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

              • [deleted]

              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.

              Hello Chris, from Margriet O'Regan from Down Under

              I certainly enjoyed your analysis !! "Anything can abstractly possess an infinite amount of information, including both infinite temporal and spatial precision, which must be truncated for it to exist in any tangible sense." Here I see you running up against what theoretical physicists 'problematic infinities' which apparently keep cropping up in their equations.

              Another way of interpreting what you say here is that 'abstractly' you can make up anything you want - unicorns, angels dancing on the heads of pins, vibrating strings, even 'quanta' .....

              And yes there needs to be some way to break out of this one-way street to infinity & unlimited imagination - & get back down to reality - if only occasionally to do the dishes & sweep the floor!

              You define 'information' as 'anything that can be known' which I find both helpful & refreshing. And which particular phenomena I discuss in my own essay - even to the point of claiming that via my analysis (with 'information' defined as geometrical objects) one can eventually - even easily !!! - arrive at a definition of all information-related phenomena including 'knowing' & 'knowledge' themselves - & further, this particular elucidation holds both as to the 'easy' (mechanical) as well as the 'hard' - subjective - components thereof, also. As you will see in my essay

              So yes, my own investigations have led me to conclude that 'information' is NOT digits - no kind nor amount of them (including any that can be extracted from quantum phenomena!), nor how algorithmically-well they may be massaged & shunted through any device that uses them.

              Unequivocally they - digits - make for wonderful COUNTING & CALCULATING assistants, witness our own now many & various, most excellent, counting, calculating devices BUT according to my investigations real thinking is an entirely different phenomenon from mere counting, calculating & computing.

              For which phenomenon - real thinking - real information is required.

              My own investigations led me to discover what I have come to believe real information is & as it so transpires it turns out to be an especially innocuous - not to omit almost entirely overlooked & massively understudied - phenomenon, none other than the sum total of geometrical objects otherwise quite really & quite properly present here in our universe. Not digits.

              One grade (the secondary one) of geometrical-cum-informational objects lavishly present here in our cosmos, is comprised of all the countless trillions & trillions of left-over bump-marks still remaining on all previously impacted solid objects here in our universe - that is to say, all of the left-over dents, scratches, scars, vibrations & residues (just the shapes of residues - not their content!) (really) existing here in the universe.

              Examples of some real geometrical objects of this secondary class in their native state are all of the craters on the Moon. Note that these craters are - in & of themselves - just shapes - just geometrical objects. And the reason they are, also one & at the same time, informational objects too, can be seen by the fact that each 'tells a story' - each advertises (literally) some items of information on its back - each relates a tale of not only what created it but when, where & how fast & from what angle the impacting object descended onto the Moon's surface. Again, each literally carries some information on its back.

              (Note : Not a digit in sight !!)

              How we actually think - rather than just count, calculate & compute - with these strictly non-digital entities, specifically these geometrical-cum-informational objects, in precisely the way we do, please see my essay.

              I did not make the distinction between computing with digits & real thinking with real information, sufficiently strongly in my essay.

              This contest is such a wonderful 'sharing' - Wow - & open to amateurs like myself - Wow. How great is that !!! Thank you Foundational Questions Institute !!! What a great pleasure it has been to participate. What a joy to read, share & discuss with other entrants !!!

              Margriet O'Regan

              At least you were brief and understandable to the average public.

              Nice work. I gave you a ten.

              http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616

              Dear Chris,

              I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

              I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

              You can find the latest version of my essay here:

              http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

              (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

              May the best essays win!

              Kind regards,

              Paul Borrill

              paul at borrill dot com

              7 years later

              That is a very solid point, but it is still open if the core of information vs objects is fully defined by the fact of perception and observation.