It, Bit, Object, Background by Armin Nikkhah Shirazi

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,

Akinbo

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 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 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 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

Dear Armin,

Because of similarity of thoughts between our essays and also for presenting your essay in an elegant manner, I have rated your essay with maximum possible honors.

All the best,

Sreenath

Dear Armin,

I have rated your essay with maximum honors on 25th of July; if you have not yet rated my essay, would you, please, rate my essay accordingly and inform me of it? Expecting positive reply from you.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Dear Armin,

I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies.

It was my proposition, it was not an inference to your essay. What I mean is that we should be more close experimental results for our propositions.

I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.

Now in this context, can we create material from information...?

You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Armin,

thanks for your very logical analysis including; "the term "background independent quantum theory" has to be considered a contradiction," which agrees with my own thesis, as does;

"The very fact that speed is a relational concept logically demands at least a local background". I analyse why there's no logical reason to abandon local backgrounds with the one 'absolute' one, so allowing a 'condensate'. Your proposal is intriguing, but I propose may be unnecessary. (This of course matter little with regard to rating).

I also comment you on Superposition; "The absence of an explicit specification entails all possible default specifications." I hope and believe my essay may offer a possible intuition. I hope you have time to read it before the deadline.

Congratulations on yours.

Best wishes.

Peter