It, Bit, and Us by Dean Rickles

Dear Dean Rickles,

Thanks for your smooth going essay based on insightful background.For me,it appears that you are a pessimist for the simple reason that the reality,according to you, is dual and cannot be reconciled.That is why you admit that digital is digital and analog is analog and they remain so forever.

But according to me that is not the case,for both digital and analog nature of reality can be reconciled on the basis of a much deeper concept.To know this,please,go thro' my essay and send your comments.

Good luck and best wishes.

Sreenath B N.

Dear Dr. Dean Rickles,

Welcome to essay contest. I found some errors in this essay:

The introduction of the essay is very doubtful. ''Is it digital or analogue''? - you'll never find an answer by analyzing a Rolex watch. First of all, to find an answer to fundamental questions we must be able to formulate correct questions. I can show you are wrong that ''at the root of the problem -''Is Reality Digital or Analog?'' -is the issue of representation''. The correct answer is ''At the root of the problem - ''Is Reality Digital or Analog?'' - is the nature of spacetime and matter. In this context, it is not surprising that the correct response was not found by the author, just because the questions are not formulated correctly. The author say: ''it seems perfectly possible for reality to be described by a dual system''. I can demonstrate you that any phenomena that look classical are approximate or derived; you cannot describe reality (for example spacetime) by a dual system.

To find the answer for main question you must analyze the fundamental structures as spacetime and Universe but not representations and Rolex watch: The Universe is expanding; In the first microseconds of expansion the Universe was very small and therefore finite in volume. In spite of expansion, the Universe will have the finite volume always. Since the Universe has a finite volume, it must have the edges (holes), because all objects with finite volumes have borders. And the space with holes is discontinuous. Thus, since the Universe is expanding, therefore it must be finite and discontinuous. (Also I can demonstrate it led to existence of fluctuating atoms.) Can you find flaws in this logical answer? Thus, the reality is fundamentally discontinuous, and therefore digital; therefore your main conclusion is wrong. If you have objections then please prove that my above arguments are wrong.

Your statement about the computational nature of the Universe contradicts quantum mechanics: please explain how this ''computer'' can process the motion of a particle and Heisenberg uncertainty. To process the motion of a particle it must know the absolute information about the position and momentum before the event occurs. The same error I found in the Tommaso Bolognesi essay.

You wrote: ''Before measurement by an observer, there is no physical reality: there is no such thing as a no phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon''. This statement is wrong; the age of the Universe is a proof that the Universe really has existed long before the appearance of humans (observers). The age of the Universe is a proof that Universe can exist without observers. You cannot quote Schrödinger here because his proposition has the totally different sense: You wrote:''The most perfect record, when not inspected, tells us nothing. It means only that we do not know about measurement, when not inspected. Thus, your above statement is erroneous.

You wrote:''Theories about the physical world inescapably bear our imprint; they are constructed to account for our experience''.

This proposition also is wrong; there are proofs that the physical world exist many billions of years whereas the age of humanity is less than some millions years.

You wrote:''Position measurements do not measure the position that a particle was existing at, but in some sense ''creates'' a correlation between a particle and a detector''.

It is a doubtful proposition; although a correlation between a particle and a detector can appear, we can find its position at measurement - Imagine a photon hits the detector (photographic paper).

Also I must mention that the essay appears to be original (not filled with copied information).

Regards,

Constantin

Great essay, dear mr. rickles. I shall have to peruse it once more to grok the majority. Time is getting short to make up the minds, no?

thank you.

?

and i remember your name from previous contests and threads and your body of work was a surprising revalation. honour to see you glimpse this.

only one question, what does this equation mean to you?

C=a(1-P)(1-D)(1-O)+b(1-P)D(1-O)+PDO

it means, for example: I wish I could go to Australia. Know anybody selling a decent ocean-going boat lol? seriously, mate...

it's just a dream, right. talk about the essay encouraginly. don't mention game-theory out loud.

the equation means to you and Julian Barbour for a high vote of confisence means???

Please disregard my threads. I have learned a painfull lesson in my own thread that less is more, when actually participating in the contest.

And the threads are a whole lot more fun then.

No need to pile on in my opinioun. But I am in the minority. Look forward to seeing how this all pans out. Before the stress turns me off the whole enterprise...

Thanks again for your essay.

Dear Dr. Dean Rickles,

I found little errors in your essay because it does not contain the original physics research - it is a philosophical paper. It is generally known that philosophers are able to escape from any situation and it is very hard to look for errors in a philosophical paper. For example I found the erroneous propositions ''about the computational nature of the universe'', but you replied that ''I didn't make a statement about the computational nature of the Universe''. However, I don't see a link to references near this proposition, consequently it is YOUR OUN statement. By definition, all text without links to references is considered to be the author' intellectual property. According to author's rights, it is your statement. Moreover, you have the big text below about informational-computational nature of reality: ''all things physical are information-theoretic in origin'', ''Konrad Zuse is perhaps the first to apply digital computation to ontology, arguing that the universe is itself a giant finite-state automaton''. I do not see your criticism about this Zuse' statement, it means you agree with Zuse. In this context, now you have two options; 1) please explain how the computational Universe can process the Heisenberg Uncertainty; 2) If you cannot explain it, consequently I found another error in your essay. In the same way I can prove that all the rest of my notes are real errors in your essay.

However, since you say that ''A completely flawless essay would, in my opinion, be as boring as a completely mechanical piano performance. This competition (and FQXi in general) enables risk-taking'', then we'll look for another way. There are a lot of essays, how can we evaluate them? 1) The best essay must have the best original ideas. 2) The best essay must be able to prove if the reality in the better way; From this point of view, I see neither novel ideas nor original research nor proofs about reality in your essay; I don't see any investigation of the nature of spacetime, it is a philosophical speculation only about the issue of representation, It and Bit.

I can show you that your main conclusion is wrong: ''both are possible, and it seems perfectly possible for reality to be described by a dual system''. Can you describe the motion of free particle by a dual system? The ''motion'' of a particle is not continuous and not analog because its position is uncertain. In double slit experiment, the particle can fly through both slits at once, and such behavior cannot be described by your dual system. The reality is fundamentally quantum, digital and discontinuous but not analogue.

Thus, since your main conclusion is wrong, therefore your essay is totally wrong.

Regards,

Constantin

Dear Constantin,

You claim: "I do not see your criticism about this Zuse' statement, it means you agree with Zuse."

No. It really doesn't mean that. It's within a section REVIEWING the history of the question. I don't think that the Universe is a giant computer. i don't say it is. The rest of the essay should blatantly show that I don't believe such a thing.

Also, philosophical essays (and non-scientific essays) CAN be wrong. This notion is simply a myth.

You still seem to be stuck on the idea that this question must about the nature of spacetime. Again, without argument. Stating your opinion over and over again is not an argument. If you simply repeat yourself like this again, there's no point in my responding. In fact, I've noticed you do the same thing in other's posts, ignoring their careful responses and stubbornly persisting with your same erroneous presumptions.

The essay competition has its OWN evaluation criteria: relevance and interest. You might look at these since it also shows that the essay organizers are well aware that the question goes beyond issues of spacetime.

Finally, I DON'T say the universe IS a dual system. The whole point of my essay is that there is a gap between digital/analogue representations and underlying reality, and that what we have to go on are discrete measurement results. The world's being a dual system is NOT my conclusion.

Again, perhaps there's a language comprehension issue here?

Best,

Dean

Dear Community,

It is impossible to investigate the Dean's essay because he declares that ''I DON'T say it'', ''I didn't make a statement about''. It means one of two things: 1) Dean's essay is made of opposing statements. In such case it is a senseless paper without any scientific value 2) Or, Dean tries to confuse us in order to defend his essay. In both cases such essay and his author does not deserve any prize.

For example I found the erroneous statement in Dean's essay ''about the computational nature of the universe'', but Dean replied that ''I didn't make a statement about the computational nature of the Universe''. However, I don't see a link to references near this proposition, consequently it is YOUR OWN statement. By definition, all text without links to references is considered to be the author' intellectual property. Thus, according to author's rights, it is Dean's statement. Further, if the Universe has the computational nature then please explain how your computer can process the Heisenberg Uncertainty. For this purpose the computer must know the complete information position momentum before events occurs that is forbidden by quantum mechanics. Thus, this proposition contradicts quantum mechanics, it is an error in Dean's essay.

Let's analyze the Dean's conclusions: ''The physical world, in the sense of that which matches the description provided by physical theories, is as digital or analogue as the theories themselves. Since there is no logical necessity either way, both are possible, and it seems perfectly possible for reality to be described by a dual system''. Then he wrote: ''and in this sense reality is digital''. In other words, Dean's essay is made of opposing statements, therefore it is a senseless essay which tells us NOTING about reality.

Sincerely,

Constantin

I missed a letter; Last proposition could be: In other words, Dean's essay is made of opposing statements, therefore it is a senseless essay which tells us NOTHING about reality.

It is not surprising; all authors of doubtful papers do not want to talk to me. Meanwhile, my post was addressed to COMMUNITY but not to you.

Heh-heh let me cannonBall thru this nonsense!!!

Sir, about that ocean-Going boat? Yes, I am still interested. Please contact me at QuarkPlasma@QuantumWidgets.com.

About the time-frame, though: how do you respond to that quote in this months SCI AM magazine about there being "lot s and lots of snakes" due to the recent flooding of australia?

lol, that's an unfortunate coincidence for someone who wants to go. Isn't it lol?

This author is not scared of snakes. But is scared of lots of snakes...

Dean,

"The physical world, in the sense of that which matches the description provided

by physical theories, is as digital or analogue as the theories themselves."

This I agree with although my prejudice is with analogue, and I do use models to support that view.

Jim Hoover

Dear Dean

The question that torments us a long time ago answered Eddington

We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origins. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo! It is our own.

Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time, and Gravitation, 1920

English astronomer (1882 - 1944)

My essay http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

Dear Dean,

I read your essay with interest and enjoyed your analysis of humans developing models of reality leading up to our current views of digital observation. I am interested in your views on philosophy in physics. Roger Penrose in The Road to Reality wrote about modern observations possibly needing to be twisted around and viewed from a different angle so that a fundamentally new perspective may be obtained concerning the nature of physical reality (p 1025). I think how we deal with philosophy is important in this kind of process.

One aspect of particles that I ponder is whether something outside of particles continuously powers their acceleration and leads to the concept of mass and energy. The first law of thermodynamics may seem to say no to an external reason for energy. Also, quantum mechanics shies away from actual internal motion. But, perhaps the reason for the first law is because something is propelling the energy like a motor propels a car down the road. Perhaps the lack of internal motion detection is due to the nature of waves measuring other waves. For example, we do not have a concrete size of a proton, so it is understandable that we do not yet have the ability to detect internal motion.

In looking for new ways to view observations, consider Einstein's mass-energy equation E = mc2. It seems we can view c2 as a potential that sustains energy (and defines length/time), and we can view mass as a scalar representing the amount of internal particle motion. My essay supplies equations for one possibility how the internal motion is produced and how particles react to each other based on this philosophy.

We may not be able to say how the sustaining potential c2 is produced, in which case it could represent that unknown limit in physics. However, we gain the ability to drop out of the loop of searching for that ever smaller explanation. More importantly, if it is actually how reality works, a logical set of equations (an example is supplied in my essay) possibly could explain visible reality and predict new behavior.

With your background in philosophy of physics I wonder if you have seen this way of looking at the mass-energy equation before? I also wanted to say hello and let you know I enjoyed your essay.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Well done!

Dear Dean,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners 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

Math is useful in physics to agree on definitions and concepts, if you use your own definition of something then go and convince someone that speaks your language.