Essay Abstract

The well-known physicist John Archibald Wheeler coined the phrase: It from bit. It symbolizes the idea that our physical universe is information-theoretic in origin. According to this idea our universe can be completely digitized. Proponents of digital physics are thus convinced that the very heart of our universe is of discrete nature. In this paper an argument is presented, which shows that our universe is fundamentally of analogous nature

Author Bio

Helmut Hansen is author. He is convinced that metaphysics can be conducted as an exact science like nuclear physics. Out of this conviction have now emerged several books and articles.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Helmut Hansen,

A very sweet little essay.

Information is confusing many people today. It is lovely in its essence. I first fell in love with it in 1967 with Amnon Katz's "Principles of Statistical Mechanics: The Information Theory Approach".

In another instance, when I told my major adviser about error detecting and correcting codes, he at first did not believe it possible.

Today entanglement, qubits, and holographic ideas have only made the confusion worse. So it is amazing that, in three short pages, you can so nicely argue that the world is not "made of bits".

Bits are not "the thing", they are *about* the thing. Bits depend upon a choice of representation, whereas real things are independent of representation. Korzybski was prescient when he noted in "Science and Sanity" that "the map is not the territory". Many people wish to build territory from maps these days. It's not Science.

Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hi Helmut,

    I agree with you that some metaphysical reasoning (as well as mental experiments), may help in understanding physical reality. But in the case of your essay, which I read with pleasure, I don't see the logic behind your claim that in a universe made of 'physical' bits, of 'bitoms' as you call them, nothing would happen.

    You seem to relate this observation to the undeniable fact that, in order to have one bit of information I must be confronted with two equally likely alternatives.

    Would this 'digital' universe then become lively, i.e. non crystal-like, just by unbalancing the 50-50 probability split of its 'atoms'? The reason for this (possibly bizarre, but respectful) question is to try and 'force' you to be a little more specific about the picture of a bit-based universe that you criticize. For example, the concept of probability invokes that of trial, experiment, in other words, some event. In a completely frozen universe of 'bitoms', who is testing the probabilistic nature of these atomic elements? Can we assume that they are pure bits (50-50) without anything ever happening to them? Can a bit exist without being read, or transmitted?

    By the way, I also believe, with Edwin, that bits are not 'the thing', but they are *about* the thing. I would additionally suggest that, if we insist in using them as a map, the real 'thing' that they represent is also *digital*: it's a causal set -- a discrete spacetime.

    • [deleted]

    It's pleasing to see an essay that recognises the importance of ur-theory in this subject. I mentioned it but only briefly in my essay.

    • [deleted]

    Hi Tommaso,

    the idea of bitoms is only a -finger- which should point in an easy way that there is an ultimate limiting state in our universe, which can never be reached by any natural process, that is, the state of perfect order. This state is considered of being excluded because perfect order excludes any motion, but our (!) universe is obviously full of motion.

    The other ultimate limiting case of our universe is the state of perfect chaos, which means, that there is - in a way - too much motion, preventing any kind of order. Actually J.A. Wheeler has investigated this extreme state at the most fundamental level in detail claiming that there is no law except the law that there is no law, which he considered as an ultimate principle of the universe. He had in mind the emergence of approximate lawlike behavior, such as the ideal gas law, from an underlying chaotic complexity like that of the motion of myriads of molecules. But it was recognized by others, that lawlike behavior can never emerge from something that obeys no laws. The motion of molecules f.e. is not lawless, it is random .. and randomness implies a kind of probabilistic order.

    It's my conviction, that ultimate limits (like perfect order vs. chaos) determine the internal structure of our universe in such a way, that only one (!) structure is likely. In other words, I claim, that a fundamental blueprint of the universe does exist, which describes just this structure completely.

    This claim, which is of metaphysical origin, has in fact far-reaching consequences with respect to the concept of the observer, including any kind of information-theoretic view of the universe.

    If such a fundamental blueprint of the universe is really existing then the observer cannot be in the center of natures doings. The observer has now to be regarded simply as the subject, which uncovers this fundamental blueprint or parts of it. By this view the meaning of the observer is significantly reduced in contrast to our contemporary physics. In our physics there are fundamental descriptions of our universe, like Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, in which the observer is inseparably part of the laws of nature.

    According to the viewpoint presented here invoking the observer as an essential element of a fundamental theory is therefore a clear sign that we do not have understand nature fully. From this very restricted (or personal) view there is no need for any observer to read bits. Bits can be used in a purely objective manner without any relation to an observer .. as a theoretical tool, in order to describe the fundamental blueprint of the universe resp. specific aspects or parts of it.

    There is growing number of physicists who interpret physical laws already as a specific sort of digitised algorithms. Hence, some of them are concluding, that the ultimate form of physical laws, in turn, must be consistent with any sort of binary rules or steps. By identifying the term of energy and the term of bit I have tried to give a counterexample that the concept of a bit though a powerful theoretical tool is not of unlimited applicability. Under very specific conditions, that is, the close identification of energy and information, it leads to a conclusion which seems to be incompatible with our observable universe.

    a month later

    Hi Helmut

    I enjoyed your essay, which I think touched on some profound points, and was very readable. It is certainly a top scorer for me.

    Might you consider that the concept "Information measures form" has an analogy with a shortcoming of our application of the Cartesian system where we abstract to points and lines but forget Einstein's specification that the co-ordinates should be attached to a 'rigid body' or 3D form.

    I believe it's Robert S's essay that also particularly identifies the shortcomings of the transformation in not considering at motion. (see my thread under '2020 vision..')

    An interesting point re the CMB rest frame is that it's temperature varies with frequency, a slightly tricky concept to grasp! - but perhaps telling us something about the 'form' of the reference frame.

    It has also been rather glossed over that the very fact that there is a CMB rest frame is inconsistent with SR's stipulation of no 3rd frame.!

    I hope you will be able to read, score and comment on my own essay, which is consistent with yours if probably too brim full of... anyway I believe you may understand the underlying identification of a link with relativity and QM.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    16 days later
    • [deleted]

    Dear Helmut,

    I agree with your idea that the universe is fundamentally continuous. In my essay, using exclusively continuous processes I mathematically derive Planck's Law for blackbody radiation and show that this Law is actually a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of energy. I argue that this explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical.

    Furthermore, just recently I posted a mathematical proof of the proposition, "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave".

    I hope you find these results interesting and significant to comment and to support my efforts to place these before the panel for review.

    All the best,

    Constantinos

    Write a Reply...