Information certainly has to do with 'its' but not with 'bits'. Why not, because bits are truncated, frozen, pieces of code. While a code can be considered information, for the sake of argument, it is only an incomplete symbol used to represent information.
James
Dr. Barbour,
You are welcome to use whatever description your deem to be appropriate to describe the value of what I ask or what I say. Perhaps silly is the correct description; however, I request that you say that is so. Otherwise, I assume that my points are irrefutable.
James
Dear Julian,
Congratulation for your clear essay on a fundamental Skakespearian question: bit from it or it from bit, (to bit or not to bit). I totally agree with your conclusion than "The set of all onta is the ultimate Shannon source." and argue that the answer is "It from bit from thing".
I would like to reconcile your point of view with Wheeler's and his followers. You write "It is a mistake to believe that the digits 0 and 1, being abstract, represent the immaterial". The main point is there: what does sounds that a bit is immaterial ? Is it totally abstract and not made of any 'thing' where a thing is not necessarily made of matter; or is it just not made of matter.
An immaterial bit can be both, not made of matter for Wheeler and made of thing for you. Here is how:
For me a bit is a topological feature of a very fundamental structure, a trivalent network in graph theory, or a set of cardinal 3 subsets in set theory (both are equivalent); This feature may be that if the node is in a 3-loop it holds value 1 otherwise value 0.
With this definition, I agree with you, bit is made of thing, the thing being one or three nodes, or cardinal 3 subsets; but remains immaterial, not made of any matter, nor having coordinates in any space background; because matter only get sense at a larger scale (a supernode of 48 bits). So, "They do not exist in isolation. A bit is not a single-digit atom of reality as it from bit implies."
But they exists together in a simple network that is a proto-space, encoding space, bosons and fermions.
Time is another story. Configurations (spin networks) are linked by pachner moves, forming spin foam, with a causality but no need of absolute clock. So my conclusion is: "It from bit from thing"; This "thing" is well documented in my essay.
Best regards
Ray
Dear Julian,
Your essay is very interesting. However, I have a remark. You use the Shannon theory of information in your essay. The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem gives a result on the frequencies showing when it is possible to discretize a continuous signal without losing information. This result is often used in engineering. Considering the Planck time, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem implies that the frequency of a particle must be limited if we don't want to lose information. For instance, it implies that the energy of a photon must be limited.
Best regards,
Dr. Barbour,
With all due respect for your qualifications: I think that your theoretical positions are near, actually beyond for me, to being unrealistic. Good luck to you in this contest and in the future.
James
Dear Julian
"The catch, all too often forgotten, is that an inertial frame of reference is needed to define the motion."
That sentence alone sums up the problem that remains central today. Do you think physics may recognise it one day?
Peter
Dear Julian
I have read your essay which is interesting. I am aware that information is important to convey or storage data among physical entities, but, it seems to me that it is not a fundamental concept for physics. I believe that more fundamental concepts like space, time, matter, force, etc. should be properly addressed first. In this sense my essay is aim at giving ontological arguments of space and time. These can serve to build stronger basis for a new edifice of physics. Perhaps, you may be interested in seeing my work. Amazingly Helmut Hansen treat the same topic as you do. You should read his too.
Kind Regards
Israel
If Holographic Universe exist, then the time really an illusion.
Julian would be right.
Hello, Mr. Barbour:
I still have your winning essay on the nature of time. It's like a fractal to me, I find new structure upon re-reading. new insight and ways of thinking. Anyway, your's and Mr. Rickles and several of the top essays in the contest are what inspired me to join this third one and give it a try.
Mine was one of thelast entries as I frantically proof-read, re-read, and gathered the gumption to actually enter. Then I noticed your entry a couple days before with dread. It's one thing to enjoy you essay as a non-competitor, etc....
Anyway please check out my essay, "A Method to Measure Consciousness, and Demonstrations of Worldy Multiplicity" when you can, and comment if you can. There is no reason here to try to bolster you ego, so I'll just be honest: if you read and/or comment on my own essay, that to me would be a sucess no matter the outcome of this contest. (and encourage me to continue my mid-life foray into natural philophy proper)
Anyway, I'll be back with my comments. But I wanted to past a reply just submitted on another author's thread, as it is germaine to all of the essays, it seems (post follows):
Importantly, though, it would seem there is an over-arching theme (framework) emerging from these essays (among others). That is a debate about hidden dimensions and/or hidden internal structure in the subatomic particles.
The LHC website has a surprising result that is so far unexplained: when protons collide with enough or more force to produce more than 122 particle products or so, the excess partiles travel off in the same direction! Clearly, either a heretofore unknown internal structure is being revealed, and/or those particles are expeiriencing the same force (or the same resultant forces).
FRom your thread, you have touched upon this in your essay, with the help of other's results. In my own essay is an explanation for this. I plan on continuing to develop the implications of my essay whatever the results of this competition, due to the excitement and critical thinking that I've been forced to hone therein. There is another exciting result from my essay, I am learning.
Another article in last months scientific american; where a theoretical physicist bemoans the fact that as a group they are having great trouble picturing what is going on with their various models of reality, due to the great complexity of the equations. Again, the path is laid out in my essay, and the clarification of modern theoretical concepts can be explained " in language a patient bartender can understand".
This is simple, and I can contribute to the advancement of our understanding if given the opportunity.
Pleasure,
TommyG.
Dear Dr Barbour and all you folks,
I just read Paul N Butler's essay at http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/849. This may be good reading for you, too.
Rafael
Absolutely castel. good essay so far. it is fantastic actually. up to page six...
Nevertheless before continuing with the essay, I must ask no-one in particular: isn't ad hoc introducing a new dimension just adding a degree of freedome? So really you could prove anything with that device. However, to in addition add on a second assumption (degree of freedom) doubly a device to explain a theory? To whit, that the new dimensions are so small as to be not observed just a facile attempt to further remove the consequences of a possible false proposition from its conclusions?
{This is so fun.}
Then again, the LHC experiment recently confirmed for quark-gluon plasmas that the assumption of perfect fluids in theoretical models is correct! Just like the thing you describe, with the "wind" analogy,, mr. jurgenson. Fascinating. In the Mr. Spock sense; not the objective one.
I will continue that essay, and comment tomorrow in this, this thread very few (if any) will actually ever see, much less read lol.
TO BE IMMEDIATELY TRUNCATED
TommyG., anonymously stumbling his way through esoterica and the essential both.
-
Yes. Page six and seven dampens the essay quite a bit. But I still think that overall his essay is good reading. His essay struck a chord - you would understand if you've read my essay.
Rafael
beautiful essay full of spirituality, congratulations, I understand better why you won in the past, good luck.
Regards
Steve
Dr. Barbour,
Are you there please? What is interpreted by experience before theory begins?
James
Dear Julian
I would like reminding you about your answer by mail Mon 6/7/2004 2:57 AM
to my question.
"I do not know the answer to your questions. However, I do believe continuous symmetries are fundamental except perhaps the Lorentz boosts.
Best wishes, Julian Barbour."
Now i have my own answer
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946
Atta boy, Yuri, don't let the Gentlemen sit on his laurels like that! I'll check out your essay right now!
Thanx for your outstanding essay Mr. Barbour. I mustneeds read it three more times to fully enjoy. but alas time is short. minimal. limited. must vote soon....
please see my comment in Mr. rickles thread for my final word on the subject matter. I mean my final equation in this one contest lol
double dog dare you
Dr. Barbour:
Please disregard all of my previous threads. I had a plan to raise interest in at least getting my essay read, but if you get a chance to check out my own essay thread, you'll see why that is no longer the case.
I have a day-job (night-shift) and basic Aristotellian Rhetoric is being used as a weapon in my threads to paint me the ignorant villian. Dont' have the energy to provide a long explanation as to what these false arguments are to all, or what Rhetoric is , and even Aristotle himself despised the techniques he invented. But every courtrm practices Rhetoric every day.
So now my thread has untrue charactarizations from other groups that make my essay look incorrect and riddled with mistakes!
While I don't give up now, I may surrender later (future contests): these threads are rip-roaring fun from the other side of the aisle. But when it's a contest, the red herringss let fly and stick to my threads. This will probably be enough to convince every-man to check out another essay as there are so many.
It's no long er quite so much fun.
OK OK your Silence is deafening me!!!!
I hear you and I've listened. I shall now respond on my thread in the spririt of Dr. Newton's Prinicpia, if nothing else...
