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

Jeff Baugher: on 8/9/13 at 4:07am UTC, wrote Jacek, I went through Carolyn's essay but it appears she is no longer...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 19:32pm UTC, wrote Dear Jacek, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

George Kirakosyan: on 8/7/13 at 8:25am UTC, wrote Hi Jacek, I have once more check up my conversations in my forum and has...

Jeff Baugher: on 8/6/13 at 20:31pm UTC, wrote Poisson, not Newton..woops

Jeff Baugher: on 8/6/13 at 20:30pm UTC, wrote -1,1,1,1

Jeff Baugher: on 8/6/13 at 18:37pm UTC, wrote The missing LaTex portion reads:

Peter Jackson: on 8/6/13 at 18:30pm UTC, wrote Jacek, Catching up with scoring and read your essay again plus the...

Jeff Baugher: on 8/6/13 at 18:12pm UTC, wrote Jacek, I read the two Vixra papers and also your essay. Although there...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jorma Seppaenen: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 23, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: 3 worlds: Bit, It, Reality by Jacek Safuta [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jacek Safuta wrote on Apr. 26, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Essay Abstract

To find out the answer to the topical question "It from Bit or Bit from It?" we are looking for the relationship between three worlds of “Bit”, “It” and “Reality”. But do we agree what is the meaning of Bit, It, Reality? Answers can differ from one scientist to another. At that fundamental level of discussion the very important are two components: a common language that offers us established definitions and obviously some good math. The good math in terms of physics shall always be confronted with an experiment. Looking for that type of mathematics, we will propose the experiment that possibly allows us to prove whether John Wheeler’s “It from Bit” is right. The essay consists of only 5 pages (strictly speaking 2 - excluding abstract, references and technical endnotes).

Author Bio

Non-academic entrant but passionate about mathematics and physics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 15:22 GMT
Jacek,

Apparently you seem to be of the opinion that Albert Einstein was just as infallible about mathematics as the Pope is reputed to be on matters of concern to the Roman Catholic Faith. It was good to see the good old reliable physics abstract chestnut about the Big Bang theory in your utterly confusing chronologically mystifying computerized chart.

The Big Bang was listed as being [2} under the evolutionary succession of objects column. Basic definitions and notions (concept) seems to have come in as a show [3] in the third world territory. See, as a realist, I am convinced the Universe is only eternally occurring once. I do not have to perform the Orwellian mental gymnastics of having a Big Bang commencement of the Universe occur before I could ever think of whether a Bog Bang might have actually occurred. Surely, if there indeed was ever a Big Bang, it must have come a bit before the chicken and egg problem did.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 18:05 GMT
Hi Joe, thanks for your comment,

Under the table in my essay you can find explanation: “Unfortunately Einstein GR failed outside the Solar System [8]” So as you see Einstein’s mathematics is not my god. Just his equivalence principle is worth trying in another areas.

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 21:48 GMT
Jecek, I like the idea of your essay. I find it easy to accept that the ontology works in a cycle just as you describe. Some people have theories about a universe that is cyclic in time to avoid the question of first cause that dogs temporal causality. You have done the same thing for ontological causality with your cyclic ontology and I like that much better.

I think it would have been a good idea to include more about the experiment in the essay rather than referring to an external reference. You had plenty of space left to include it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 05:29 GMT
Thank you Philip,

You are absolutely right that it is not convenient to search in external references. So I have given a schematic explanation in Technical endnotes. You know, people prefer a short text that consumes less time to read. On the other hand it makes the essay more condensed and less clear. So anyway I agree.

And obviously I wanted to avoid the question of first cause by the cyclic ontology. I simply do not see any other reasonable candidate idea.

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 07:25 GMT
Jacek

It is very easy to avoid the 'first cause' syndrome. Just stop considering all the possible alternatives to our physical existence. We cannot know them, and therefore they are all just belief. That is, we can only know what it is potentially possible for us to know (which icludes proper hypothesising), and that is governed by a physical process, not philosophy.

By definition, we arrive at a point where we cannot know any more, and we need to accept that, rather than invoking beliefs which aledgedly transcend our existence and reveal facts. We cannot externalise ourselves from the existentially closed system in which we are trapped.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 07:52 GMT
Thank you Paul,

The way you propose to avoid the question of first cause seems to be a kind of escape, a giving up. Is there a place for a science? Or maybe I do not understand your point?

Bookmark and Share



Paul Reed wrote on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 07:12 GMT
Jacek

We are not looking for three worlds.

There is physical existence, and there is knowledge of it. We can only have knowledge, because we cannot externalise ourselves from our existence. But, because we are therefore in an existentially closed system, we can have objective knowledge within that constraint. In other words, we can compile knowledge of what exists independently (albeit limited by the physical process which enables that), by comparison and the identification of difference, until such time as that knowledge is proven (by default) to be correct, ie nothing new/different transpires. At which point we can deem that knowledge to be the equivalent of our physical existence, ie as opposed to ‘it is the best fit as at this time’. We can never in any sense, ‘directly access’ reality.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 07:58 GMT
Paul,

Probably I do not fully understand your opinion, but I agree with your statement:

“We can never in any sense, ‘directly access’ reality.” That is the issue of perception that I always touch in my publications.

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Apr. 29, 2013 @ 07:03 GMT
Jacek

This is not an issue of perception, where that means individualistic persectives or the generic result of sensory/brain processing.

We cannot 'directly access' reality because of 3 points:

1 There may be an alternative, we are only accessing via one mode

2 What we do receive is not the reality but a representation thereof (eg light)

3 We can only ever have knowledge of, we can never in any sense 'have' the reality, that is even the one within our closed system.

My point being that is you read the way many people express it, they invoke a reality against which they are then referencing some infrmation for validity. Whereas, in actual fact what they are doing is comparing knowledge with othr knowledge.

So the simple answer to what you don't understand about what I am saying is that there is not what you are calling reality. There is only something and knowledge of that.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Apr. 29, 2013 @ 07:37 GMT
Thanks Paul, you gave me the details and now I get your point.

And I agree. I have just called all these things (alltogether with brain processing)the perception. This is not clearly showed in my essay but in the references [5] and [2].

So we have the same understanding but different definitions of the perception.

Bookmark and Share



Wesley Wayne Hansen wrote on May. 3, 2013 @ 16:31 GMT
Jacek,

I read a few of your viXra papers to get a handle on your spacetime deformation evolution concept; it's an interesting concept. I also fail to see a logical reason to distinguish between apacetime and the "matter" embedded in it. To me it would seem all one continuous entity.

It"s interesting that you start with a primordial spacetime which somehow gets perturbed and this...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on May. 3, 2013 @ 19:19 GMT
Thanks Wes,

We are able to distinguish the spacetime and the "matter" embedded in it thanks to its dynamic geometry (wave). It is continuous but more “distracted” locally e.g. “denser” in a manner of Gaussian distribution.

My primordial conformally flat spacetime is highly speculative. It is just a concept to solve the chicken and egg problem. The “Darwinian” evolution is necessary here. In this speculation the known Universe is a wavepacket (as every smaller entity) and it travels through the conformally flat space. The time makes the change. So we do not need the prime mover. As in the biological evolution case. Have you tried to read The Selfish Gene twice? The second reading has opened my eyes much wider. And have you read The Extended Phenotype by Dawkins? That would give you incredible understanding of evolution (also feminine and masculine issues). I have heard of Goertzel in the context of artificial intelligence and I will take a closer look because he is very interesting personality. First of all I will try his book The Evolving Mind.

It is a good idea to rate essays much later. We have time to read more and compare.

Good luck Wes!

Bookmark and Share


Wesley Wayne Hansen replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 14:46 GMT
No, I have'nt read The Extended Phenotype, I'll have to check it out! Thanks for directing my attention to it and good luck to you as well!

With regards,

Wes Hansen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 17:09 GMT
"The mysterious connection between the three worlds is the self-organized spacetime ..... the spacetime geometry"

This mysterious connection may be the aether of Maxwell and Faraday, abandoned by physicists in the last century? Has Penrose - or you - considered this?

"...information can be immaterial, material or observer's description"

Wheeler has noted that info is immaterial. E.g., the words you are reading now have content independent of the encoding material... LCD screen, paper, sound waves, etc.

"reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one".

Not if the 5 senses give a faithful representation of their proper objects. What evidence supports Einstein's scientific idealism?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on May. 15, 2013 @ 11:46 GMT
Dear Robert,

I have not used the notion of aether because the spacetime is not the same as Maxwell’s aether. His aether was a background for moving solid particles and my spacetime is a fabric of particles. In my concept particles are waves (dynamic spacetime deformations) and that generates very clear prediction connected with the spin. I have proposed a simple experiment to prove or falsify that view. If I were right than we would not needed the wave–particle duality.

In my essay I have used the separated notions of ‘material’ and ‘immaterial’ because this is our language and only that way we can communicate.

‘…Not if the 5 senses give a faithful representation of their proper objects.’ So tell me how do you get the representation e.g. of an electron?

‘What evidence supports Einstein's scientific idealism?’ I do not support Einstein idealism and even his metric that failed outside the Solar System distance scale but only his idea that gravitation is not a force field but a manifestation of spacetime geometry. That exactly means that the gravitational force is an illusion and as far as I know all physicists accept that view.

I am waiting for your essay Robert.

Bookmark and Share


Robert Bennett replied on May. 22, 2013 @ 04:34 GMT
"my spacetime is a fabric of particles. "

-What dimensions is spacetime?...distance cubed times time?....how does this describe particles?

" Not if the 5 senses give a faithful representation of their proper objects." So tell me how do you get the representation e.g. of an electron?

The 5 senses CAN'T perceive an electron ..it's not a proper object for the senses. That's the point...any representation of an electron using sensory images is an illusion.

" I do not support Einstein idealism .... but only his idea ....of spacetime geometry. "

If you say reality is but an illusion, then this is either idealism or agnosticism. For example, how do you measure spacetime geometry in reality?...with a rulerclock? What's that?

"I am waiting for your essay Robert."

So am I. It takes more than a week to be published

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 17:25 GMT
"Einstein said: 'reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one'."

That's stretching a point too far. What Einstein actually said (on the death of his friend Besso) is that time -- in the sense of past, present and future -- is a stubbornly persistent illusion. Einstein was most certainly a proponent of objective reality.

I don't understand your essay yet -- I'll revisit it later.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on May. 15, 2013 @ 11:55 GMT
Dear Thomas,

You are right that I have quoted Einstein’s sentence out of context. However as I explained also in my post to Robert, I wanted to draw attention to Einstein’s idea that gravitation is not a force field but a manifestation of spacetime geometry. That exactly means that the gravitational force is an illusion and as far as I know all physicists accept that view.

Thank you and I am waiting for your essay.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on May. 24, 2013 @ 01:52 GMT
Dear Jacek

I enjoyed your essay and also read your "A Simple Spin Experiment" paper.

The schema you reproduced from Penrose beautifully summarizes the concepts of this contest. I sense that you have an excellent intuition about how to reform physics using a metric with a local energy. That is the same as Eddington's concept of using local density and an index of refraction to represent the deformations of spacetime in GR where light slows down in a gravitational field. I have incorporated this in my node lattice making up my Beautiful Universe Theory .

Your suggestion for a spin experiment is interesting - is it different from the phenomena that the Electric vector is reversed on reflection from a mirror? Also what exactly is a photon? Please peruse Eric Reiter's website showing that Einstein's photon is the wrong way to look on light quanta waves.

Best wishes Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 10:28 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

In BU theory you claim that the concept of flexible spacetime ‘works’ in (SR) and (GR), and that of probability waves ‘works’ in (QM), they are just mathematical ideas. In the case of QM I agree but in GR case I do not. I can explain it to you at very simple 2D example. Please, imagine two 2D animals starting to go from the Earth equator to the North pole. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 14:38 GMT
Thank you for your comments Jacek, and for taking the time to read my rather long paper, and those of Eric Reiter and La Frenier. As you say we agree about some things but not about others. I really dislike space and time deformation in Special Relativity introduced to omit the ether and thus make physics background independent. But why? Relativity will work just as well in an absolute background world where Lorentz transformations take care of changing clock time and length of measuring rods (not time and space distortions)

Yes the node mechanism I propose is a bit complicated, but if that is how Nature works it might explain everything we know (I hope!) - it makes GR very simple. I hope you will agree that gravity as a refraction effect works just as well as specetime distortion. But in BU simple motion of matter becomes rather convoluted! It is just a model of course and still in need of development and proof.

Your image of the 2D animals getting closer together heading towards the North pole is interesting but it will only work if they have some kind of momentum propelling them to the North, otherwise they can wander around at random!

The example would work better if they were falling in long shafts from the surface to the center of the Earth.

With best wishes, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 15:26 GMT
Vladimir, I do intend to omit the ether issue. My spacetime that has elastic properties is an entity you could call ether but this notion is completely ruined so this is the reason to avoid the ‘ether’. The ether as understood by Einstein was a background. So the ether as a background is not my idea and was easily destroyed by experiments.

2D animals that are getting closer together ‘think’ they 'fall' on each other. The North pole and the Equator are not known to them. They ‘think’ their Earth is flat like we perceive our 3D space. They can start to go parallel in every place on the sphere. I assume they have momentum to keep straight on and not to wander at random. It was my fault that I have used the North Pole and the Equator locations (because it is familiar to us 3D people living on Earth). I am sorry. So you see they cannot fall to the center as we cannot travel in 4D.

I hope this is clear.

Best regards

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 15:22 GMT
Jack,

I'm sure we do disagree about some things but they're difficult to tie down. As I don't support the notion of 'force' I certainly agree gravitational 'force' is a poor description. An illusion perhaps a little different. It is what we'd see if we drove at 0.5c past a string of fairground lights being lit up in turn at c. We would get the 'illusion' of 1.5c, but our 'driving past' of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 08:52 GMT
Peter,

I would tell you all that you want but how I could get the 'illusion' of 1.5c? Do you mean by a measuring instrument?

And what is a proper 'illusion'? In your essay you have only used the notion of Proper (Unchanged) Time?

Concerning my experiment it is about spin that was not measured in Quantum eraser case (a variation of classic double-slit experiment). I have been searching carefully for a similar experiment and I have found nothing. Probably the reason is that everyone is so sure about the result…?

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your question shows the depth of your knowledge. Your invitation shows your confidence and quest for truth. Hats off to you Sir! We will try to satisfy you.

Newton said both the apple and the Earth are stationary. Gravity pulls the apple to Earth. This itself is debatable, as nothing can be physically “pulled”. It is always a push from the opposite direction. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jacek Safuta wrote on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 16:28 GMT
Dear basudeba,

Thank you for the compliments.

Referring to your considerations on gravity I would like to propose you a simple thought experiment that I often use in that cases.

Imagine two 2D animals on the Earth surface starting to go parallel (it could be from the equator to the North pole but the Earth surface is a sphere so the start location does not matter). The distance between them is e.g. 100 meters. They continue exactly parallel to each other (e.g. perpendicularly to the equator). There is no rope binding them and no force trying to pull them together. But with every step they are a bit closer and closer as if a rope and binding force existed. Finally they hit one another (e.g. at the North pole or somewhere else depending on the start place). 2D animals ‘think’ they 'fall' on each other. They ‘think’ their Earth is flat like we perceive our conformally flat 3D space. Apparently that is the effect of geometry of the Earth surface (2D) which is not the Euclidean plane but a sphere. But 2D animals cannot see and understand the curvature of the Earth surface. They perceive a ‘gravitational force’. Add extra one dimension and you have well known gravity and us - 3D animals. We cannot perceive 3D curvature from inside 3D space. In my publications I have just tried to apply the same concept to the rest of known “force fields” i.e. electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear and even mass. It is speculative in the same degree as GR but finally as you know it is easily falsifiable with my spin experiment.

In my view gravity is not even the fundamental ‘force’ but emergent from another fundamental ‘forces’ as their superposition. This is still a geometrical effect but combined from many ingredients.

You say: basudeba is a person. But what is a person? For me a person is just a wavepacket like an electron or even the Universe.

Finally I agree that It from Bit or vice versa depends on definitions taken. I have noticed that fact in my essay.

Good luck!

Bookmark and Share


basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 02:21 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your thought experiment replicates the arguments of a nineteenth century fiction called “FLAT LANDS”, which inhibited 2-D creatures and the account of one of them after a visit to Earth. This has misguided everyone till date. Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the “internal structural space” from the “external relational space”. Since such...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 01:31 GMT
Dear Jacek Safuta

Your measure very interesting, but did not give only one of the final conclusion .

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 07:34 GMT
Dear Hoang,

As I understand you well you expect only one final answer: If from Bit or vice versa. My idea is rather a kind of circle. However my one fundamental concept for physics is only one - a kind of geometrization.

I will take a look at your essay.

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 07:57 GMT
Hello Jacek,

I found your essay a very pleasant read. I liked your use of diagrams and tables. I'd like to hear more about the experiment too.

Please take a look at my essay too.

Best Wishes

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 09:58 GMT
Hi Ryan,

I have known also from other entrants that the most likely my description is not clear enough and this is obviously my fault so I treat it as an occasion to improve. I will try to clarify.

In both experiments the point is that the photon is not a point particle (like in Standard Model) that is reflected from another point particle (one of many creating the mirror) but instead it travels around a “particle” (anyone being a part of the mirror) and comes back along a geodesic. The way it goes is a geodesic (acc. to my concept) because the mirror’s particle deforms the spacetime much enough (or simply it is that deformation itself). If our photon goes along the geodesic (straight line!) it does not change its spin.

Acc. to Standard Model the photon does not go around along a geodesic but it is simply reflected and as a cause of that reflection the spin is changed.

So it is a realization of the thought experiment.

I have proposed to use a photon and not e.g. an electron because the experiment is much easier to carry out by means of a polarization. The mirror is obviously not the same as a single particle deforming a spacetime (like in the thought experiment) but it is practical and relatively easy to use. The potential problem could be a photoelectric effect, Compton scattering or pair production.

It is good to hear from you because there is so many essays that barely impossible to read carefully all of them. I will take a look at your essay.

I am ready to clarify more if needed.

Best regards

Bookmark and Share


Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 10:00 GMT
And do not forget to rate my essay. Thank you!

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 12:04 GMT
Thanks for the clarification Jacek - I liked your essay - all the best Antony.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 19:57 GMT
Dear Jacek,

I like your essay, short but useful. I would say that Popper's third world, Penrose and you call it reality, has something to do with the contextual world of quantum mechanics. I should think more about that, contexts refer to what is compatible with the questions we ask and it is certainly related to the third world of culture. But quantum mechanical contexts may be quite far from philosophical categories, in QM compatibility means commutativity of the observables.

Best wishes,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 10:25 GMT
Yes, contextual nature of quantum measurement is one of that properties that distinguish quantum theory from classical theories. And my essay is closer to philosophical approach than my other publications.

Thanks for your comment and best regards

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 09:35 GMT
Hi Jacek,

Thanks for going through my essay. I will comment on your essay after I go through it.

Best wishes,

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 09:19 GMT
Dear Jacek,

I went through your short but lucid essay with enthusiasm. As you have said in your post, it is true that we agree in our final analysis on the triangular nature of reality. You have also talked of 'New quantum geometrodynamics with a new universal metric' and such a metric you may find in my 2012 fqxi essay contest in my paper on QG.

I will soon rate your essay.

Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 16:02 GMT
Thank you Sreenath,

I did not time last year to take a part in the contest so I will check out your 2012 essay with pleasure.

You are right that time is coming to rate the essays. A lot of work.

Best regards

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 01:08 GMT
Jacek,

“We can never in any sense, ‘directly access’ reality.” Are you saying that we each have our own reality? If so, what is yours?

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 14:29 GMT
Dear Jim,

I am absolutely not saying that we each have our own reality. It is anthropic kind of approach. I think that there is only one reality but we perceive that reality by our perception. The perception is a composition of our physical limitations (senses, brain, technical possibilities), our culture and language we use and at last our misconceptions e.g. we know that the gravitation is not a force field but a manifestation of spacetime geometry but we are able to feel a force and we are not able to feel geometry.

The sentence “We can never in any sense, ‘directly access’ reality.” is not taken from my essay but my question is what does it mean ‘directly access’? It is also the issue of our perception.

Thank you Jim for reading and commenting. I will take a look at your essay even though there is not a lot of time to the end of the contest and the majority of us is normally working. It is not easy to read all essays and especially these submitted at the last moment.

Best regards and good luck!

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 03:47 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 01:55 GMT
Hello Jacek,

I found your essay interesting and bold, and this for two reasons. I find it interesting because of the manner of presentation, i.e. tabulated. But you haven't mentioned where the meaning of "bit" originated, that is, in computer science, and so I suspect its original meaning is swept under the rug by most because it doesn't suit anymore.

Secondly, and if I got this right, you suggest that all fields of force should be thought of in the same terms a gravity, and I quote:

"**from Albert Einstein we know that gravitation is not a force field but a manifestation of spacetime geometry (only our perception causes that gravitation seems to be a force). Why not apply the same concept to the rest of known "force fields" i.e. electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear?"

In Wheeler's universe it seems we are all required to jump in one direction or another. Here I find myself jumping in the opposite direction to you, and Einstein, that is, in Hierarchical Space-Time gravity has a particle-wave duality not unlike those of the other forces, moreover, centripetal gravity doesn't even start at the centre, and if I am right all the calculation in the world which depend on there being a "centre of gravity" will miss the point by this (' ') much.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 07:44 GMT
Hi Zoran,

That is possible you are right. There is only one way to check it out - the concept/theory shall generate clear predictions and an experiment shall verify it. That is the reason I have proposed such an experiment (possible to carry out) verifying predictions of my concept.

In the current contest we have got more than 100 essays and it is impossible to read and comment all of them and I think we are tired. I do not know your idea but I will take a look and maybe leave a comment if I am competent in the field.

Best regards

Bookmark and Share


Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 21:38 GMT
Jacek,

I believe you will appreciate my prediction concerning the relationship between the diameter of a black hole's even horizon and its gravitational attraction, but we may have to wait a few years to see how that turns out.

Yes, there are a lot of entries, and more to come I believe.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:13 GMT
Jacek,

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. 4, 2013 @ 12:51 GMT
Hello Jaceck

I am very intriguing about you experiment and it is a very good idea but I can not agree with the definitions of the concepts and conclusions. Information and computation are physical concepts no mathemathical. Most people take historical roots of the concepts as an element to label the concepts but it is not correct. Information and computation depend on the universe in which we are living. If we were living in a different universe, information and computation would be different. However, transfinite numbers are independet of the universe where we are living because they are mathematical. I wrote an article talking about this "Nature from the bit and beyond" if u want to read it.

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 16:17 GMT
Hi Sergio,

I think that information and computation are both physical and mathematical concepts. My (and also Einstein's and Wheeler's) idea is geometrodynamical (mathematical and physical at the same time). I assume that I will find an explanation and some arguments in your essay. I will read it soon and leave you some comments if I am competent...

I feel that you are graduated in informatics. So maybe you will find it interesting to find why QM and GR are computable and deterministic, but the universe evolution (as naturally evolving self-organized critical system) is non-computable and non-deterministic? http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0026

Best regards and good luck!

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 01:56 GMT
Dear Jacek. Hello, and 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

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 09:04 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I have read, commented and rated your really interesting essay.

Regards

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 15:52 GMT
Hi Jacek -

It is interesting to consider how we might define It, But, and Reality in terms of an evolving observer, one who makes decisions at every moment, and over a very long period of time, during which his relation to the physical world - his own biological configuration, if you will - is continuously altered.

If evolution affects us at every moment (and it is impossible to argue that it doesn't) then It from Bit is true: We live in a Species Cosmos that is being evolved from ourselves. However, it can and should be countered that we do seem to possess a certain objectivity - that Bits appear to be founded upon a reality greater than the continually evolving Species Cosmos - a reality where our logical and scientific parameters are less applicable, and often not applicable at all.

You might be interested to see how I treat this evolutionary argument as a realist interpretation of the field of reality, thus expanding the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler.

I believe my perspective provides a structure you might find useful.

I have rated your essay, and wish you all the best,

John.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 16:45 GMT
Dear John, thanks for your comment.

I am just after my holidays and I am going to read some more essays (including yours).

Best regards

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 12:45 GMT
Hi Jacek,

I simply loved your "Three worlds connection analysis"! Although you have a different approach to information than I do, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit.

Good luck in the competition!

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear Manuel,

It is a great pleasure to get such comment.

I am going to get acquainted with your approach to information as soon as possible.

Best regards

Bookmark and Share


Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 15:49 GMT
Jacek,

I look forward to your review...

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 09:48 GMT
I have just left some comments on your essay’s forum and some more on your e-mail.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 19:32 GMT
Hello Jacek,

In addition to this summary of the analytical essay, made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, I have read your work vixra:

Safuta J., Spacetime Deformations Evolution Concept. vixra.org/abs/1102.0026 (2011)

Safuta J., Spacetime Deformations Theory. vixra.org/abs/1006.0005 (2010)

Safuta J., A simple spin experiment. viXra.org/abs/1304.0027 (2013)

You did well to reduced svao ideas to the table. Get crisp and clear, in the spirit of Cartesius. The general conclusion: deep philosophical approach to the ground of being, "to grasp" the nature of the information. Most importantly, you are trying to connect the spirit of Hegel and the spirit of Popper. Excellent, the secret of the world - in the triad! I invite you to visit my forum and evaluate essays. We're finding with you in the same mind.

Only one question. Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence».

http:/ / www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 10:03 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you very much for reading my publications and for your appreciation.

In a couple of days I will read your essay and leave there a comment if I am competent.

Trying to download Alexander’s publication I have found the link you gave me does not work. Try again.

http:/ / www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

Best regards

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 20:32 GMT
Hello Jacek,

Here is a direct link A. Zenkin SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev
.htm

I'm waiting for you on my forum.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 11:25 GMT
Hello Jacek,

Short but beautiful is the best way to describe your essay and that is no flattery! Why do I say so? That Table 1, 'Three worlds connection analysis' captures so much of what I did in long words in my own essay. As you showed in answering the question, the Platonic world would be important.

But I am not sure experiment can answer the question 'It from Bit' or 'Bit from It'. I think that question can best be answered by dialectic and philosophical arguments that can resolve one or the other possibility to an absurdity. That was my approach and I think you will like it.

Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, perhaps you will like to view the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT which I wrote after my essay was submitted.

Then, of course if you like my contribution give me a rating.

Thanks,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 12:38 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Judge: What of extended points?

Jacek: Your honor, I agree that all is geometry. It is not easy to abandon the idea of a universe made of matter and embrace the vision of a reality made of a pure (conformally flat, isotropic, elastic, homeomorphic and self-organized) spacetime. We shall be looking for that one, universal, distance scale invariant metric (eventually reducing to Einstein GR metric within Solar System distance scale) and having ability to generate predictions. The first prediction of that geometrization concept is the spin experiment outcome. Depending on the outcome we shall look for a proper metric or give up.

Judge: The hearing is suspended until the spin experiment is carried out!

-------

You are absolutely right that we seem to have been led along the wrong road. I do not mean that I agree with you in 100%. E.g. I would exchange your extended points for wavepackets (spacetime deformations) as fundamental objects of geometry. This is not the same in details but they are also extended objects. That is a way to reduce physics to geometry.

I like your approach and I think that philosophy is very important to understand the reality (for teaching purposes) but in my opinion it is not enough to prove anything (for judgment) in the field of physics. My experiment is not described in the essay (my fault as I had a lot of place). It is the best to read full description here: http://vixra.org/abs/1304.0027

We differ in some issues but I think your essay deserves the high rating!

Best regards,

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 00:59 GMT
Dear Jacek,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:12 GMT
Jacek,

I read the two Vixra papers and also your essay. Although there are some minor differences, you are correct in that we certainly are speaking of the same concept. All of these are now how I also have come to view gravity and wave/particles, albeit through a different path:

"The reason of the gravity phenomenon is that the gravity force of e.g. a planet is a sum (wave packet)...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:37 GMT
The missing LaTex portion reads:

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 20:30 GMT
-1,1,1,1

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 20:31 GMT
Poisson, not Newton..woops

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:30 GMT
Jacek,

Catching up with scoring and read your essay again plus the response to my post above. Your chart suddenly started to make more sense to me. In fact my essay is all about spin not measured in the quantum eraser and Bell Inequalities cases.

I'm afraid I'm also a non-professional, but has anybody with a lab offered to do the experiment yet?

The 'optical illusion' I referred is the case of 'co-ordinate' not 'Proper' time.

If you are driving past a bus when someone fires a bullet in it the bullet speed c that you see is c+v or c-v, but those are arbitrary, not the real "propagation speed" of the bullet. I'm simply saying that (as my last essay showed) space is also a diffuse medium with propogation at c as the SR postulates. The problem of CSL is resolved because 'inertial systems' have REAL spatial boundaries formed by scattering surfaces. All matter is then an inertial system.

This is difficult to first grasp due to conditioning, but is the giant 'elephant in the room' which appears when you do. Let me know if you get a glimpse, or if you don't believe in elephants!

(It was hiding in the spin the quantum eraser didn't measure)

Best wishes

peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 08:25 GMT
Hi Jacek,

I have once more check up my conversations in my forum and has find that I still not rated your essay that I has intended to do. Sorry my dear! Now I am going to do it and to give you ,,high,, score (with compensation of my non considerability!)

Best wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:32 GMT
Dear Jacek,

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.