Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 21:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Kyle, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

James Hoover: on 8/7/13 at 5:18am UTC, wrote Kyle, Interesting discussion. How do you differentiate the subatomic...

Sreenath N: on 7/26/13 at 1:47am UTC, wrote Dear Kyle, I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it....

Vladimir Tamari: on 7/16/13 at 1:44am UTC, wrote Dear Kyle, Hello. Apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and...

Jayakar Joseph: on 7/8/13 at 3:30am UTC, wrote Dear Kyle, Your essay authenticates that the causality of information is...

Sergio Miguel: on 7/3/13 at 20:49pm UTC, wrote Hi, I have read your article. It was very interesting since the historical...

James Hoover: on 7/3/13 at 19:29pm UTC, wrote Kyle, If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I...

Antony Ryan: on 7/2/13 at 17:34pm UTC, wrote Hello Kyle, True - not all galaxies have spiral arms. Perhaps you are...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: "The acrobats central to the rotation of a platform, share the same type of..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
August 24, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: All Your Base Are Belong To Math by Kyle Miller [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Kyle Miller wrote on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 10:09 GMT
Essay Abstract

"Its and bits from forces."

Author Bio

Kyle Miller has worked in a physics lab.

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 16:37 GMT
This is a very well written essay. I think mathematics fails because it does not follow its own preconceived logic as I have thoughtfully pointed out in my essay, BITTERS. The binary code only allows for a 1 or 0 presentation. But there should be an allowance made for a -1 response as well. More importantly, each event in the real world is unique. Mathematics cannot be adapted to deal with the unique. Neither can sciences, neither can philosophy. All are disciplines of repeatable sameness.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen Crowley wrote on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 16:17 GMT
Wonderfully written essay and I can very much appreciate the Yogi joke :) Could these "meta-programs" be colloquially referred to as a "system of thought" or "the way in which one thinks" e.g. when someone says "you must be thinking about it wrong?" I think it's interesting to think that notions such as emotion have no formal expression in mathematics or physics and yet we all know it exists as anyone, religionists or not, knows, such as books like The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animal...which could branch back into psychology and into motivation and into motivic cohomology...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 14:24 GMT
Your article is interesting.

I am thinking, while I read it, some consideration.

If the law of conservation of the energy (and the conservation of the information) is true, how it is possible that the Universe exists?

We are in an universe of particle, of some energy (and it is not measured a great quantity of anti-matter), and we are in a metric expansion of space: there is a problem!

There is not a simple solution, but the problem exist.

Saluti

Domenico

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 8, 2013 @ 19:38 GMT
Kyle,

Now that I finally wrote my entry(a short one), I've been trying to read through some of the others and yours is the first I find both clear and to the point enough to read all the way through.

It does seem that so much speculation builds on prior speculation, as though it was foundational, with increasingly fantastical results. Eventually there will be an speculative implosion and we will see what's left.

I do notice at the bottom of page 2, you make reference to an expanding universe and I have to say I find even this to be far more speculative than provable. One of the many reasons I find it falsifiable is that it assumes a stable speed of light, yet expanding space. Consider that if two galaxies x lightyears apart were to expand to 2x lightyears apart, that would not be expanding space, as measured in lightyears, but increased distance, in which case, the theory falls apart, as we would be at the center of the universe.

Not to start a debate, but just to say to be careful what you include in your models.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert Bennett wrote on May. 16, 2013 @ 14:44 GMT
"all of the fundamental forces can be viewed as manifestations of a single entity: the vacuum."

Good... but how do you support this dictum experimentally?

Could we also support that all of the fundamental particles can be viewed as manifestations of vacuum bound states (vacuum ~ aether)?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on May. 26, 2013 @ 03:05 GMT
Kyle

Well done, but it is interesting that you regard Newtonian forces as the most important aspects of physics. While I would not agree with that (I think energy, particularly angular momentum) is more fundamental, there is something very 'right' about some of Newton's concepts that got ditched in modern physics. I think absolute space is one such concept. Einstein could have retained absolute space had he adopted Lorentz transformations as affecting clock motion (not time) and measuring stick length (not space). BTW It was Poincare who first explained that energy and mass are equivalent.

Anyway I enjoyed your essay, and agree with the last part which is very close to what I say in the last section of my own paper.

"The universe may, as a matter of fact, be a "quantum computer"; or, at the very least, analogous to one. But force would still be more fundamental than computation because the forces would be what's being computed—the its and bits would be the "hardware" and the laws of physics would be the "software.""

Best wishes,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 05:39 GMT
Dear Kyle Miller

Your argument is very great, and it would be worth more if you can give a conclusion by math for the question of this topics.

Mathematics only is a measure of Sciences, it needs the specific database to activities, mathematics can not generate such things, they are the product of philosophy - for example, the concept "temperature ","the light "or even is " math "...

We will can not use mathematics if absence of conventional philosophy for Binary or Decimal System.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 07:09 GMT
Grading method (compared to my goal ) = 5 criteria with 2 points each : The idea actually,Similar views,Measures consistent,Conclusions detail,Applying diversity.

4 points for your love with Math

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 08:27 GMT
Hello Kyle,

I like your "Horses and Forces" title for the introduction, also "Yogi". In the conclusion you describe bit as energy or pure information you think about how we count as being arbitrary which I think you prove well. Also division by zero leading to uncertainty is a given.

Nice essay and good luck!

All the best,

Antony (Please take a look at my essay)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 02:24 GMT
Hi Kyle,

You have written another beautiful, enjoyable and informative essay.I read it a while ago. The first one, as I was sure it would be very good and not too difficult to follow. Glad to see others also clearly appreciating your entry in this thread.

Why should the forces be considered most fundamental in the hierarchy of fundamental concepts? (Perhaps you said and I didn't grasp it or have forgotten.) Best of luck, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David M Reid wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 04:43 GMT
Hi, Kyle,

I am glad to find an essay which has followed the requirement that it be written for the lay person. Your writing style is flowing and hence easy to read, so that one can get to your central arguments.

I was quite interested in your characterizations of mathematics and its relation to physics. The first thing I noticed was that you apparently list Newton as a physicist who had to do with mathematics: "While working

on his natural philosophy Newton made contact with this vast realm of math. Before

mathematicians knew of calculus, his mind was ignited by it." Yet Newton is considered (by mathematicians, at least) to have been not only a physicist but also a mathematician. He was not given all the mathematical tools necessary for his physics, but he (and Leibniz) invented the calculus. True, the inspiration came from physics, but that is often the case in mathematics.

Before my next comment, allow me to make sure I have one of your main points clear: you say that the subtleties of quantum mechanics are mathematical formulations for the minute realm but, as measurements are ultimately in the macro realm, one may regard Newtonian mechanics as more fundamental. An interesting viewpoint, but there are phenomena on the macro realm which do not obey Newtonian mechanics, such as the two-slit experiment, tunneling, superconducting, etc.

Also, in your characterization, you seem to say (correct me if I am wrong) that the more abstract the mathematics which characterizes a physical phenomenon, the more tenuous its claim to being fundamental. Yet there are many who would claim the contrary, saying that mathematics is a formulation of the thought processes which provide the framework for our perception of physical phenomena.

Your essay raises a number of other philosophical questions -- which is the mark of a good essay. I enjoyed reading it.

All the best, David

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:29 GMT
Kyle,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergio Miguel wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 20:49 GMT
Hi, I have read your article. It was very interesting since the historical point of view but I am disagree about information and computation belong to math, they are physical concepts. A proof is that the limit of computation depends of nature(whether hypercomputation is possible or not). You can see my point of view in "Nature from the bit and beyond".

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 03:30 GMT
Dear Kyle,

Your essay authenticates that the causality of information is force, indicating the continuum nature of information. Thus in String-matter continuum scenario of universe, information is the transfer of matter with energy that is the transfer of eigen-rotational string-matter segment with Hamiltonian .

With best wishes

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 01:44 GMT
Dear Kyle, Hello. Apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 01:47 GMT
Dear Kyle,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 05:18 GMT
Kyle,

Interesting discussion.

How do you differentiate the subatomic world from the macro world which is often used to prove concepts, but seemingly used as a behavioral equivalent?

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:21 GMT
Dear Kyle,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.