A Brief Examination of Information and Material Objects by Chris Granger

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

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

Without Cause by Mark Feeley

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

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

Hi Chris,

I enjoyed your essay, and I agree with your points fairly broadly, finding no major points of contention, but I think the paper was way too short. Somehow; I get the impression that, while you could have said more - and probably would have had cool stuff to say - you ducked the responsibility to elaborate, because it might get you into trouble. I think you will find several points of agreement with my essay, but you will also see that I made a diligent effort to carry those thoughts forward to their logical conclusions. I hope you will enjoy, and feel that my extra effort was warranted.

I like your statements about PI and the nature of the absolute. In my case; it would be the shores of the Mandelbrot Set that take me there. There comes a point where the image can no longer be faithfully resolved, because binary decomposition sets in when the distance to the next pixel is smaller than the smallest bit available to represent that size of number on the computer. In the purely theoretical sense, you know there is something specific there, and you may be able to identify it as a miniature copy of M, but it becomes a physical impossibility to zoom in one more time, at some point.

Regards,

Jonathan

Hello,

Nice work. You write: That is, in such a case one cannot have the information without the entities.

That seems to preclude the possibility of our theories being wrong.

Through tout history and even in science sometimes we think we have information about something and it turns out that something doesn't exist, because our understanding was so wrong.

Things like dragons and ghosts and the big bang.

Also, I should point out that you make the "soup" approach as described in my entry, where what is real is narrowly focused on just one type of real, one mode of existence.

The chair I'm sitting in and the experience of its hardness are both real, but not in the same way.

Thanks for the response.

You mentioned: "Current theories can most certainly be wrong; I made no statement suggesting otherwise"

True, true.

But you also said information is what we know about entities.

Do I have that right?

Dear Chris,

A very short essay, straight to the point and to be re-read later. 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, 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