Alternative Models of Reality

pjackson

Luis,

I did a 'speed read', and though it seems earnest work it also seems to suffer the common problem of making questionable assumptions without adequate argument As we know, just one flaw in input renders the whole output of a computer to be flawed at best and probably nonsense.

In this case the assumption that a photon of energy is a maintained 'particle', ignoring the Schrodinger sphere and a large tranche of conflicting evidence, leaves the resultant conclusions, already challenging, very questionable. In overview, re-finding already found constants really isn't much of an achievement for any new model. (It's really not yet a theory'.)

I may well have missed bits so do correct me. All ideas are valid, and this is etter that many ideas out there but ther's limited time so I'm afraid wasn't tempted to give it the full 2nd read.

Peter

pjackson

Hans,

Or even three or more different ways, or aspects of the same phenomena I suggest! I hope you're well, and look forward to catching up with your latest work/ essay.

Peter

pjackson

Georgina, I just read your notes & comments. Your very wise thoughts on states found not existing until detection go to the root of the Copenhagen interpretation (In extremis; is the moon there when we're not looking?). More sensibly it equates to Von Neumann; "The 'meter' is part of the system" which I've recently found more profound than most have thought. I think you'll like my essay which develops that to it's conclusion. I look forward to yours.

Best

Peter

re castel

Hi! I remember you, Peter Jackson, Eugene Klingman, John Merryman, Georgina Woodward, James Putnam. It is great to see you folks here and still at it.

I have not participated for sometime (I think since 2015), and you probably don't remember I was here. But it is good to again see you here. I just returned to this FQXi site on Jan 20 to again participate.

I kinda expected essays about "the entirety of the existence as the fundamental that continually gets synthesized" and then about "the breakdown analysis to the fundamental components of the existence." But, based on the essay titles list, I seem to be alone on the fundamentals via a breakdown-analysis from the observation of the already synthesized entirety of the existence (the whole event).

The FQXi essay topic says "fundamental" (singular), not "fundamentals" (plural); so, I did both the "fundamental" entirety and the "fundamentals" in the fundamental entirety.

My list of the fundamentals primarily focuses on the space and time dimensions fundamentals and the motion and duration vectors fundamentals. I kinda ignored the other coexistent-coeval fundamentals.

What I focused on are that about the space and time dimensions as "fundamentals that exist but do not occur," and the motion and duration vectors as "fundamentals that exist and also occur."

It would be nice if together we can build a list of the fundamentals and discuss and qualify them here. I think it will be a good discussion.

Thanks.

Castel

- Pete, I noticed your focus on the "motion" occurrence. But it appears that you have not considered the "duration" occurrence (i.e., the time vector, not the time dimension) as a fundamental.

- John, I can agree with you that space is one of the fundamentals. But it appears that you have compounded "space" and "motion".

Georgina Woodward

The red herring in Schrodinger's cat thought experiment:

Singular measurements of attributes (called properties) of particles or objects are relative. That is, they come from the relation with the particle or object under consideration rather than being sole property of it, by itself ( independently of the measurement relations).

Measurables such as orientation of rotation, velocity, energy, momentum are relational. What the state or value is found to be depends upon the relation with the observed or measured entity by which a singular outcome is obtained. (I.e. viewpoint or apparatus and method emp;oyed). Or at the macroscopic scale, when vision or hearing is involved the relation to the potential sensory stimuli, signals received and processed into what is seen or heard.) Whereas an intrinsic state of being is not relational but independent.

A decayed and non decayed particle are different from each other because the decayed particle has lost something compared to the un-decayed and is therefore not an identical system to the un-decayed. It might be regarded as a different object because that change has happened. A shattered flask of poison is not the same as an intact flask of poison. The shards of glass are different objects from the intact flask object. It is not a matter of relative perspective. Likewise dead and alive cat. The live cat has functioning metabolism, the dead does not. Which is not a matter of relative perspective but intrinsic difference in state of being. The change to the objects in the thought experiment make it dis-similar to the scenarios in quantum experiments.

Harrison Crecraft

The most immediate crisis facing the foundations of science is the inability to address any arrow of time. Physics regards time as a dimension of space-time, and it offers no clear reason why we cannot traverse time forward and backward, the way we can with the dimensions of space. Thermodynamics' celebrated Second Law, the entropy law, states that time marches irreversibly toward greater decay and disorder. Physics acknowledges our perception of irreversible change, but it cannot explain even this arrow of time as truly fundamental. With no intrinsic arrow of time, there can be no explanation of progress toward the future.

The reversibility of time is entrenched in the foundations of physics. Yet, we see the irreversible passage of time in our everyday lives when we recharge our phones or refuel our cars. We see it in the destructiveness of natural catastrophes. We also see irreversible change in the progress of human history and knowledge, and in the fossil record. The disconnect between science and what people know to be true likely contributes to a general mistrust of science. We need to uproot this foundation of timelessness and rebuild a new foundation from scratch.

Before we can undo a problem and fix it, we need to understand its origin and how it came to be. Isaac Newton, who formulated classical mechanics in 1687, gets a lot of blame for physics' current state of timelessness. It is true that classical mechanics is deterministic, meaning that the past determines the future. The true blame, however, belongs to William Rowan Hamilton. He reformulated classical mechanics in 1834, eliminating friction as a fundamental force, thereby eliminating irreversible dissipation from physics. This subsequently led to physics subsuming thermodynamics as a statistical mechanical approximation of an intrinsically reversible reality.

Hamiltonian mechanics laid the foundation for statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and relativity. Hamilton based his foundation on assumptions that appeared completely reasonable to 19th Century classical mechanics, but they do not hold up in the era of quantum mechanics. They have led to the myriad of paradoxes and conflicting interpretations of quantum mechanics that we see today.

I am working on paper that seeks to undo the damage done by Hamilton. It restores irreversible time and progress to science's foundation, and it restores common sense to quantum mechanics. A copy is available for download at evolvingcomplexity.com. I welcome comments.

Harrison Crecraft

Lee Bloomquist

IT=(BIT, IT)

Lee Bloomquist

IT=(BIT, IT) produce a stream of bits e.g., IT=(((((((BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT, IT))))))).

***

IT=(BIT, IT) as a way to operationalize John Wheeler's IT FROM BIT feels like a science of simplicity.

IT=(BIT, IT) uses only two "words"-- BIT and IT-- while E=MC(squared) uses three-- "E," "M," and "C." Is this a sign of simpicity?

Perhaps another:

If IT=(BIT, IT) were to become an acceptable model of the Universe, someone in engineering would know immediately that something is missing. Nothing comes for free-- every engineering project has a budget, every engine needs fuel. But for IT=(BIT, IT) a stream of bits seems to come out of nowhere.

Engineering would suspect there's an engine, somehow invisible to us, which produces this stream. Further there must be fuel-- again somehow invisible to us-- to feed the engine. And then, by the laws of thermodynamics, there must be an exhaust stream-- once again, somehow invisible to us. (Because every engine is inefficient and as a result, every engine produces an exhaust stream.)

Now we replace above phrases like "which is invisble to us" with adjective "dark"--

The engine that drives the stream IT=(BIT, IT) is made of matter. Dark matter.

We call the exhaust stream-- which escapes to expand the Universe-- dark energy.

We have taken one equation, applied the laws of thermodynamics, and obtained a story of dark matter and energy.

IT=(BIT, IT) -> dark energy and dark matter

Lee Bloomquist

There is an essay on the observer attached. I had written it for the possible contest which didn't occur. It has more equations.Attachment #1: 2_An_Overall_approach_to_the_Observer.pdf

Lee Bloomquist

At some point I must audit what I've done here.

Audit item 1:

Once "possibilities" are revealed to be complex numbers constituting the wave function (e.g., as in the attached essay on the observer), in addition to a well-fueled thermodynamic engine there must be an algorithm somewhere for choosing one possibility over the others (in games wherein the player chooses only one possibility over others per iteration of the choice process that determines the moves the player makes).

If "possibilities" are fundamental, then the "choice" of a possibility is fundamental.

In the section of this essay on "the Holomovement" of David Bohm, I seem to have gained from him a little light on what the game looks like.

But clearly I needed to take a further step, as in the essay on what's fundamental-- "Hylozoic Universe suggests new future for mathematical game theory."

To learn more about "the self," I had to go back from Socrates, to Parmendies, to Thales and then forward to Xenophanes in order to finally, I think, get what this game looks like.

For every IT, there is a game. Every IT has a "self," which exists in the standardPresent, whose role in the game it is to choose from possibilities. On each play of the game, the "Holomovement" creates possibilities for the IT in its nonStandardFuture. Next in the StandardPresent, the self of the IT chooses a possibility from all those that have been created in its nonStandardFuture by the Holomovement. Finally the self's choice of possibility creates an "active," "available" element of information that exists in the nonStandardPast. Repeat. (If there are any non-zero possibilities.)

To clarify: Possibilities exist in the nonStandardFuture. They are placed there by the Holomovement. The self, which has the power to choose among these possibilities, exists in the standardPresent. Information about the selection which has been chosen by the self creates information, which exists in the nonStandardPast.

At this point in the audit and corrections, I hope we have a thermodynamic engine with a control algorithm-- both working invisibly to create the stream IT=(BIT, IT).

Lee Bloomquist

Audit item 2:

There should be a summary of the equations--

existence = (moment, existence)

i.e.,

existence = (moment, (moment, (moment..., existence))...)

This equation describes an experience in the poem of Parmenides. To the youth in Parmenides' poem, "existence" feels like the chariot, constant and solid, in which he is being carried by horses deep breathing in unison toward a guarded world of knowledge. While outside the chariot, driven by the circular and relentlessly spinning wheels of time, a stream of changing moments passes by.

properTimeNow = (clockTime, properTimeNow)

where

clockTime = (nonStandardPast, ___standardClockTime___, nonStandardFuture)

i.e.,

properTimeNow = ((nonStandardPast, ___standardClockTime___, nonStandardFuture), ((nonStandardPast, ___standardClockTime___, nonStandardFuture), (((nonStandardPast, ___standardClockTime___, nonStandardFuture), ((((nonStandardPast, ___standardClockTime___, nonStandardFuture),... properTimeNow))...))

properTimeNow = (clockTime, (clockTime, ((clockTime,...properTimeNow))...))

A "proper" idea of clock time in relativity should make explicit the existence of "now," which time it always seems to be.

"It's always 'now'" could be some kind of corollary to 'Wherever you go, there you are"-- e.g., 'whenever you exist, it's always 'now."

In the nonStandardFuture, exist all the possibilities for choosing. These are created in the nonStandardFuture by David Bohm's "Holomovement," a play on holography which says that all of the information is distributed everywhere, and so it's just where you need it to be in order to build the stored image.

"The self" exists in properTimeNow, and chooses at each standardClockTime one from all the possibilities that exist in the nonStandardfuture.

Immediately after the self chooses a possibility, (if it has any left) relevant information is created in the nonStandardPast.

"Self" is, in this way, Not an "object," but a "process." Think operating system in a computer. the main loop calls itself again and again. And an operating system is not an object like a wire or a silicon chip.

self = (self)

You could think of the self on the left hand side of the equation as existing in "properTimeNow."

While the self on the right hand side of the equation exists at every clockTime given to it.

And then Parmenides said "Auto is to think and to be." Everybody else translates "auto" as "the same thing." As far as I know, I'm the only one so far to translate "auto" into "self," which of course is the dictionary definition.

So I get

"The self is to think and to be."

This is much more poetic, and recall that Parmenides was always after poetry.

Hence the equation

self = (thinking, self)

Which brings the need of switching into focus.

For example, say that this is a diagram of Helen Keller before her teacher taught her the word "w-a-t-e-r":

self = (self)

And that after Helen learns the word "w-a-t-e-r" from her teacher, this is the diagram:

self = (thinking, self)

The mechanisms which explain this kind of consciousness switching-- say for dreaming and the like-- are the same mechanisms which explain how a system of selves can switch into one self, and vice versa.

But these diagrams will require a diagramming tool called "Petri nets," which are a "coalgebra."

And diagramming takes time, so we will have to wait for them (if I live that long).

Meanwhile here's something to think about--

If the switch in consciousness to ____self = (thinking, self)___ requires a teacher in order to occur (just as in the case of Helen Keller), then does this mean that a teacher of some kind taught the very first human to think?

Lee Bloomquist

The missing equations of quantum mechanics

particle = (physicalExtension, particle) and others.

To see more, please read the "An overall approach to the observer," posted previously in this thread.

Lee Bloomquist

The Infinite Stream of Universes and

Lee Bloomquist

antimatter

Say there exists no complete mathematical model to support statements describing how matter is so much more prevalent than antimatter in the Universe.

Perhaps the Universe cannot ever be described by such statements.

But even if this is accepted, there may still be some "wiggle room." There still might be an incomplete mathematical model-- one that describes only some, but not all, of the phenomena that are evident to us.

Rather than field theories, here I attempt a mathematical model to support a description of why the Universe seems to be matter, not antimatter, based only on quantum mechanics.

The list of descriptions supported by such a model in no way compares to the list of descriptions supported by field theories. My only claim is that the model in what follows supports a few statements about why there seems to be just matter, and not antimatter, in the Universe.

(Maybe we are at the limit of mathematics, there will always be some things not describable by mathematics, and this is the best that we can do.)

To begin:

Antimatter leads to discussions of a particle of matter traveling backward in time. How can this mean anything?

If the past exists, the future exists, and the present exists, then it is difficult to see how a matter particle traveling backward in time can mean anything.

However, if only the present exists, the future does not exist, and the past does not exist, then I claim a particle of matter traveling backward in time becomes meaningful.

Here is my model of time which supports the existence of a particle of matter:

properTime = (moment, properTime)

Which when substituting on the RHS of the equation gives:

properTime = (moment, (moment, (moment,...properTime)...)

Those familiar with computer simulations recognize this as a "stream" of time.

Elsewhere on FQXI I've described how this can change from (a) a stream of standard points in time into (b) a stream of nonstandard monads of time, by means of this equation:

moment = (nonstandardPast, present, nonstandardFuture)

nonstandardPast and nonstandardFuture in this equation comprise a "halo" of nonstandard points around the standard point present, a halo that is "infinitely close" to the standard point present.

"Infintely close" has no meaning in standard analysis. But it does have meaning in nonstandard analysis.

Now say that the stream of time supporting the existence of an antimatter particle looks like this:

(...(properTime, ...moment), moment), moment) = properTime

For a particle of matter, its properTime continuously exists and comprises a flowing stream of moments, each with a nonstandardFuture supporting possibilities and a nonstandardPast supporting information, following the "inverse principle of informationalism: that a decrease in relevant possibilities results in a corresponding. increase in available information, and vice versa"-- which I have posted about elsewhere on FQXI.

OK. Only the present exists in both of the above equations. The particle of matter exists in the present and the particle of antimatter exists in the present. And for both, the nonstandardPast and the nonstandardFuture are infinitely close to the present.

Still, both the particle of matter and the particle of antimatter exist only in the present. In the present, each has possibilities infinitely close to it and each makes information available that is infinitely close to it in time.

The go their merry way.

Until they interact and annihilate each other. To model this using the minimalist mathematical struture, above, we have available the "set intersection" relation. When the matter particle and antimatter particle annihilate each other, we can model this as the nonstandardPast of each intersecting, and the nonstandardFuture of each intersecting.

Since in the case of the model, above, these two have "opposite signs," this represents that "nothing" is the intersection of these two. Both particles cease to exists insofar as neither has any more possibilities and neither makes anymore information available, because the product of their meeting is the set intersection of things that do not intersect-- the nonstandardFuture of the matter particle is the opposite "sign" of the nonstandardFuture of the antimatter particle, and the same for their nonstandardPasts.

What remains is only "the present."

That would be a photon, which experiences no future or past in its existence.

So, why would there be only matter particles in the Universe?

Here I refer you to my FQXI posts on "alternative cosmologies." There I posted about "the infinite stream of Universes." Whatever is the first thing to exist in the Universe in such a stream has a proper time.

Then it splits into other things, with inherited proper times.

So everything in a Universe in such a stream inherits the type of the proper time of its ancestor. The infinite stream of Universes evolves by means of ordinary proper time. and so no ancestor of the initial thing that exists in the Universe will every inherit an "anti-time."

This is a minimalist description of why everything in the Universe, in the infinite stream of Universes, inherits time-- not "anti-time."

Only in the lab can we create "anti-time."

Lee Bloomquist

antimatter, seen through nonstandard numbers

properTime = (moment, properTime)

And--

properTime = (moment, (moment, (moment...properTime)...)

Where:

moment = (nonstandardPast, thePresent, nonstandardFuture)

These specify particular numbers, when the requirement is to model matter-antimatter annihilation.

Specifically, using just text and not latex--

Equation X (a model of matter-antimatter annihilations):

setIntersection(moment[matterParticle], anti-moment[antimatterParticle])

(setIntersection(nonstandardPast(matterParticle),anti-nonstandardPast(antimatterParticle), setIntersection(thePresent(matterParticle),thePresent(antimatterParticle), setIntersection(nonstandardFuture(matterParticle), anti-nonstandardFuture(antimatterParticle))

Conventions for "past" and "future" of matter may then be invoked as follows:

"past" means numbers0

While for antimatter and therefore anti-time:

"past" means numbers>0

"future" means numbers

Steve Dufourny

Hi all, I am very happy that for the contest, many thinkers speak about sphères, balls and spherical extrapolations and comportments, I am honored , viva el spherisation with quantum and cosmological sphères Inside this universal sphere :) and good luck to all in this contest, they turn so they are......
SPHERICALLY YOURS :)

Andrey Smirnov

I have unconventional theory of reality and would like to discuss it.
Article with the theory (I name it ESTM theory) is available for reading Spacetime and Matter as Emergent Phenomena, Unified Field Theory
ESTM theory, as it can be seen from name of the article, is candidate for unified field theory. It is based on one fundamental field only.
ESTM theory consider space, time and all particles as emergent phenomena of a more fundamental entity.
Theory is deterministic and non-gauge.
ESTM theory, as far as I see it, fully explain what is time, how it arise and how it can end.
ESTM theory explain origin of Universe.
ESTM theory, if correct, can describe any physical phenomenon under any physical conditions.

Abstract of article with the theory:

A radical deterministic non-gauge theory of emergent spacetime and matter is proposed. In this theory it is assumed that spacetime and matter are the emergent properties of a more fundamental entity. It is shown what properties such a fundamental entity should possess. An approach is proposed to find emergent spacetime and matter with observable properties in such an entity. It is shown how the nondeterministic laws of quantum mechanics with gauge fields appear in the deterministic model of a more fundamental entity. The proposed theory of emergent spacetime and matter (further ESTM theory), as shown in this article, is compatible with special and general theories of relativity, as well as with quantum mechanics and cosmology. Quantum mechanics was reformulated into backgroundindependent one. The derivation of Schrödinger equation for quantum mechanics is given. It is shown how the Heisenberg uncertainty principle appears from the determinism of a more fundamental entity. Changes in the locality principle are proposed. Equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is substantiated. The corrections to equations of the general theory of relativity, as well as the change in the conceptual model of gravitation, are proposed. The ESTM theory predicts the absence of a quantum of gravity. The ESTM theory unites all the fundamental forces, including gravity. All fundamental forces are derived from one field.
Mathematical model of the theory is not fully finished, so no new predictions yet.
Current status of the theory:
There is article where explained how anthropic pronciple arise as imminent consequence of emergent time:
Emergent Time and Anthropic Principle (In Russian)
The article, unfortunately, is in Russian only. However, big part of it is in article with theory, link is at top of the post.
Note what emergent time in my theory is much different than in other theories.
In other theories, like Thermal time hypothesis, loop quantum gravity etc, time still exists on micro level, just in some unusual and hidden way.
In my theory, time is absent on fundamental level. No time at all, even in some hidden form. No time also means no movement, no energy etc.
As of now, there is no any other theory without hidden time.
How it is posisble to build physics without time? I described in article, link at top of the post.
There is article where I analyze inertia from point of view of my theory: Inertia (in Russian)
There is article where I derive equations of special thery of relativity from model of my theory:
Special Theory of Relativity in the Theory of Emergent Space-Time-Matter (In Russian)
Also in the article I shown what cause limitation to maximum speed and why the speed is same in all inertial frames of reference.
In this article I analyze concepts of mass, force and energy from point of view of proposed theory: Mass, Energy and Force in the Theory of Emergent Space-Time-Matter (In Russian)
In next article I derived equations of general relativity from model of proposed theory:
General Theory of Relativity in the Theory of Emergent Space-Time-Matter (In Russian)
While this article is written in Russian, article at top of the post shows what inertial and gravitational masses are equal and it direct consequence of proposed theory (strong equivalence principle).
Also it shows difference between gravitational and other forces and why equations of general relativty should not have energy of gravitation field in its mass-energy tensor, and why graviton is not exists.
Another article: Relativistic Equations of Quantum Mechanics in the Theory of Emergent Space-Time-Matter (In Russian)
In this article I derived Klein-Gordon equation for a free particle from my theory, same as Dirac equations.
Work on the theory is in progress. In next two weeks I think I would have another article, which would show how the theory related to Yang-Mills theory and how virtual particles appear in proposed theory.
The proposed theory, as I see it, is not contradicts to any well established theory in its well tested area and not contradicts to any established facts.
I sent it to many journals, but they reject it.
It looks for me what reason for rejections is phylosophical consequence from concept of time emergence, proposed theory have no time and no movement on fundamental level, even in some hidden way.
I may illustrate it with responses from journals:
First, Foundations of Physics:
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:
Specific comments from a member of the Editorial Board:
The author of this manuscript fails to make clear how his/her work relates to current discussions in the foundations of physics. Regrettably, this fact places the current submission outside the scope of Foundations of Physics.
Perhaps a theoretical physics journal?
I not understand why it should relates to current discussions in the foundations of physics, it is completely new theory.
Ok, I decided to sent it to some theoretical physics journal. It was General Relativity and Gravitation.
They rejected it with following comment:
Reviewers comments:
This submission is not appropriate for GRG. I suggest that the author tries a more philosophically inclined journal.
As you may see, they propose to sent to philosophers.
Ok, I followed the advice and sent to philosophers. It was European Journal for Philosophy of Science.
They rejected it with following comment:
A paper on this topic is, due to its technical nature, better suited for a journal like Foundations of Physics. A further problem with the paper is that it does not engage with any of the relevant literature in the philosophy and foundations of physics.
As you may see, philosophers thinks it is technical paper and suggest to sent it to journal like Foundations of Physics.
Also it is easy to notice what editors of the journal in the comment confirms what ideas of proposed theory is fully new and never discussed in literature.
Note what one of journals, "Gravitation and cosmology", sent my article to review.
No errors were found by reviewer, but he proposed to reject the article because it is "too broad".
Instead, he proposed to work on partial theories which allows to make predictions.
I not agree with it. My theory use approach from top to down, from idea to consequences. I know what all existing theory were build from down to top,
from some experimental facts to theory. I use another approach - I use model of reality and derive results from it.
It means I not rely on any existing theory and must derive everything. Everything includes: space, time, velocity, energy, causality (yes, causality is also emergent phenomenon in proposed theory), particles, etc.
While there is no any successfull examples of such theories, there is nothing in ontology which prohibits such theories.
In initial article, link at top of the post, I build foundation for framework of the theory. It have equations, but none of them can be used for direct calculation of existing phenomena.
In following articles, I expand theory to new areas, derive more and more known concepts from the theory and new equations, which can be used to calculate existing phenomena.
As of now, there are several predictions of the theory, like absense of graviton. But there is no yet equations which allow to calculate new phenomena.
I see it as normal temporary state of the theory and expect new predictions after further work on the theory.
So, seems as proposed theory is not suitable to physics journals because of its phylosophical consequences,
regardless what it allow to unify gravity and quantum mechanics, explain nature of time, origin of Universe etc, and regardless what it is not contradicts to any facts and to any well established theories in its well tested areas.
And it is not suitable to phylosophy journals because of its technical nature.
I think the theory may be interesting for those who thinks about nature of time and about most fundamental questions.
It would be excellent to see some feedback.

Lee Bloomquist

Please tell us about one of your equations.

Andrey Smirnov

Link to article with equations is in previous post. There are 41 equations in that article.
Equations of special relativity, general relativity and klein-gordon equations were derived from that eqautions in folliwong articles, links are in previous post.

Lee Bloomquist

Andrey, your first equation is about cause and effect. Please double check me on this. What are your information theoretic ideas about that equation?

Andrey Smirnov

Lee, how the equation was found is described in that article. As for information theories, I not understand what you mean.

Lee Bloomquist

Andrey, on theories of everything, John Wheeler said "it from bit" and now E. Witten is saying "it from qubit." There is a link to texts of both in the previous entry "IT = (BIT, IT)". My question is really about their focus on information. Which, if either, sounds right to you-- it from qubit or it from bit?

Andrey Smirnov

It from bit contradicts to my theory. Same for it from qubit, it also contradicts to my theory. It is easy to understand from my article, if read it.

Lee Bloomquist

Andrey, I'm honored that you urge me to study your paper. But I am nobody, and clearly it would help you much more to be read by, say, five or so top authors in the foundations journal. "Word of mouth" is said to be the best way of marketing, and those top five authors would be in physics departments, talk to physicists there and at the conferences, and send emails to other physicists. One of the rejection letters seems to suggest a straightforward way to get your paper published in such a peer reviewed journal-- i.e., get about a decade worth of boxes of the target journal at your library, judge by numbers of papers the top authors. Read their papers and their bibliographies. Maybe even write somewhat like them. If everybody else is like me, they would rather have someone else read a paper for them first, before spending much time studying it. Peers would have hopefully read a published paper in a peer reviewed journal, and that would make me, at least, more sure of spending the significant time it would take me to work through, say, 41 equations. Very Best Regards!

« Previous Page Next Page »