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

        • [deleted]

        • Post #39

        Yutaka,

        Thanks; I'm glad you enjoyed my essay!

        I would posit that my viewpoint, although more fundamental than Shannon, is certainly compatible with information entropy when considered from an information theoretic context, given such as a pre-detector predictive/post-detector realized state. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you've interpreted as the dichotomy of views so I can more appropriately address your question. That said, I do want to caution that 'knowledge' of information (what is 'detected') and information 'itself' (that which can be known) are fundamentally different (as described in my essay).

        Thanks again!

        Chris

        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 human and I is GOD.

        Love,

        Sridattadev.

        Hello Chris

        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 each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

        Good luck and good cheers!

        Than Tin

        Dear Chris,

        I found your essay provocative and deeply introspective regarding how we perceive reality. I agree with your summary, "that all real things are approximations of their potential information." Although you have a different approach to the essay topic than I do, I found your conclusion inspiring and most worthy of merit.

        I hope that more people will take the time to review your insightful essay.

        Best wishes,

        Manuel

        6 days later

        Dear Chris,

        I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many other threads I have commented on over the last few days. This has been a lot of work and I feel like it has been a waste of time and energy. Seems to have happened to others too - if not all.

        I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something. I think your thread was one affected by this.

        I can't remember the full extent of what I said, but I have notes so know that I rated your work very highly.

        Hopefully the posts will be able to be retrieved by FQXi.

        Best wishes,

        Antony

        Thanks Chris, well if you can't find time to read my essay now, perhaps you can read the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. This was written on my blog following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members. It is all about the duality betyween information and material objects.

        Regards,

        Akinbo

        Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

        If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

        I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

        There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

        Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

        This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

        Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

        This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

        However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

        Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

        Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

        The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

        Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

        This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

        Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

        You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

        With many thanks and best wishes,

        John

        jselye@gmail.com

        Dear Chris - I posted the above - please note that I will read and rate your essay in the next two days. I see that Mr. Morales recommends it - and he found my work very relevant to his own. I hope to hear from you soon!

        John

        Thanks for the excellent comments over on my thread Chris!

        All the best,

        Antony

        Dear Chris,

        We are at the end of this essay contest.

        In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

        Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

        eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

        And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

        Good luck to the winners,

        And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

        Amazigh H.

        I rated your essay.

        Please visit My essay.