Essay Abstract
An examination of "information" and "material objects" suggests they represent an intrinsic duality, at least with regard to our perceptual reality.
Author Bio
Former NASA/JPL engineer/computational scientist; video game industry veteran. Current CTO, Liberty Airguns LLC.
Chris,
Clear, concise and well reasoned. Obviously you are not a professional physicist.
I haven't much been bothering to promote my own entry, but it is also a concise effort to cut thought the infinite complexity for which this discipline is a magnet, but you might find it compatible.
Hello Chris,
Cool essay. Differentiating between mathematical abstractions in a virtual continuous absolute space and time, and the real discrete world where a circle is just a bunch of dogs chasing each others tails, is really cool. One question though, is your last sentence truncated deliberately?
Regards.
Zoran.
Chris,
I agree that if, by definition, we were to say that, "if something cannot be known, it simply does not exist," is a contrivance that, "is both unsettling and unsatisfactory; the use of such semantic arguments to constrain scientific principles is hardly scientific." Since all thought is 'conceptual' in nature, and can only provide us with an intellectual picture of 'reality' - whatever reality actually is - then any intellectual understanding would be based upon the manner in which we define things. In particular, how we define 'information' would affect how our minds comprehend reality.
I also agree that the limitations of physics as a science is not suited to capture the entire picture of the universe. The root of the problem in science is that none of its branches study the tree as a whole.
I think you made several good points and enjoyed reading your essay.
Best to you,
Ralph
P. S. Your essay is not the only one wherein 'Joe' describes things as 'codswollop.'
John,
Thanks! I certainly understand your sentiment with respect to the often convoluted papers produced by physicists. But that said, I have to admit my own professional background has conferred the professional physicist moniker on occasion, so I can't reasonably exclude myself from that group either.
I will add that it is comparatively easy to make a radically complex paper, especially a mathematically complex one (as you might imagine, my particular background is quite the haven for such complex contrivances).
As you undoubtedly recognize, it is far more difficult to communicate abstract ideas simply, and if the goal is relating an idea to an audience, especially something as esoteric and general as a response to this essay question, it really needs to focus on the fundamentals.
There is a juncture where mathematical analysis becomes important, but in my view, that doesn't fit within the scope of this particular effort. It seems that you agree with this assessment, and I hope others do also.
Thanks again! And I'll be sure to read and comment on your essay as well!
Chris
Joe,
Not sure I fully understand your sentiment here, since I partially agree with your last comment.
When I say which 'can be known' I am not indicating what we may or may not know at present, but what can be known in every manner of speaking. And, I am certainly not assessing the condition of our understanding regarding such information in a cohesive or descriptive sense.
Physics itself does not have any method for dealing with that which 'cannot be known' if such indeed exists, as physics is a study of that which 'can be known.' By identity, that which 'cannot be known' can never become known and thus is not part of physics as a study. And, since that which 'can be known' comprises information, physics is a study of information.
Recognize that I am not making an argument on whether or not our current understandings are correct or even if reality transcends our perception (and thus transcends the perceptual physics upon which it is apparently comprised). My comments have nothing to do with any specific information or the interpretation of such, but rather the inherent duality of information and material objects within the context of physics itself, at least with respect to our perceptual reality.
Chris
Zoran,
Thanks for the comments!
I just re-read my last sentence. Actually, I hadn't planned it so metaphorically, but such does happen on occasion (words can sometimes mirror thoughts). I'm glad you pointed that out!
That said, it's complete but brief; I think you've already got it, but perhaps I can restate... In essence, for something to be manifest as physically existent (at least within our perceptual reality) it cannot be manifest with an infinite precision, and so we would expect incomplete information as compared to an ideal abstraction, and thus similarly inherent quantum behaviors at the most fundamental levels (again, at least within our perceptual reality).
Chris
Ralph,
Thanks for the comments; I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I think you're correct in that science, at least the way it's traditionally studied, is fragmented. My own background is interdisciplinary and I tend to look at things more as extended systems than as specialized fields; perhaps that provides a different type of insight into certain problems.
In the case of understanding the universe in totality, it goes deeper in the sense that we either have to accept that things may exist which 'cannot' be known (and thus science cannot be applied as there is no information) or postulate (without any information) that all things which exist 'can' be known, the latter being true if we limit our universe to some perceptual set - but we then have no way of determining if such is indeed a totality (or even if the term totality has meaning in that respect). It is perhaps more effective to recognize that physics is limited to that which 'can' be known, and thus it is a study of information in that context.
I also think you have honed in on one important aspect of definitions - that they are abstract concepts which we have contrived. So as you noted, we bias our intellectual understanding based on our own set of definitions, which can most certainly lead to circular conclusions in certain circumstances.
Thanks again!
Chris
Hoang,
Thanks for the feedback!
You've provided a lot of information in this post; I want to consider it in more detail before giving you a complete response.
In brief though, I agree (at least in principle) that no two separably identifiable 'things' can be be 'exact' in all regards and that 'similarity' does not confer 'exactness' in the strictest sense. That said, I will need to examine your essay to become clear on your particular use of the term 'absolute' within this context.
Thanks again!
Chris
Dear Chris
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. . . .
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
SNP,
Thanks for the feedback!
I'm not sure how you interpreted that from my essay. I make no comments or suggestions regarding if one can (or cannot) produce (as in physically manifest) matter from their thinking; I am not addressing such here at all.
I am saying that all things which can be known comprise information, and that the presence of information confers that which can be known - an inherent duality which partly stems from the way we have defined both information and material objects, in conjunction with the study of physics being constrained to a study of information, at least within our perceptual reality.
If something does not comprise any information, it cannot be known within the context of physics and thus we cannot evaluate its physical existence, at least not within our perceptual reality.
Now regarding experiments... Every time we take a measurement we are doing an experiment demonstrating that material objects and information exist in unison. If you think otherwise, you can attempt to falsify this by finding one contrary example - that is, find one physical object which does not comprise any information. You should recognize that such falsification within a physics context cannot be realized irrespective of all attempts to do so, since the detection or identification of such an object comprises information.
On the other point you made, I do tend to agree that much of cosmology is speculative; theories in the field are often based on 'authority' and dogma as opposed to experiments. And what's worse, is that excellent theories which may lend themselves to experiments are often simply ignored in deference to some consensus view. But science is not about consensus, it's about experiment. Authority, dogma, and consensus are meaningless in science.
It doesn't matter what people 'feel' is is correct; it matters what the results are from the experiments. History is replete with examples of scientists who disagreed with consensus and were eventually proven correct. Unfortunately, today's dangerous default to authority combined with a media driven world makes challenging an incorrect consensus that much more difficult. And, challenging consensus in cosmology is again more difficult because of the highly speculative nature of the field.
Unfortunately in today's world, the weight of an abstraction carried by a well-known researcher, even if they are completely wrong, is almost always valued more highly than that of an unknown researcher - even if the latter is fully correct. This is why we must guard science against the ongoing shift towards authoritarianism. Just consider the behavior of so many modern physics forums which 'ban' any comments or topics which 'may' be 'construed' to contradict some mainstream 'belief'. That's not science, and it's much more akin to a religion.
Thanks again for reading my essay and providing comments! I will certainly read your essay and provide my comments on your essay thread...
Chris
Chris,
(Thought I'd cross post this, since the conversations can get convoluted.)
Thank you for your consideration and it is a bit of a surprise how narrow the focus can be in this field. Personally I come at physics from a more cultural/historical basis, in which it becomes obvious, under all the emotion and drama, that it is physics which determines the course of events. Then getting into studying physics, how much politics and herd behavior guides the field.
While this may not be what you expect, it does build a broad argument for the information/energy dichotomy.
On a further note, here is my entry in last years Questioning the Foundations contest. For someone willing to look at the situation from a different perspective, it may be of interest.
Part 1
Dear Chris,
Thank you for your post in my essay I am putting my reply here also.
Thank you very much for your interest in my essay and for your time spent on this essay. These are very good questions.
Please note that I will be putting - - - - - before your words. Next will be my answers.
- - - - -Thanks for presenting this essay, it was quite interesting. - - - - -
Thank you very much for your appreciation once again.
- - - - - Although perhaps a bit off topic for this particular contest, I nevertheless appreciate approaches which attempt to examine questions from experimental perspectives. - - - - -
This not off topic please. I think you got my point, instead of wasting educated brain power in very dry half philosophical TOPICS, we should divert them into more practical and experimental results.
- - - - - You might be aware that others have also proposed that the CMBR could be a result of blackbody radiation from matter in the universe. - - - - -
I know. When there is NO mathematical singularity like Bigbang or Blackhole, why such radiation will come? I checked for 100's of areas in the sky. And the measurements are matching with observations. If you have data for any particular area in the sky, we can work-out together and match and see results. You should be interested in practical experimenting, that's it.
best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
Part 2
Dear Chris,
Please continue...
- - - - - That is, if you allow for some mechanism whereby light can experience redshift with distance irrespective of cosmic expansion (of which there have been some arguments) one could posit that such presents an alternative resolution, in the same manner as cosmic expansion. To show this you would need an experiment demonstrating that the redshift occurs regardless of whether cosmic expansion exists, and further that the magnitude of redshift is sufficient to the observed intensity. - - - - -
IF WANT TO KNOW, AND WANT TO COME OUT OT YOUR FEELINGS THAT OUR IS A TOTALLY EXPANDING UNIVERSE, I WILL TELL YOU SOME OF THE TODAY'S OBSERVATIONS IN THE SKY. THERE ARE ALMOST 35% BLUE SHIFTED GALAXIES, 20 % GALAXIES WHICH DON'T SHOW ANY SHIFT AT ALL AND REMAINING ARE REDSHIFTED.
You can have a look at my books...( SEE THE 4TH BOOK)
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8826339039574834163&pli=1#editor/target=page;pageID=3475395384539870110
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/09/discussion-with-forrest-noble-on-new.html
NOW I WILL ASK YOU HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN ABOUT THE BLUE SHIFTED AND NON-SHIFTED GALAXIES? JUST IGNORE THEM, IS IT NOT...?
- - - - - Without a more detailed review, I'm not yet certain that your particular experiment could suitably differentiate between possible redshift mechanisms and/or anisotropy mechanisms. - - - - -
I REQUEST YOU OR SOME OF YOUR FRIENDS GO FOR A DETAILED REVIEW AND CONTACT ME FOR ALL YOUR PROBLEMS
- - - - - Such a theory suggests that measured WMAP anisotropies result from non-inflationary effects, including redshift effects unrelated to cosmic expansion, of which have not yet been demonstrated as matching the measured data, at least at present, as far as I'm currently aware. - - - - -
Yes I know, please check my data and match with measured data, as I said earlier.
best
=snp
Part3
Dear Chris,
Final part . . . .
- - - - -Also, it appears that from your essay you are considering the ISM/IGM to be the major sources of aliasing when it comes to uniformity in the CMB as measured from Earth; you state that, in your estimation, large anisotropies would be measurable outside of galaxies which suggests yet another resolution mechanism. - - - - -
Yes, thank you, That is correct.
- - - - -The suggestion of a non-expanding universe often suggests one with infinite age and thus suggests additional considerations for resolving Olbers paradox; I did not encounter these items in your essay. - - - - -
Very good question, I am not suggesting infinitely spacious universe, which causes Olbers paradox, but age of the universe can be infinite which will not cause Olbers paradox.
- - - - -Another issue that I didn't come across in your essay is with respect to the conversion of matter to radiation in stellar sources, in that the radiation of the universe would continue to increase until thermal equilibrium were reached by cosmic plasma. Based on the CMB measurements and your essay, the expectation then would be that the universe is far from reaching equilibrium, and may in fact never reach that state (which may be reasonable). Perhaps you have addressed this in your other papers referenced, but it doesn't appear to be covered here. - - - - -
Another, Very good question sir,
Please have a look in Dynamic Universe Model blog. .
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/
- - - - - Thanks again for presenting this. Remember that experiment, not consensus, is the bedrock of the scientific method; you don't need to be mainstream to be correct, but you do need the experimental evidence. - - - - -
Thank you for your blessings. Experimental evidence is already available. But thorough experiments and verifications are needed. . .
I will be replying your post in your thread separately.
Please reply in my thread so that I will get a communication from FQXi, and I can reply you. .
best
=snp
Chris,
A couple of other entries you may find of interest:
It from Bit from It from Bit... Nature and Nonlinear Logic by William C. McHarris
Hello Chris,
Your essay is absolutely excellent! A pleasure to read, relevant and interesting.
I think the angle which you attack the question gives a perfect unarguable answer. The example where we can't define Pi to an infinite number of places and the potential consequences this has on the Universe to be in flux along with quantum behaviours at the most fundamental level, seem intuitively sensible. This sits nicely with uncertainty.
One of my favourite essays so far! If you get chance please take a look at mine.
Best wishes,
Antony
Antony,
Thanks for the excellent feedback (and compliments)! I'm very glad that you enjoyed my essay, and I'm certainly looking forward to reading yours.
Thanks again!
Chris
No problem - as I said - one of my favourites. I'm going to rate it highly now before | forget - there are too many! :o)
Best wishes,
Antony
Dear Chris,
Thank you very much for your interest in my essay and for your time spent on this essay. These are very good questions.
Please note that I will be putting - - - - - before your words. Next will be my answers.
- - - - -I'm not sure how you interpreted that from my essay. I make no comments or suggestions regarding if one can (or cannot) produce (as in physically manifest) matter from their thinking; I am not addressing such here at all- - - - -
- - - - -I am saying that all things which can be known comprise information, and that the presence of information confers that which can be known - an inherent duality which partly stems from the way we have defined both information and material objects, in conjunction with the study of physics being constrained to a study of information, at least within our perceptual reality.
If something does not comprise any information, it cannot be known within the context of physics and thus we cannot evaluate its physical existence, at least not within our perceptual reality. - - - - -
That is my direct question only. We discuss a lot about mental control of matter, which is the reason I posed that question.
In my opinion, we have physical 5 senses and a sixth sense called mind. We form pictures of all the real things around us in our mind from these senses. Mind interprets these real things around us for forming these pictures. All these information will be lost when we die.
We invented the communication to transfer these pictures to fellow humans.
This communication uses information which is nothing but description of our mental picture.
So information cannot become fundamental. It is only our mental picture of the matter around us..
- - - - -Now regarding experiments... Every time we take a measurement we are doing an experiment demonstrating that material objects and information exist in unison. If you think otherwise, you can attempt to falsify this by finding one contrary example - that is, find one physical object which does not comprise any information. You should recognize that such falsification within a physics context cannot be realized irrespective of all attempts to do so, since the detection or identification of such an object comprises information. - - - - -
That is what I am also saying, Experiments should be the basis of science.
- - - - -On the other point you made, I do tend to agree that much of cosmology is speculative; theories in the field are often based on 'authority' and dogma as opposed to experiments. - - - - -
Once upon a time religion supressed the voice of people, now Cosmology plays this role!
- - - - - And what's worse, is that excellent theories which may lend themselves to experiments are often simply ignored in deference to some consensus view. But science is not about consensus, it's about experiment. Authority, dogma, and consensus are meaningless in science. - - - - -
How can a poor person who is alone can do such expensive experiments consisting of satellite data collection . . . .?
- - - - -It doesn't matter what people 'feel' is is correct; it matters what the results are from the experiments. History is replete with examples of scientists who disagreed with consensus and were eventually proven correct. Unfortunately, today's dangerous default to authority combined with a media driven world makes challenging an incorrect consensus that much more difficult. And, challenging consensus in cosmology is again more difficult because of the highly speculative nature of the field. - - - - -
Feelings and dogmatism are ruling the present day Cosmology
- - - - -Unfortunately in today's world, the weight of an abstraction carried by a well-known researcher, even if they are completely wrong, is almost always valued more highly than that of an unknown researcher - even if the latter is fully correct. This is why we must guard science against the ongoing shift towards authoritarianism. Just consider the behavior of so many modern physics forums which 'ban' any comments or topics which 'may' be 'construed' to contradict some mainstream 'belief'. That's not science, and it's much more akin to a religion. - - - - -
It was as though again controlling science, you are correct
Best
=snp