Dear Armin, what an excellent essay and as I noted in your answer to Giacomo, you wrote; "All it expresses is that one can have at minimum a bit of information if it is possible for something to take on distinct values." I agree completely with this assessment and may I point out that in KQID, this one bit is the Wang Yangming one bit as the unity of Giving and Taking. I did reply to your question in my forum but knowing how busy you are with other matters, I repost again in this forum. Answering your question: yes, I found it is extremely difficult to do so many things at the same time and I have been blessed to be able to do what I am doing. However, I must work days and nights literally with all my being all my life to conduct this research that I love. I share deep empathy to my fellow seekers of the truth in this FQIX wonderful and creatively talented community, Tianming Ren(people). I do have an advantage that because of my wide experiences in business, economics, international affairs, philosophy and law, I am NOT captured and kidnapped by orthodox meme that controlled unawared minds. Even those awared minds are extremely difficult to escape from their learned and adopted views that run successfully their everyday lives. Our billion years of evolution teaches us to be cautious from any new idea. Now on KQID, KQID prescribes that bit is it: bit=it. This bit or this it is bit-waves, so musical tunes. It is Pythagorian in steroid that all things are one Qbit as the only singer or the only pianist like you who plays all the musics accompanied by its myriads Tianming hologram clones and drones simultaneously as singers and spectators. It observes itself and collapses its bit-wave function. This Qbit is the one and only singularity Qbit Multiverse. You and I sing our own songs and dance our own Gangnam style moves like those scout bees doing theirs dances communicating their discoveries of new food sources for the survival of their colony. We project our desires and lusts naked out there space-in-time to be manifested in myriads forms and substances like a Ferrari Enzo. What a wonderful world! What a magical world! What a beautiful world! Mesmerizing to those who open their hearts and minds to see, touch, taste, hear and think nature as IS. Is as IS naked fresh raw salad. KQID prescribes Existence in the Ouroboros Equations as FAPAMA snake Qbit eating its own tail. The FAPAMA Qbit is self-bootstrapping to will itself into what we collective feel alive. We talk, walk, run and make love. KQID is physics and more. KQId is an operating system of Existence. KQID offers not only a new window to see things differently but KQID recreates and redistributes our Multiverse in our own image literally. We the Homo sapiens create and distribute our own Erosverse that encompasses all our relationships with our selves, family, community, mankind, aliens, cyborgs and robots and our Multiverse. We create and distribute our own world in our own image literally. We are Tianming Ren (people) endowed with super power of nature. Let us work together to bring peace and prosperity in our world we share and love. Best wishes, Leo KoGuan
It, Bit, Object, Background by Armin Nikkhah Shirazi
Dear Armin,
I read your lucid essay with enthusiasm and found myself surprised to know that we both share common views in analyzing the relationship between It & Bit in all three fields of physics. Yours' is an elegantly written essay by analyzing the relationship existing between the 'back ground material' on one hand, and It & Bit on the other. I am curious to know how you make use of 'default specification principle' in your further research work to solve amicably the problem existing between It & Bit in both classical physics and the quantum one. Because of similarity in our ideas, I would like to rate your essay with maximum honors.
All the best in the essay contest,
Sreenath
Dear Armin, very perceptive of you to notice that KQID can be "practically implemented as a philosophy for living". KQID is designed as an operating meme that is looking for WILLING hosts to adopt it and allow the meme living within and operates the task of helping the hosts to decide using Wheeler's series of questions a yes, or a no or maybe. This way to assist the host to realize his/her dreams and aspirations. As my answer to Brian above that I sing and praise the Xuan Yuan's Da Tong based upon the greatest discovery of the Yellow Emperor's Four Cannons buried in 168 B.C in Mawangdui near Changsha in 1973. The Grand Historian Sima Qian reportedly around 100 B.C that Xuan Yuan (the Yellow Emperor) text was lost already and he could not find it anywhere. Thus for more than two thousand years Chinese scholars did not have access to this mankind's treasure. Xuan Yuan is the founder of modern Culture-Nation China about 5 thousand years ago, he at that time laid down in blood the first Chinese Constitution: the Mandate of Heaven that anyone has the right and duty to take down a tyrant ruler and killed him as he killed and skinned the tyrant Chi You He also conceptualized Chinese rule of law and principle jurisprudence that from Dao comes law and virtue and no one is above the law and virtue and everyone including himself and all kings and ordinary persons are treated equal under the law and virtues derived from Dao. Dao is the Heaven Law of Nature. With an operating rule of law and principle nothing that cannot be curbed. This is not all! He preceded Thomas Jefferson by almost 5000 years in which his mission in life as well as the mission of his Culture-State is to help each person to realize his/her dreams and aspirations, if he/she does not have one, he will work together to find one. However, no matter what he will help everyone to have good education, to be healty and rich. This idea later on became the credo of Chinese Dream that I believe what President Xi Jinping eloquently speaks out as he and his adminisration would like to accomplish.This is what Kongzi (Confucius) advocated and he took Da Tong poetry, Chinese Dream, from the Book of Poetry that he laboringly collected around 500 BC in Zhou Dynasty. Thus since Xuan Yuan era 5 thousand years ago, China has already advocated Chinese version of Rule of law and principle and we are still working on it to make it better and better everyday. The written constitution of this Jurisprudence is the Mandate of Heaven. My study of Dao leads me to my KQID theory as the foundation of the Scientific Outlook Rule of Law and Principle that on top and with KQID powerful engine we build Scientific Outlook Free-Lunch Economic System that will enable everyone to have free education, free health care and free material wealth. So that we become super Tianming Ren(persons) endowed by Nature(Dao). I am a practical person. This is NOT a pipedream but a realistic goal that we can achieve soon. At the same time, KQID is truly physical theory that not only about an operating system of Existence but also about predictions, verifications and falsifications. The KQID Ouroboros Equation of Existence: Ξ00☷ = ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) = KbΘln2 = hf = pc mc^2 = p^2/2m U(iLx,y,z) = 4πGρ- Kqid(ΑΘ-ΘS)gμν = (8πG/c^4)Tμν - Kqid(ΑΘ-ΘS)gμν = Τμν = E = A S ⊆ T that contains QM, KQID relativity, Landauer's bound, Planck, Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, Poisson, Einstein GR with KQID dark energy equation and KQID Third Law of Multiverse as the equation of everything from physics to chemistry, law, monetary and full employment. In physics as shown in my essay, this equation explains the Bit Bang, not Big Bang, plus its partner the Bit Crush and we can estimate the temperature about 7.8 x10^126K in the first burst at 1.43478x10^-147 seconds with the wavelength λ = 4.3x10^-139 meter, moreover when A = S our universe will inevitably start its contraction and acceleration to a Bit Crush sometime hundreds of trillions years later thatI also calculated in two different ways. As you can see I made specific predictions with specific numbers that can easily be falsified later by experiments. We are the seekers of the truth and paraphrasing the great Carl Sagan, we are the Qbit's way to know itself and to evolve as a renewed Qbit every absolute digital time T≤10^-1000seconds. We are brothers and sisters literally in our human senses but actually we are one in our Ancestor Qbit reality. Thanks for asking questions and I am grateful for your kind interest.
Sincerely,
Leo KoGuan
Dear Sreenath,
Thank you for your comments. The paper that introduces the framework that is based on the default specification principle can be found here:
A Novel Approach to making sense out of the Copenhagen Interpretation
If you cannot it download it from there, you can also find on public repositories it by just googling the title.
This paper only presents the first step, as there is still much to do. Here are some of the areas where I need to do more work:
1. Tighten the mathematical connection between the axioms and the derivation of the path integrals
2. Derive path integrals for situations other than the free particle.
3. Connect this framework directly to the Born Rule
4. Generalize the framework to quantum fields
5. Derive precision predictions that distinguish the theory empirically from others
As you can hopefully see, this is a full-blown research program, but right now I am pursuing it on my own time with my own funds part-time. For that reason progress is not going to be nearly as fast as I would like, but I believe that even already what I have now is stronger and more promising than the ideas that are pursued in mainstream research. Of course you would expect me to say that, but I invite you to read and try to really understand the framework so that you can check for yourself.
All the best,
Armin
Dear Armin,
Thanks for your clarifications.
All the best,
Sreenath
Dear Armin,
This does not really apply to you as I have rated you high already. Moreover I will be revisiting your blog after the contest. Meanwhile...
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, I pose the following 4 simple questions...
"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,
Dear Sir,
We are extremely grateful to you for the time you have devoted to explain the points raised by us. But it has introduced new questions requiring explanation. Hence we request you to kindly clarify our doubts.
When you talk about spatial derivative and a field, we presume it is a three dimensional field, of which you are considering only the x-axis. Position must refer to the placement of an object, which also is 3d. But if an object is moved along x-axis in a field, does not the change of co-ordinate affect the other coordinates of the body like y-axis and z-axis? If you vary the radius (around center of mass) along x-axis, the volume increases by 3 orders of magnitude. If you drag the object along x-axis, the distribution of mass and energy in the field changes changing at least the gravitational interaction with other bodies in the field (or space-time curvature). Can we eliminate these effects since there are no perfectly isolated objects? If not, whether these have been included in your description? Then where and how? You say the constant need not be zero. But it has to change as shown by us above - hence it is not constant. You also say, "If dF/dx is larger than zero, then the Field strength increases as you go farther along x". Increase in field strength implies increase in energy. Where from this energy comes? If it is redistributed or additional energy applied to the field, then it will affect not only other bodies in the field, but also the field strength itself.
We do not understand "rate of change of the rate of change". Once a force is applied to move the body along x-axis and the body moves, the force ceases to act and the body moves at constant velocity due to inertia (assuming there are no other forces). The new velocity can be v'. The relation between the original velocity v and v' is the rate of change. To accelerate the body further, you need another force to be applied to the body. If it moves along with the body, then it cannot accelerate the body. Without such a force, the body cannot be accelerated. What is that force and from where it comes? If another force is applied, it will change the velocity to v''. The "rate of change of the rate of change" would mean relating v to v'' and so on. But why should we compare these with v instead of v'?
The classification of time independent and time dependent is not understood by us. Can we eliminate time from any physical description? If we talk of constant energy, then we have to consider the whole universe or its replica. Thus, the Schrödinger equation is valid only for hydrogen atom and not others. We have already said that complex numbers are hypothetical and not physical. It is like adding horn and rabbit to describe the horns of a rabbit, which is physically not permissible. Hence, they cannot be used in computer programming.
Incidentally, most people have changed their impression about us after reading our essay. May be you will also change if you read it!
Regards,
basudeba
Hello Armin,
I mean to read your paper in much more detail. You left a nice comment by mine, and someone else mentioned your paper as well. There are some similarities. I thought I'd start with the very general philosophical issues that may be confusing.
In your section 2, you imagine a world without distinctions, described by a single arbitrary number, or a number repeated. Such a world, without distinctions you claim, does not need any information to represent it. I am wondering if the situation may be a little more slippy.
In my essay, I started out with the claim that a Bit is essentially symmetric because it represents a distinction but just what is it that is separated by that distinction is irrelevant. Now maybe people now have two concepts of Bit in their heads, the Shannon ideal that it summarizes something else and thus communicates information, and the practice of computing, in which the user of the computer has access to inquiring, given an address, to whether a 0 or 1 is present.
So back to your situations. What if you had a world without distinctions and you chose the number 0 to represent it (you say the # can be arbitrary.) And then what if instead you chose the number 1, as you say repeated arbitrarily. You say that there is no information to distinguish and yet you've produced a bit (choice between 0 or 1).
Hi Armin,
Your comment at the end of the essay "the boundary conditions are due to actual spacetime objects ... [which] must be counted as features of the background" brought to mind deBroglie's pilot wave theory. He could account for phenomena like the double-slit experiment by assuming that the slits themselves had a quantum potential which guided the path of the photon or particle. I suspect a good part of the reason pilot wave theory was neglected until Bohm's rediscovery of deBroglie's work in the 1950s was that it implicitly allows a quantum potential for the background by the argument you noted. Bohm called the background the implicate order, which is aptly vague. Pauli's famous quip "It isn't even wrong" was made about Bohm's paper, which tells you how it was received at the time.
I am not sure how this might relate to the premise of your essay, but it does concern the question of background. If you are interested, Mike Towler's lectures on deBroglie's pilot wave theory and the foundations of QM are at this website. (Select "Lectures and slides".) The slides from the introductory lecture give a nice overview of the theory with many of the details laid out. Towler makes an excellent case, and it is an interesting bit of history.
All the best to you,
Colin
Dear Basudeba,
The explanation for the derivative I gave was for a 1-dimensional model meant to highlight the mathematical definition of the derivative. It is perfectly valid to just consider a 1-dimensional model which often avoids the complications arising from using more dimensions.
I regret that I simply do not have the time to further clarify the issues you raise, just typing the explanation of the derivative took me a couple hours. I will note that to me they simply reflect more of the same misunderstandings I mentioned before. If you really want to contribute to the discussion in fundamental physics in such a way that it is taken seriously by the professionals in the field (of which I am not yet), then you need to make sure you understand calculus and quantum mechanics at a quantitative level, which they would consider elementary pre-requisites. You may wish to hire a tutor, to whom you could show our exchange and then direct your questions.
I did look at your paper, and unfortunately it did not change my mind. It appears that you know a large number of isolated physics facts, but that you have large gaps in understanding how they relate to each other. I believe this would become quickly obvious to any physicist, and after encountering the first couple misunderstandings, they would be unlikely to spend any more time considering your ideas.
I know that my assessment may sound very blunt, but I believe that in this environment in which it seems many just try to sugarcoat their true opinions either for fear of retaliation or to gain a high vote, it is all the more more important that you receive an honest assessment.
I wish you the best and hope that you will take the advice to heart,
Armin
ok, 1110
On 2) I assume you meant to say "...can you in principle 'elicit' information?"
On 4)I actually have a paper in preparation, tentatively called "Quantum Mechanics and Existence" in which I challenge the binary conception of existence.
All the best,
Armin
Dear Bram,
Thank you for your post, you raise a rather subtle point. I agree with you that "just what is it that is separated that distinction is irrelevant". Where we seem to part ways is that once you have fixed some kind of meaning to the representation of one of the possibilities, however arbitrary a distinction it represents, the representations of alternatives are then immediately constrained by that choice, and if this not taken into account, can result in an incorrect representation.
Take your example: the first choice is to represent the world by 0, the second is to represent it by 1. However you choose to represent it doesn't matter (this is our point of agreement), but once you mix the two representations to create a "bit" then I see a problem: because 0 already represents that world, making it part of a "bit" in which 1 also represents the same world leads to one of the two possible results: if you consider the bit in the usual sense that 0 and 1 represent alternatives then this implies 1=0 because the alternatives represent the same thing. If you mean that they need not necessarily represent actual alternatives, then this implies the strings 10 and 01 mean the same thing and they could both be more simply represented by, say, 0, which still falls short of a single "bit". This is what I meant when I wrote: "whether one considers such a string a sequence of single digit numbers, or just a single number by itself, or anything in-between, is completely arbitrary.Insofar as the numerical encoding of such a world falls short of even a single bit (because none of the digits have the possibility open of taking a different value), we may consider distinctions to be a prerequisite for the definition of information."
Perhaps it helps to also consider the following example: Take any yes or no question and represent it in terms of binary numbers. The common choice is 0 for no and 1 for yes, but one could also choose 1 for no and 0 for yes. Now, what you are doing seems to me analogous to creating a new "bit" by combining, say, the 0 from the first choice and a 1 from the second. But they mean (i.e. represent) the same thing, therefore the new "bit" no longer represents the yes or no question, as both choices mean no.
There is a way around this (sort of), and this is where the subtleties arise (And this may be what you had in mind). You could assign the first bit (0 no, 1 yes) to "Armin's representation of the yes or no question" and the second bit (1 no, 0 yes) to "Bram's representation of the yes or no question". Then it is perfectly alright to mix the representations, but you notice, the meaning of the newly created bit has changed: It no longer represents the original question. Rather it represents a choice between my representation of the no answer and yours.
In my essay I was, however, not concerned with these meta-levels of meaning that representations of distinctions could acquire but just with representing physical distinctions directly in such a way that whatever means of representation is chosen correctly represents those distinctions. I believe your example does not do that because it either implies a contradiction or it is not a true "bit".
I hope that I was able to clearly explain my viewpoint. Thank you again for your engaging question, and if you have a rebuttal or more questions, I'd love to hear it.
Armin
Dear Colin,
Thank you so much for reading my paper. The statement you quote is actually an oversimplification of what I really think, but trying to explain the nuances of that idea would have taken more space than was allowed under the contest rules (I was only about 100 characters under the limit).
I must say that any connection between Bohmian mechanics and my framework escapes me. If my rudimentary understanding is correct, there the quantum potential serves to guide the particles which are "hidden" so to say, behind the wave function. As you know, in my framework there is no underlying "particle" (at least in the sense of a spacetime object), the wave function is really it (at least for us spacetime observers). It is possible that I might arrive at some similar pieces of mathematics, but if so, the meaning would be completely different. At any rate, I believe a truly detailed and representative account can only be given in terms of field theory, and I am still (very unfortunately) quite a bit away from that. Thanks again,
All the best,
Armin
Dear Sir,
Thank you for this reply which conforms our belief that faced with an awkward question, scientists claim superiority of their knowledge and denounce others, but never try to reply to the question. The time you spent in writing the post could have been better utilized have you tried to understand our question. For your benefit, let us educate you on the meaning of what you have written and some basic physics.
Dimension is the perception of the differentiation of the internal structural space from the external relational space of a particle. Since we perceive dimension as form through our eyes by electromagnetic radiation, where an electric field moves perpendicular to a magnetic field, both of which are perpendicular to the direction of their motion, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. They determine the state of the substance: if fixed - then solid, if fluid - then liquid and if loosely held:then gas. Thus, the concept of one dimensional model is nonsense. You have not understood the concept of dimension - hence used it as a direction.
Please try to learn your basics before recommending us to go to a tutor, who will repeat what he has been told in the text books without understanding its meaning like you have done here. We do not follow others blindly and claim ourselves a great scientist. We lead independently. We are not here for recognition - we want to understand Nature. If you have any queries, you are welcome.
Regards,
basudeba
Dear Armin This is separate from the stimulating physics discussions we have had both here and on my fqxi essay page.
Here attached is the painting I made inspired by your quiet yet vibrant music. It is just a personal impulsive image not a direct 'translation' of your music.
BTW a a reminder about rating the essays as the contest period is closing soon.
With best wishes
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.
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 Armin,
Physics concerns what we can say about nature...just this philosophy is underlying the line of thought "It from bit", but I am convinced that we can know Nature's last secrets. To me the most promising way to unveil these secrets is a Modern Metaphysics, because the ONE (i.e. an omnipresent and transcendent field) is the most fundamental level of reality.
If we know how the ONE determines structure and conception of the universe we are on the path toward a final theory of the Universe. But the ONE implies a specific feature or attribute, that contradicts the possibility to state distinctions, because the ONE is explicitly defined as the foundational branch of reality, in which ALL distinctions are solved into Oneness. That's the inner meaning of the term - the ONE.
If information is introduced or implemented in physics as the most foundational level just this secret or hidden field of reality (i.e. the ONE) is, in principle, excluded. We are simply unable to see or to understand the 'meaning' of this field inclusive the meaning of the universe.
I agree with you that we need distinctions before we can have information. But if this is the case, the meaning (!) of distinctions within the global context of reality cannot be grasped by information itself. This seems to be a philosophical task - at least in parts. (Empirical data may be necessary to identify the physical distinctions with which Nature is dealing.)
By the way Wheeler's notion of "It from bit" is only half the truth: He often expressed his deep appreciation of the science of Einstein. The point of his appreciation was centered on Einstein's grasp of the importance of the WHY-question in physics. The WHY of the universe had to become vital for real progress to be made. Therefore Wheeler has called the scientific community to seek to do "Meaning physics" because of the importance of this point. We could not be content merely with knowing HOW the universe goes, but we must be able to penetrate into its MEANING, where both moral and physical laws are found inherently in the nature of the universe. It was just this kind of epistemology that was demanded by him.
I admit that the ONE and its relationship to the visible universe could not yet be clarified in terms of physics convincingly, but I am nevertheless believe, that the ONE and only the ONE is the key to a final theory of the UNIVERSE, because it answers the WHY-question.
Out of this epistemological view I am convinced, too, that a purely information-theoretic approach leads to a picture of reality, that is unreal and artifical. This becomes obvious if you look at the (Aristolean) relationship between substance and form. If this relationship is formalized in terms of bits you get a dead universe at the end - a universe, in which nothing happens.
I've tried to sketch this conclusion in my 2010-FQXI-paper "Can the Universe completely be digitized?"
To summarize my point of view: An information-theoretic approach is very modern, but it seperates us from the possibility to understand the inner meaning of the Universe.
Nevertheless, I wish you good luck with your paper. Though I do not agree with your position, I've rated it high, because it expresses the deep wish to grasp the inner core of reality.
Regards
Helmut
Dear Armin
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.
With best regards,
Than Tin
Dear Armin,
I know you are a multi-talented person, so let me ask you this question which I want to ask other professional physicists.
Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?
You can reply me here or on my blogmy blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.
Accept my best regards,
Akinbo
Hello, Armin,
I liked your approach and agree with much of it. Perhaps you have just not gone far enough in its implications. If information requires a background which can be a substance, that means, to me an energy. Hence energy is primitive, QED ;-)
I hope you will read and rate my Essay, It, Bit, Both or Neither.
Best regards,
Joseph Brenner