants proposed by Mitt Romney in his presidential campaign.

    As for your statement that: "The relation between reality, information and consciousness is a rather complicated one to figure out using conventional physical and mathematical approaches." I respectfully disagree.

    As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, one real Universe is occurring, once. Each real snowflake is unique, once. Each real strand of DNA is unique, once. Each real particle must be unique, once. Each real star must be unique, once. Everything in the real Universe is unique, once. Penrose and Hameroff were correct when they averred that the universe was not computable. Unique, once, is not computable.

    Best of luck in the contest, you deserve it for your fine essay,

    Joe

    Hello Salvish,

    Nice to read. You may find some of the vagueness removed in the present understanding of the relation between reality and information theory here.

    I will like to know what you think.

    Best regards,

    Akinbo.

    Dear Salvish,

    I think it is good to philosophically consider consciousness within the Bit/It subject and from an observer point of view. After all we are the ones considering the question consciously. Please take a look at my essay if you have time.

    Nice essay Salvish!

    Best wishes,

    Antony

    Dear Hoang,

    Thank you for your constructive comments, this will be very helpful. I do agree about the fact that the actual equations and our current understanding of the neural architecture is rather limited, for this reason I preferred not to include the calculations described by Penrose and Hameroff. I am actually still studying these, the model is quite elaborated.

    Salvish

    Dear Edwin,

    Thank you for your comment.

    Actually Penrose and Hameroff implied that consciousness arises in microtubules found in due to the high electron density which would favor the possibility of the occurrence of a newly proposed quantum phenomena ( the self - collapse or Objective reduction). The latter collapses to a single space time geometry and allows us to observe the delayed choice experiment (where reduction as per Copenhagen interpretation now occur.) What Penrose suggested is actually more fundamental than Wheeler's delayed choice experiment but unfortunately there are no experimental evidence of such process. I was thinking however whether the process could actually be related and quantified as per Feynman's path integral but I am not very sure of the method.

    Regards,

    Salvish

    Dear Sir,

    Your courage and enthusiasm to participate in this forum even though you are still a student, is laudable. This shows your potential and we congratulate you for the same.

    Reading your essay we were reminded of an experiment in a premier B-School, where we were attending an Executive Development Program. We asked the regular students to rate some faculty, whom we also rated separately. There was a clear distinction in both sets of ratings. The students, who were not exposed to any problem, rated higher those, who had lots of facts at their finger tips. We rated higher those, who mixed their theory with practical solutions to different problems. You are behaving like those students. Nothing wrong in it. But this shows how students are made to blindly believe in the established theories and forget originality. If you read our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published on May 31, you will realize it.

    When you talk about "info-cognitive" or "the relation between reality (in the mind) and information (what is observed)", you are falling into the trap. When data is cognized, it becomes information. Thus, "info-cognitive" is not the "relation between the observed reality and the information we are getting". It is the result of observation of reality being cognized. Reality exists and evolves independent of our observation. The Moon will continue to exist even when we are not looking at it. Observation is meaningful only to the observer for his information and does not change physical reality. The cat will lead its life. Observation will only report its state, neither will it kill nor make it come alive. There is nothing like an 'undead' cat. Our ignorance of its state does not change its life history or its exposure to poison. Most of what is taught in colleges are fiction not physics.

    The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. Hence there is an uncertainty inherent in it, which Shannon calls entropy. In perception, the concept remains in a superposition of states and collapses in response to some stimuli. In information technology, the updating is done by an agent. In perception, it is done by the neural network and memory.

    Physics can deal with consciousness if it could precisely define consciousness. Despite its much publicized predictive successes, quantum mechanics has been plagued by conceptual difficulties since its inception. No one is really clear about what is quantum mechanics? What does quantum mechanics describe? Since it is widely agreed that any quantum mechanical system is completely described by its wave function, it might seem that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about the behavior of wave functions. Quite naturally, all physicists starting with Erwin Schrödinger, the father of the wave function, wanted this to be true. However, Schrödinger ultimately found it impossible to believe. His difficulty was not so much with the novelty of the wave function: "That it is an abstract, unintuitive mathematical construct is a scruple that almost always surfaces against new aids to thought and that carries no great message". Rather, it was that the "blurring" suggested by the spread out character of the wave function "affects macroscopically tangible and visible things, for which the term 'blurring' seems simply wrong" (Schrödinger 1935).

    For example, in the same paper Schrödinger noted that it may happen in radioactive decay that "the emerging particle is described ... as a spherical wave ... that impinges continuously on a surrounding luminescent screen over its full expanse. The screen however does not show a more or less constant uniform surface glow, but rather lights up at one instant at one spot ....". He observed that one can easily arrange, for example by including a cat in the system, "quite ridiculous cases" with the ψ-function of the entire system having in it the living and the dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts. Thus it is because of the "measurement problem" of macroscopic superposition that Schrödinger found it difficult to regard the wave function as "representing reality". But then what does reality represent? With evident disapproval, Schrödinger describes how the reigning doctrine rescues itself by having recourse to epistemology. We are told that no distinction is to be made between the state of a natural object and what we know about it, or perhaps better, what we can know about it. Actually - it is said - there is intrinsically only awareness, observation, measurement.

    One of the assumptions of quantum mechanics is that any state of a physical system and its time evolution is represented by the wave-function, obtained by the solution of time-dependent Schrödinger equation. Secondly, it is assumed that any physical state is represented by a vector in Hilbert space being spanned on one set of Hamiltonian eigenfunctions and all states are bound together with the help of superposition principle. However, if applied to a physical system, these two assumptions exhibit mutual contradiction. It is said that any superposition of two solutions of Schrödinger equation is also a solution of the same equation. However, this statement can have physical meaning only if the two solutions correspond to the same initial conditions.

    By superposing solutions belonging to different initial conditions, we obtain solutions corresponding to fully different initial conditions, which imply that significantly different physical states have been combined in a manner that is not allowed. The linear differential equations that hold for general mathematical superposition principles have nothing to do with physical reality, as actual physical states and their evolution is uniquely defined by corresponding initial conditions. These initial conditions characterize individual solutions of Schrödinger equation. They correspond to different properties of a physical system, some of which are conserved during the entire evolution.

    The physical superposition principle has been deduced from the linearity of Schrödinger differential equation without any justification. This arbitrary assumption has been introduced into physics without any proof. The solutions belonging to diametrically different initial conditions have been arbitrarily superposed. Such statements like: "quantum mechanics including superposition rules have been experimentally verified" is absolutely wrong. All tests hitherto have concerned only consequences following from the Schrödinger equation.

    The wave function is determined by solving Schrödinger's differential equation:

    d^2ψ/dx^2 + 8π^2m/h^2 [E-V(x)]ψ = 0.

    By using a suitable energy operator term, the equation is written as Hψ = Eψ. The way the equation has been written, it appears to be an equation in one dimension, but in reality it is a second order equation signifying a two dimensional field, as the original equation and the energy operator contain a term x^2. The method of the generalization of the said Schrödinger equation to the three spatial dimensions (adding two more equal terms by replacing x with y and z) does not stand mathematical scrutiny. A three dimensional equation is a third order equation implying volume. Addition of three areas does not generate volume [x+y+z ≠ (x.y.z)] and [x^2+y^2+z^2 ≠ (x.y.z)]. Thus, there is no wonder that it has failed to explain spectra other than hydrogen. The so-called success in the case of helium and lithium spectra gives results widely divergent from observation.

    Don't be discouraged by our remark. Think about it and you will gain much insight into the nature of the physical world.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    PS: We are addressing Sir and paying regards not to your persona (you are like our child), but to your intellect.

      Thank you for your comments.

      I would like to say you do seem to know well the mathematical constructions behind the Schrodinger's equation. However the latter do not have any physical meaning, it is just a postulate, an axiom - something which exists simply because the experiments carried are coherent with the equation. So quantum superposition is a founded principle - for example observation and further tests through computer modelling reveals how the relatively large nuclei can exists momentarily is a superposed state - as I said in my comment of your essay; you just cannot question founded/fundamental principle. You can say string theory is false and loop quantum gravity is the answer for a unification I will neither agree nor disagree because there are no concrete proof of the latter theories. I can however think further and say that I believe in the mathematical constructions as some physicists actually do and imply that the theory is so beautiful that it must be true. However that would be selfish of me because we (even as a theological scientists) , physicists, scientist and engineers are here to ensure that the whatever are theories written, they will benefit to the whole world either directly or indirectly. Hence experiments done are valid and well founded.

      Regards

      Salvish

      Dear Salvish

      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

      Dear Sir,

      We have given a detailed reply to your comments below our thread.

      We are questioning the most fundamental principles of Physics because they do not correspond to reality as is perceived. We are not questioning Nature. We are not bound by text books or syllabus. Hence we are free to question all inconsistencies. We also give alternative solutions. Since we do not do a cut and paste job (all modern presentations including Doctoral theses are), we do not give any reference. If you say there is no place for originality in physics, that is another story.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      Dear: Salvish Goomanee¨:

      I read your essay which open new questions which sometimes are more important than solutions. I must say that we almost have nothing in common, you are a young physics student and I am an old physician that when were young accidentally found something mainly useful for theoretical physics, but I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. In common: You refer to a paper, which describes microtubules and tubulines in the process of transmitting the nerve impulse, referring to what theoretically from the view point of physics happen. More than 30 years ago I did research with the transmission of the nerve impulse, more than three years, and I find out that chemical transmissors did not transmit the impulse if these aren't combine with proteins first, I did not write any paper, supposedly my professor Dr. Lanary did it , at the time I didn't care.( I felt an assassin, because the dogs).Another thing in common. When you comment the paper you refer to "lead to the separation of the space-time geometries" in my essay "The deep nature of reality" I do refer to an Einstein brief verbal description of "space-time" as you must know while there is consensus on the mathematical significance of space-time in theoretical physics, for a hundred years there has been no consensus on the nature "of space-time itself". And in almost every physic theory have their own "spacetime" description, this "Einstein description seems that wasn't read by physicists, by the way most people have problems to explain why it can't be separated, I facilitate that describing it as one thing.

      I will give you a summary of my essay because I am convince you would understand it an as a consequence you would be interested in reading it. "Hawking 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 slow 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 a 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 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 Salvish,

      I just read your essay and it is great to see the spirit of questing for answers in a field that after all this time still hasn't disclosed its most basic secrets.

      I noticed that you referenced a diagram which was not in your paper, I assume that you meant to include one but ran out of time, since your essay was one of the late-late comers (like mine).

      The questions that Penrose and Hameroff try to address are very deep and I don't think we are anywhere near being able to understand them because if there is in fact some sort of intersection between quantum mechanics and neuroscience (which there may not be) it will require tools for further elucidation to which we do not yet have access.

      However, quantum theory is still very rich in and of itself, so I would encourage you to learn as much you can about our present state of knowledge (which contains many subtleties not usually covered in intro quantum courses) all the while watching out for progress in identifying quantum processes that play a role in biological systems.

      Maybe when you are in grad school (assuming that's what you want to do) you can then see if you want to pursue something like quantum biology, see for instance this article. I don't know much about it myself, but it is a very young field and perhaps you will be one of those who develop the tools to be able to investigate the questions for which Penrose and Hameroff may have been too far ahead of their time to find an answer.

      All the best in your career,

      Armin

      Dear Salvish,

      I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

      Regards and good luck in the contest,

      Sreenath BN.

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

      Salvish,

      I found your essay to be one of the more interesting and forward thinking essays I've read. I think you made several outstanding points and furthermore, are asking the right questions.

      I agree that the, "anthropic principle may actually be a 'primitive' description of the relation between reality and information and the missing link could be consciousness," and that it, "is usually very difficult to discuss such theories among the scientific community because of the lack of experimental evidence; furthermore the theories are rather superfluous and do not relate to quantum physics or any other branches of physics nor relate to conventional neuroscientific theories." This is why I think it is particularly important that you, as an undergraduate student, continue to keep your mind open, as your writing clearly indicates you are doing. Your interest in physics and anthropology represents an interesting, diverse, cross-section of studies.

      I think that you are indeed correct in that, "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers." It seems that although there are physicists and other scientists who truly want to discover the 'Big Picture,' it appears that there seems to be some sort of glass wall or ceiling that tends to block their minds to certain possibilities. I often read something along the lines of speculation that the answers, "might be right under our noses," or "so simple, we'll all wonder how we could have been so blind for so long," as John Wheeler put it. But I also see how there seems to be very little attention paid to new and different ideas that are so simple and don't conflict with our theories and observations. Hopefully, your generation will see things differently.

      I wish you the very best in your future, and again, enjoyed your open-minded, fresh perspective.

      Sincerely,

      Ralph

      Salvish,

      A very well constructed and written essay, and good attempt to unravel and analyse incoherent complexity. I like your excellent description; "The relation between reality, information and consciousness is a rather complicated one to figure out using conventional physical and mathematical approaches."

      I agree with and also explored the possibility that; "the link between reality and information could be how consciousness occurs in the brain", although I used a more mechanistic way.

      You sum up the role of the brain in 'measurement' in a novel and interesting way in saying; "the link between reality and information could be how consciousness occurs in the brain." I think 'conciousness' is still inadequately defined for a science essay, and the role of the brain can be compared in many ways to a computer processor, giving output and a picture of reality from input (information) You none the less identify this much ignored area, and I commend you addressing philosophy (I discussed this in my last years essay).

      In some ways my essay may be an extension of many of the logical conclusions of yours, which is and conceptually consistent. For that reason alone I'd score yours well, but it is also a well structured and written essay. I hope you will enjoy reading mine and find some agreement, so agree its also worth a high score. I do make some quite bold propositions which I hope don't shock! I cetainly agree there may be "some processes or some kind of information that cannot be understood through algorithms and needed new understanding." I hope you understand the emergent solution to the EPR paradox (the links in the first blog post may help).

      Very well done for your own essay, and original view, bravely engaging with important philosophical considerations.

      Very best wishes

      Peter

      Hello Salvish,

      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