Bit from It by Julian Barbour

-

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...

that nature is fundamentally digital and continuity an illusion.

Julian,

Your points were well-defended, but my prejudice, perhaps argued with less precision, is that reality is analogue, not too popular for physicists.

Does your statement above imply that nature is reality? I know we can easily get into semantics.

Best regards,

Jim Hoover

Julian,

I read your other essay about the nature of time. So long as you don't measure anything you get this holistic that you are believing in as ultimate. If you measure anything at all you are left with N log N as general ontology of your measurment. I think that there is too much dependencies, duals, symmetries to make the ideas of yours as NP complete; the structure of the three part event could be contained in just one N but measured would reveal N log N of the event? I don't see where this weakens discretization of the reality when you are forced to give the reality of things themselves a triad ontology. Mathematically, i think that you could some charcter for this maximal variety, maybe a zero or a one.....

Dear Julian Barbour

Your essay is the first, which I found, where reference to Zeilinger theory of information exists. I think that this is almost necessary for such a topic.

You write that information needs things. I thing similarly. So in the essay from 2009

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/571 I write that this thing, which is needed from information is consciousness.

You write that Bohm-Aharonov experiment needs a lot of bits to determine location of the screen. (It is similarly for double slit experiment etc.) I think that our physical theories and experiments are not enough to be described with only a few bits. But maybe my theory of quantum gravity is enough primitive to give such a possibility.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0025v1.pdf I will think.

I was late for this contest so I published my essay on viXra.

Good essay are such which gave new ideas. I hope that your essay will give me new ideas.

Regards Janko Kokosar

p.s.

I need an endorser on arXiv for publication of my article:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1012.0006v3.pdf It is not speculative. It is a base for the above article. But the above article is speculative. But I need such a publication that my theories will be read and discussed.

Dear Julian,

I wanted to be sure to say hello and let you know I enjoyed your essay and gave it a high rating. In reading it a second time after reading many of the other essays I appreciate it even more. My few disagreements were minor in comparison to my appreciation for the philosophy you present in how we look at scientific observations. It was very educational to have help in understanding the different concepts of information.

Back to the philosophy of how we look at things, it seems like our philosophical approach is highly important. For example, Roger Penrose in The Road To Reality suggested that perhaps we need to view modern observations from a different angle so that a fundamentally new perspective may be obtained (P. 1024). I see your discussion being similar with your example of how we view data such as Wheeler's magnetic field measurements with several perspectives.

Following along those lines, it seems there could be perspectives or philosophies in science that are so well established that they discourage inquiry from other useful perspectives. As we see in this essay contest, physics is analyzing the philosophy that drives current thinking and is opening the door a crack to consider other views. The views that are actually considered will provide a logical (probably mathematical with accurate units) view that shows more about "it" and explains the "bit" that once was thought to be the explanation in itself.

By the way, I have enjoyed the debate between your essay and posted comments. Information could actually be considered a smallest reality device. The problem with any smallest reality device is how to define what produces it. Of course we are all realizing there may be some limit of what can be known in physics and we are trying to define it.

Thanks for a thoughtful, educational, and enjoyable essay!

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Shoot, that is exactly what I wanted to say...

Dear Julian,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top ten placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the top front runners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

Dear Sir,

Congratulations for your excellent analysis of information theory in relation to describing reality. We will like to further add something to your analysis.

You quote the views of two scientists that information is "physical" and "real" and "occupies the ontological basement". Both argue that information is more basic than quantum fields or energy. They conclude, information, and with it reality, is digital and rests ultimately on the answers to yes/no questions. They claim continuity is an illusion. Differentiating between three types of information, you conclude that: "ontological primacy should not be given to information but to 'things', as has always been the standpoint of realists."

Information is nothing but results of measurement, which is comparison between similars. Without the "things", there can be no measurement. Hence you are right. But then without the perception (information) about "things", they are meaningless, because reality must be perceived as such and the validity of a physical theory is judged by its correspondence to reality. To this extent, the other view cannot be ignored fully. Hence the truth lies in an all embracing theory.

The same applies to your interpretation of "bits" and "its". If we look at the mechanism of perception, we find that each of our sense organs perceive different kind of impulses based on the nature of fundamental forces of Nature. Eyes see by comparing the electromagnetic field set up by the object with that of the electrons in our cornea, which is the unit. Thus, we cannot see in total darkness because there is nothing comparable to this unit. Tongue perceives when the object dissolves in the mouth, which is a macro characteristic of the weak nuclear interaction. Nose perceives when the finer parts of an object is brought in close contact with the nose to interact with the small buds, which is a macro characteristic of the strong nuclear interaction. Skin perceives when there is motion that is a macro characteristic of the gravitational interaction. By themselves the perception has no meaning. They become "information" and acquire meaning only when they are amalgamated in our memory: for example the statement, "the apple that I saw is sweet to taste, smooth to touch and gives a fragrant smell." Here the individual perceptions are 'bits' and the totality is 'its'. Thus, 'It' is the totality of 'bits'. You also admit it when you say: "The way that they are knit together, as in the taste, shape and color of an apple, defines the structure of the thing." We will discuss Wheeler's views separately.

You say: "The definition of a thing then amounts to a description of the universe from a particular point of view." This is both right and wrong. From the point of view of individual perception, it is right. From the point of view of imperfect (mechanically defective) perception, it is also right. But from the point of view of 'universal perfect perception', it is not correct. By 'universal perfect perception', we mean the result of valid measurement that remains invariant under similar conditions irrespective of statistical data, i.e., the number of times the measurement is conducted.

You have correctly pointed out that: "A symbol can stand for anything, but it must stand for something." This is because number is a perceived property of substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no others characteristics of an object with a similar perception, it is one. If there is a sequence of perception of similars, each of them is given a name, which is called the number sequence. Infinity is like one: without a similar. But whereas in the case of one the dimensions are fully perceived, in the case of infinity the dimensions can not be fully perceived. It is different from a very big number. Zero signifies the absence of something at here-now which was perceived earlier. Negative numbers are related to 'ownership' of the object - it shows the relationship of the object with someone. Mathematics is all about accumulation and reduction of numbers. Linear accumulation is addition and subtraction. Non-linear accumulation is multiplication and division. Complex numbers are 'unphysical' - hence they could not be used in programming. Thus, they could not be used for perception. Since numbers are associated with objects, they are not abstract entities, but "must stand for something."

Your statement that "assuming the existence of things that we cannot see to explain things that we can is a good strategy," is self contradictory. If you "cannot see" something, how can you "assume" it? The content of all assumptions is the form: "this (something) can be like that (your description)." Here you can describe "that" only if you have perceived it earlier. Your perception might relate to different segments and your final description may relate to the assembly of such individual segments. If the assembly of such individual segments is permissible depending upon the fundamental laws of Nature, then your assumption will be proved correct. Otherwise it will be wrong. For example, Helium atom contains equal numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons. But as we higher in order, this relationship becomes unstable because of the fundamental laws of Nature. If you assume such a law based on your perception of helium, it will be wrong. As we have repeatedly described, the atoms can be stable only when they are slightly negatively charged which makes the force directed towards the nucleus dominate the opposite force, but is not apparent from outside. Hence we do not experience it. We have theoretically derived the value of the electric charge of protons, neutrons and electrons as +10/11, -1/11 and -1. The negative sign indicates that the net force is directed towards the nucleus.

In your example of Kepler, the three dimensions were already perceived. What he found out did not appear to violate the fundamental law because a circle with a moving center appears as an ellipse. Though contrary to Kepler's description, the planets orbit around the Sun in circles, because the Sun is moving, the orbits look elliptical, though in reality the ellipse never closes on itself. If we chart the planetary movements against the back drop of stars and galaxies, it will be evident.

Shannon's views are nothing but the mechanism of perception of numbers described above and their conformity to the fundamental laws of Nature. Since the higher or lower numbers are perceived in a sequence of one at a time, it can be accumulated or reduced by one at each step making it equivalent to binary numbers. The Morse code is based on the principle of conformity to the certain laws. The rest of Shannon's views are based on the detailed working out of the above principle. You also admit this when you say: "the probabilities on which Shannon based his theory (and are relevant for this essay) were all based on objective counting of relative frequencies of definite outcomes." The rest are only details that conforms this concept. It only it only lays down rules for 'bits' to conform to 'its'. This is the "grammar or programming" of language. The qubits are only a part of this description. You also admit that they can be realized in many different ways that "require great experimental sophistication and rely on the low entropy of the universe"

Your description of "factual information" is nothing but 'bits' that is tested for the conformation of its harmony with 'its', so that it follows some prescribed pattern. You also admit it when you say: "If we receive a picture, we normally understand by information the distribution of colors and shapes we see when looking at it." The "distribution of colors and shapes" are based on earlier perception. This is like "dictionary or compilation of data base" of language.

The configuration that "carries intrinsic semantic information in the sense that different intelligent beings can in principle deduce the law or process that explains the observed structure" means "popular usage or special exclusive programs that may or may not follow general logic" - i.e., it may or may not be in conformity with the general principles. For example, "Wallis and Darwin's law" is still a postulate and has not been proved. They derived the information based on some observation of the same evidence in fossils and living animals that many others had seen. Their views are widely accepted though it is not scientific. Evolution is related to mobility while natural selection is related to survival. Mobility is carried out through external projections of support (feet?). Thus, the virus and the bacteria with their innumerable "feet" were the first to evolve. They were followed by worms of reducing numbers of "feet". Finally the animals with four "feet" were evolved before humans with two "feet" evolved. In this sequence monkeys evolved before the humans, because though they are basically four legged animals, they can walk short distances with two legs. This does not men that monkeys are forefathers of human beings. Among the other animals, those born out of eggs are deficient in one sensory organ. Other four legged animals have all the sense organs, but while some are more developed, others are less developed. Only in the case of humans, these are balanced. Human beings are the only living beings that can unite and copulate facing each other in their normal position.

Your classification of information is incomplete. There are two more types of information. During programming, the computer is also programmed to use the same logic in all "similar cases". While in the case of "factual information" or "compilation of data base" of language the program searches for the compatibility of the next character to proceed further, in the case of "similar cases" the program searches for the sub-group as a whole and reacts to the sub-group to proceed further.

The last category belongs to some "axiomatic postulates that are accepted as evidently proven". This is essential for the programming to begin with. For example, unless we accept the numbers and the binary system as self-evident truths, we cannot start writing a program. Of these, the third; the principle to deduce "the law or process that explains the observed structure" that is "popular usage or special exclusive programs that may or may not follow general logic" is the most important because it follows a law of its own.

It is true that "information theory can in no way change what has always been the starting point of science: that structured things exist, in the first place in our mind and, as a reasonable conjecture given the remarkable correlations in our mental experiences, in an external world" and "the proper task of ontology is to establish the structure of things."

Your views on "Wheeler's Aharonov-Bohm experiment" are fairly accurate. We will like to add the following. While conducting experiments, most people exclude the properties of the measuring instrument that affect the outcome. Electron beams are associated with heat that flows towards positively charged particles (closing in). Magnetic flux is associated with closing on itself fields that are not "hot". This property of "closing in" is common to both. Hence they co-exist (In our second comment under the Essay of Mr. Ian Durham we have given a different interpretation to charge interactions that is different from Coulomb's law. We have explained spin differently under the Essay of Mr. Gene T. Yerger).

Since the electric fields and magnetic fields move at right angles to each other and to the direction of motion, it is obvious that when a magnetic flux is present in the coil, the electron beam would be deflected. The degree of deflection also follows a predictable pattern (not uncertain pattern) depending upon the strength of the magnetic field in the coil. The detector-elicited information is only the result of measurement that shows the strength of the existing magnetic field in the coil. It is not correct to claims that it "derives its very existence entirely from discrete detector-elicited and information-theoretic answers to yes or no quantum binary choices: bits". But the existing magnetic flux (it) in the coil is a part of the total magnetic field (bits).

While explaining the implications of acceleration much beyond the general impression in one of the threads under the Essay of Mr. Biermans, we had discussed about Newton's laws of inertia to show that there is nothing called inertia of rest and there is something called Inertia of Restoration, which is known as elasticity. We generally agree with description that the Universe is "a set of possible configurations that nature has selected" except that in our model we describe the complete theory that describes how the Universe evolved from singularity, how the forces evolved, how time and space evolved and how the structure formation evolved. We will discuss it separately. We will also show that the same laws govern both micro and the macro worlds. The quantum world is not fuzzy as it is made out to be. We have discussed entanglement, double slit experiment and decoherence under various Essays. We have defined space, time, infinity, and reality, etc., precisely in our Essay. You may refer to those.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Julian,

Congratulations on your prize. It is no surprise to me as I thought your essay would do well. It is very well written. It is a pity you have not participated at all on this thread. Still, I know now that it is a waste of my time writing as you do not reply. So to spare -my- time I'll just say, Very well done - again!

Congratulations, Mr. Barbour:

Good job placing 4TH with your essay. I'm abashed to say, I havent' read it yet. In my own defense I work a non-Theoreticl Physics day job, so only get a couple hours a day to dedicate to this first Passion (Philosophy and Physics). Yet due to the three factors of your Time essay being so excellent, getting 4th place, and your very large recent grant to basically 'keep thinking', there is little doubt this current essay will be better than ok!

My own meagre Essay languishes in the middle of the bunch. Of which I am thrilled and humbled in such company. It continues in it's conclusions and results and applications (whether actual or not is of no moment, as to the veracity of my definition of Consciousness therein) on my website and threads here. These are all off-shoots of my travails in getting the gumption to write an entry and dealing with my daily environment of a dearth of fellow Thinkers in Physics and Philosophy.

What I love most a bout rubbing shoulder s in here is that I am the tiny intellect among experience Giants. When I'm in my normal work-enviroment, this situation is reversed, and it is almost impossible to convince anybody otherwise. Mr. know-it-all doesn't, whether you believe him or not.

QuantumWidgets.com

Well, I guess if I had a ginormous Grant to Think about Thinking, I wouldn't diegn to match wits with the common Rabble either, sad to admit. Probably wouldn't engage in these thread if I had a chance of winning that way too. Bad news is, I wouldn't neglect to recall that there is a third point here, which is that I might have been a world-famous Author and Philosopher and have a quite cornacopious and interesting and ongoing--obviously, you are reading this Kind Sir--Thread-ology.

So if you will permit--and by your absence of Reply--we in the -ology can all assume you permit... Let me take this opportunity to offer up a fantastic sea-change in the world Monetary System. My newly created store, Quantum Auto Parts is now offering at huge discouts globally, oil of any kind. Most have free shipping. The most important product is sythetic oil, of course, for Energy Security... Soon, my probability AIs informed me before i deleted them, we will all have a web-presence. Soon (defined as 1-3 years) we will use those individual sites to pay very little. For everything. Soon (right now, partially) my own site will be offering absolutely any [useful] item for the lowest prices globally. Soon (defined as 6-9 months) everyone on Terra will have an identical, biodegradable disposable device which my AI's termed an AntiKythera. Anyway blah blah they were deleted. Last thing i saw on the screen was something about the determining factor in this new Star Trekkian future, where money don't matter is what you do with your identical handheld de\vice that's special, since they're all the same.

So apologies for the length. By your continued and now weighted silence in light of your Triumph you permit. Adieu!

QuantumWidgets.com

Wow: still here sitting back and trying to absorb this Threadology. It meanders quite interestingly from shrill ejaculations to insightful input. Like it was written by a genius with a mental illness, but with a heart of Gold...

Anyway, hello fqxi hello Scientific American. I'm looking for a job now. Maybe web Development? Or a little writing? Consulting? Don't make me look for another technician job (I've had 2 now since 2002), and waste away some more of my relative youth for the love of money. My advisor could have grabbed me by the collar and shook me when I graduated in 2002 and said, " the only way to make money with a physics degree is to stay in academics, get an even higher degree, and stay in that world. or you'll be doomed to practice some subset of Physics by being a technician forever..." So all you undergraduates out there, take heed to this wisdom, which wasn't shared vehemently enough with me.

As a demonstration of my web-erly Kung Fu, search my full name in a google search. Third relevant hit is this thread, right here. It ain't another coincidence, you know. (Won't last, now it's said out loud!)

And as an individual, with no relation to my job experience, in addition to my normal duties in a new position, I offer for purchase any kind of battery whatsoever, any kind of auto part, any kind of translator, backpack, software, tools, oils, rfid-blocking apparel; all at the lowest prices on Earth and free shipping. Even cheaper than from the sites themselves!

All of these extra skills were acquired and developed in response to, and in retaliation for, the horribly abysmal performance of my essay in this contest. And all are consequences of said horrible essay. There I feel better now it's said. So keep up the non-recognition, and I'll keep on developing consequences. Wish someone would stop me: it's inevitable, if current trending continues, that the site will eventually offer absolutely everthing useful at absolutely the lowest prices. Quick, hire me before I collapse the world monetary system. It' sgoing to happen relatively soon, I'll wager, anyway. But why let me accellerate this process for all the wrong reasons?

Quantum Auto Parts

Travellor's Companion