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

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.

      Michael,

      Thanks for your feedback!

      Current theories can most certainly be wrong; I made no statement suggesting otherwise. Rather, in that particular sentence you've taken out of context, I was summarizing the duality of information and material objects of which I had shown previously.

      My essay speaks to the fundamental nature of information, not our understandings or interpretations of it. As I noted to an earlier commenter, I am not speaking to any specific abstract interpretation of some information, but rather information itself. An interpretation of some information subset may be incorrect, but such is a fault of errant conclusion via ignorance; this may be partly a function of the level of information incompleteness, but has noting to do with information itself.

      When we talk of physics we talk of what can be known. And, as I mentioned in my essay, definitions by their nature can present issues including circular reasoning. For instance, you defined subsets of 'real' in your above comment in accordance with your own interpretive sentiments; I would argue that both of your examples are 'real' and thus residing within one set in our perceptual reality. They both comprise information and as such both can be known; thus, they are real within the context of physics and our perceptual reality. While you may arbitrarily choose to further segregate them via specific features or whatnot, they still both reside within one set of reality.

      Chris

      Jonathan,

      Thanks for the comments; I'm glad you enjoyed it and wanted to read more! And sure, I certainly could have written more (in fact, I could have written volumes). But this essay was intended to address a specific topic and answer a specific question with clarity; there was no need for additional prose - verbosity does not confer clarity.

      It's not about ducking or getting into trouble, but rather precision of explanation. Given the goals of this essay contest, there's no compelling reason to write nine pages when two pages convey the same fundamental message. One can always elaborate to infinity, but there's little reason to do so in this particular case. If this were a fiction novel it might be different, but that wasn't the intent here.

      Thanks again, and I'll be sure to review your essay!

      Chris

      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?

      Michael,

      Actually no, that's not an accurate representation of what I said.

      Information is that which 'can be known'. Conversely, that which 'cannot be known' does not comprise information. As a study, physics can only consider that which 'can be known' and is thus a study of information. My essay shows why information and material objects present an intrinsic duality within the context of physics, at least within our perceptual reality.

      Note that this is fundamentally different then saying information is 'what we know about entities' because such a definition implies 'our knowledge' about things. Our state of knowledge is irrelevant to the presence of information. By definition, information becomes knowledge when it becomes known. This does not simply imply human knowledge, but knowledge in a physics sense in that information has been sensed in some fashion. Due to the fundamental inability to represent information physically with infinite precision, that which becomes known will always be incomplete with respect to the total possible information in any continuous abstract representation. This suggests fundamentally quantum behaviors, at least within our perceptual reality.

      Chris

      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

        Akinbo,

        Thanks for the comments!

        I certainly hope you appreciate the concise manner in how I've presented this. As I noted to another commenter, verbosity does not confer clarity. In this particular case, and for this particular purpose, additional prose doesn't convey additional salient meaning.

        While the answers to your questions may be found in my essay, I'll play along for fun... First though, we need to define 'elicit'. Perhaps you could have selected a more scientific term, but I'll answer the questions based on my interpretations of them...

        The standard definition of 'elicit' means to 'draw forth' or to 'bring out' which means that you 'do something' which makes 'something else' react or are otherwise evoking a behavior from something. This may not be what you meant by using that term, but this is the term you've used and I will answer your questions considering such.

        1)

        You have not 'elicited' information in 'either' case. The information was present whether or not you put your hand in your pocket. You simply gained 'knowledge' of a subset of the possible information by assimilating (and in this case, interpreting) whatever information you 'detected' when you put your hand in your pocket. Your interpretation of that information does not imply an understanding, but merely represents what information you assimilated.

        2)

        As noted and explained in question one, you do not 'elicit' information in either case. Your participation is not relevant in the context of 'information' itself, only in the 'knowledge' of information (that is, the 'detection' of information).

        3)

        Again, this question convolves 'knowledge of information' with 'information' itself. Nothingness does not convey information, but the interpretation of missing information is still assimilated as knowledge.

        4)

        You may need to re-read my paper to properly understand the answer to this question. In short, the term 'choice' implies a processing of information. That is to posit that 'nothingness' and 'somethingness' are either determined by something 'else' (external processing) or by 'itself' (self-processing). In the first case, that 'else' must reside within the set of 'somethingness' by definition, and thus such resultant does not represent anything fundamental. In the latter case, the 'itself' must reside within the set of 'somethingness' by definition, and thus presents by identity no choice of fundamental 'nothingness' which could duly exist in that context. So the answer would be 'no' at the most fundamental levels, if we are considering 'it' to be that 'it' which is most fundamental. There is an intrinsic duality of information and material objects (as I've descried in my essay).

        Thanks again. I hope you'll appreciate the extra time I have taken to answer your questions with some explanation.

        Chis

        Dear Sir,

        Information is specific data reporting the state of something based on observation (measurements), organized and summarized for a purpose within a context that gives it meaning and relevance and can lead to either an increase in understanding or decrease in uncertainty. Information is not tied to one's specific knowledge of how particles are created and their early interactions, just like the concepts signifying objects are not known to all. But it should be tied to universal and widely accessible properties.

        Information could be of two types according to whether it is directly perceivable or inferred from some other perception. As long as the inference is logically consistent, it can be accepted as information. In the perception "this (object) is like that (the concept)", one can describe "that" only if one has perceived it earlier. Perception requires prior measurement of multiple aspects or fields and storing the result of measurement in a centralized system (memory) to be retrieved when needed. To understand a certain aspect, we just refer to the data bank and see whether it matches with any of the previous readings or not. We cannot even imagine something that we have either not perceived earlier or inferred from such perception. The problem arises when we try to imagine something not conforming to physical rules. We have seen rabbits and we have seen horns. But horns of rabbits is possible only in dreams and not in physics.

        Reality must be invariant under similar conditions at all times. The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality. In a mirage, what one sees is a visual misrepresentation caused by the differential air density due to temperature gradient. All invariant information consistent with physical laws, i.e. effect of distance, angle, temperature, etc, is real. Since the perception of mirage is not invariant from different distances, it is not real. Mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics.

        Your description of the circle and pi are very interesting. The abstraction comes for a different reason though. Mathematics is related to the measurement of time evolution of the state of something. These time evolutions depict rate of change. When such change is related to motion; like velocity, acceleration, etc, it implies total displacement from the position occupied by the body and moving to the adjacent position. This process is repeated due to inertia till it is modified by the introduction of other forces. Thus, these are discrete steps that can be related to three dimensional structures only. Mathematics measures only the numbers of these steps, the distances involved including amplitude, wave length, etc and the quanta of energy applied etc. Mathematics is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph - the so-called mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space.

        The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance - linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation.

        Number is a property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one. If there are similars, it is many. Many can be 2,3,....n depending the step-by-step perception. If something is not A, then it belongs to a different class that exists (out of many) or A is physically absent at "here-now". The physical absence at "here-now" is described by zero. Change in ownership is described by negative numbers. Infinity is like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions (perception of differentiation between the internal structural space and external relational space of an object) of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinity are not perceptible. Since mathematics is accumulation and reduction of numbers, which are discrete units, no mathematics is possible using infinity.

        You can visit our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published on May 31 for further details.

        How long will we continue with such fiction? When will we end the superstitious belief in the 'established theories' and start applying our mind? Why must we continue with a 'cut & paste' job? When will we start doing some original work? Is there no future for physics?

        Regards,

        basudeba

          Thanks for your comment.

          Unfortunately, you are fundamentally incorrect in your description (and understanding) of information in this context; further, you have misrepresented my position in several regards.

          I urge you to carefully re-read my essay, and also the feedback I've provided with others in this thread. All the concepts for recognizing your errors are included there, including your errant convolution of information 'itself' with the 'knowledge' of information, of which are two very separate concepts.

          Thanks again.

          Chris

          Thank you Sir,

          for pointing out our deficiencies. We will try to improve upon it.

          The fact that we wrote such a long analysis shows that we have read your essay very carefully. Since our essay has been highly appreciated by those who have read it (including Dr. Klingman, who commented on it superlatively in his thread), we must have known a little about the subject. But you are entitled to your remarks.

          We do not do a cut and paste job. We do fundamental research and question anything that does not correspond to reality or logically not consistent. Thus, we understand your views. We admit that we do not understand 'establishment science', because we are not superstitious and do not accept everything blindly and parrot it as knowledge. In stead of referring us to your essay and your comments, which are essentially compilations of misguided views of others, it would have been better if you had pointed specific errors in our post, so that we would have got an opportunity to explain or if necessary, correct our position. After all, we are not here for any recognition or money or false vanity, but to understand Nature for our own satisfaction.

          Regards,

          basudeba

            My response was because you used my examples as mere segways for your viewpoints while ignoring the salient aspects of my essay; the remarks I have made to other commenters are important because they have covered some of these aspects.

            I would certainly be willing to engage in a discourse, but I'd like you to understand my position properly before doing so. In addition, I am not one who gives any significant weight to 'authority' or 'dogma', so it does not matter who may or may not endorse your viewpoint. I have a background in these subject areas and in my experience is that name dropping has never made an idea correct or incorrect. This is certainly not to disparage anyone for their excellent ideas or contributions, but science is not about authority; you'll need to demonstrate your position logically.

            Certainly, if you understood my views than you wouldn't have presented such comments. And, since you read my essay in detail, you should recognize how and why information 'itself' and the 'knowledge' of information are fundamentally different. Assimilated information becomes knowledge; information is present regardless of 'our' knowledge of it or interpretation of it. Information is that which 'can be known'; such is not limited to intellectual knowledge but 'known' in a fundamental sense - that is, what can be detected in any way by any means becomes 'knowledge' for the detector.

            The bulk of what you wrote was not an 'analysis' of my essay but an independent summary of your views. While I am interested to hear what you have to say, if the foundations of your viewpoint 'start' from definitions which are fundamentally different, than we won't be having a discussion on the same topic. I do not want to argue just for argument's sake; we need to be on the same page. I pointed you back to my essay and thread comments because such can better address your post than me simply rehashing it.

            I know you have an adversity towards 'establishment science'. I can say, as mentioned above, I understand that the immense 'dogma' and 'authority' in today's scientific community are detrimental as a whole and we certainly need to guard against it. That said, experiments are the bedrock of science, and it is up to us to interpret the results logically and consistently. There are things foundational to science which have never been falsified by experiment in particular domains (i.e., conservation of momentum and so forth) and by attacking all of 'establishment science' you are attacking those experiments as well. This is not to say that all experiments have been properly interpreted, but many of the basics have never been falsified outside of their interpretation.

            I will read your essay and am certainly interested in what you have to say. But, please recognize that this thread is not intended as a vacuum exposition of your viewpoints with a cursory reference to my presentation. If/when I comment on your paper, it won't be to merely find examples as a starting sentence to then posture a viewpoint, it will be commentary as to my impression of the correctness or incorrectness of your actual conjectures.

            Chris

            Thanks Chris,

            I appreciate your time in responding to the 4 questions. The words elicit, participate, detector are as used by Wheeler in his famous It from Bit quote.

            I am rating your essay not on the brevity but on the high factual content.

            Best regards,

            Akinbo

            *My essay is longer so I don't know if you have the time to read and rate.

            Hi Chris,

            I really enjoyed reading your essay. I would like to ask you your opinion on the Shannon original papers about the amount of information. His papers seem to be opposite to your viewpoint.

            Best wishes,

            Yutaka

              Chris,

              Great essay. I do like your thesis, and very well presented. At this stage the vale of concise is enhanced! I nice boost to you on the way.

              It seems we both have a foot each in the pro-am camps. I'm sure you agree that has both good and bad effects.

              My own is a bit more empirical, but also quite radical and ambitious. I do hope you'll read and like it.

              Very best wishes.

              Peter

              Dear Chris,

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

              Regards and good luck in the contest,

              Sreenath BN.

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

              Thanks! I certainly did not mean to imply that you were the only one to use the term 'elicit'; if answering to Wheeler I would have identically clarified that term as used within this question's scope to avoid mistakenly convolving 'knowledge' of information and information 'itself'.

              I will try to find some time to read and comment on your paper, however I cannot guarantee that I can give it proper diligence before the contest end date. However, I will read it in detail at some point and if you'd still like my feedback I can provide it.

              Thanks again,

              Chris