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 21:54pm UTC, wrote Dear R.J., I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Peter Jackson: on 7/31/13 at 12:11pm UTC, wrote RJ, Hope you do get to read and comment on (and score!) my essay, which is...

Akinbo Ojo: on 7/30/13 at 9:56am UTC, wrote Hello RJ, You didn't comment on my earlier post. No matter as you may have...

Sreenath N: on 7/22/13 at 18:23pm UTC, wrote Dear Michie, I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on...

R.J. Michie: on 7/17/13 at 21:25pm UTC, wrote Antony, I really appreciate it! I will look at your essay too!

Antony Ryan: on 7/17/13 at 14:45pm UTC, wrote Dear R.J, Nice essay - I really enjoyed it! I like that you have attacked...

R.J. Michie: on 7/15/13 at 21:28pm UTC, wrote Thanks Peter. I will take a look at your post.

Peter Jackson: on 7/15/13 at 11:22am UTC, wrote RJ. Auto-logout strikes again! That was me; "The Intelligent Bit" Peter


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...


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
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Formation-by-Information by R.J. Michie [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author R.J. Michie wrote on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 15:50 GMT
Essay Abstract

Have you ever wondered if the postulates and principles of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Classical physics could be thrown away? Is it possible to start with a single axiomatic notion that effortlessly brings together all of the currently disjoined branches of physics?

Author Bio

R.J. Michie is the author of the book "Faster Than Light: The New Physics". Following his revolutionary new theory of physics based on information, R.J. Michie offers a deeper and more exciting insight into why we should change the way we look at the Universe.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 16:00 GMT
Mr Michie,

Please do allow me to explain how to discard all of the postulates and principles of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Classical Physics and define for you a single common-sense truth about reality.

John Wheeler apparently contended that the fundamental representation of all information was abstract 0 and 1. I contend that reality can only be truthfully represented by the symbol ① Think of real things such as eggs or atoms or peaches. There is a real core and there is a real surrounding area, even if that real surrounding area may consist of real light and real heat and real space. Abstract 0 and 1 are dependent on all manner of abstract conditions such as proximity and alignment and sequence. That is why reality can only be unique and never binary.

Indubitably, living and non-living entities presently exist simultaneously on earth. But there must be some differentiating impulse that inspires the two clearly opposite conditions and the only one I can think of is belief. Some people believe in God, some people believe in the efficacy of Quantum Mechanics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author R.J. Michie wrote on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 21:31 GMT
Joe,

I don't understand this. Perhaps your line of thinking is a bit too religious for what I am talking about. I am talking about information as reality, and a clear mathematical path to connect this premise with what's known as Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Gravity.

Just fyi, the notion of digital representation is not important. Lots of folks are hung up on "0" and "1" as some sort of a symbol of "digital" nature of the Universe. The encoding of information has nothing to do with anything.

As for your comment about the "real thing", consider that you can never know what the "real thing" is. You can only describe it. This is axiomatic and points to informational nature of reality. "Real things" always need more of "real things" (just tinier and more mysterious) to describe them. "Real things" are a myth in science. It is synonymous with "turtles all the way down". It's a cat chasing its own tail. It leads nowhere.

thanks for posting, have a great day!

RJ

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 15:41 GMT
Mr. Michie,

I was rather astonished by your contention that “The world of Physics (as it stands right now) has two separate realities:…” The world of reality I inhabit only has one unique one, once. Question: How many realities did the world of physics have prior to right now? If it only had one, what caused the increase?

I do hope you are not trying to tell me that I cannot be a real person and know what reality is because I do not know how the abstract informational Universe that you know of operates? As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, The real Universe only deals in absolutes. All information is abstract and all and every abstract part of information is excruciatingly difficult to understand. Information is always selective, subjective and sequential. Reality is not and cannot ever be selective subjective and sequential.

One (1) real Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real “speed” of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.

Please refrain from ever again arrogantly telling me that I cannot know what is real.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author R.J. Michie replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 20:41 GMT
John,

Only the scientific method can decide how reality operates and how we can use that knowledge to our advantage. The theory I authored produces the most important equations of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics out of thin air, just by using axiomatic premise that nothing happens without use of information.

Can you say the same? Can you produce those equation in a way that does not require heuristics in the form of postulates?

What you said is essentially whatever the current authority in physics says it is. For example, that "light is the absolute of speed", or "traveling is the absolute of conveyance method".

Also, please don't take any of this personally. As I said, you are mixing spiritual and religious with scientific. You can believe anything you want.

The scientific method is the only way for us as a species to progress. At times, and this is one of those times, we need to step up and consider the possibility that Santa Claus isn't real. We need to grow up and admit that the postulates of Einstein and Heisenberg are just good hunches and that the truth has eluded us until now. It's time to move on. I am offering a path beyond colorful hypothesis and principles. Physics shouldn't be a slogan contest.

On the other hand, you have to understand that my essay is just that: an essay. There is so much more to my ideas. I invite you to learn more by reading my book at:

Faster than Light: Here and Now

I am sure my theory will stand the test of a true inquiring mind, and despite a bit of a rough debate here, I believe you want to know the truth. The truth will set us free, they say, and in this case, it's the freedom to shelve the telescopes and go see the stars in person. Isn't that worth a bit of contemplation?

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 15:37 GMT
My name is Joe. Hawking did not know the name of the scientist the alleged silly old lady spoke with about the turtles. He thought it might have been Bertrand Russell. How likely would it be for a real old lady to attend, let alone rise and make a statement, at a real lecture on mathematics? Hawking lied about the little old lady. Hawking lied to his wife all the time. But I did not take your snide remark about how synonymous my grasp of reality was to that of the turtle lady personally.

Like all arrogant, ignorant white males, you assume that things, including informational systems can be completely fabricated from bits. This would be harmless if it was not for the fact that you think that nature operates in the same way, or, at least must do so fundamentally.

While abstract physics concepts are always perfect, an abstract 0 always remains perfect as does an abstract 1 ever retain its perfect whole value, no physical proof of either condition can be produced. Reality is unique. The Universe is unique. While one can say that one is thinking, or one is adding, or one is experimenting, one can never say sensibly that one is uniqueing.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 00:07 GMT
Dear Sir,

You have correctly pointed out that the material world isn’t anything but the information we can collect about it. But when you say only the information is foundational, you are really applying the Occam’s razor and throwing the baby with the bath water. Information can be only about some observable. If there is no observable, there cannot be information. The observable is the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author R.J. Michie replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 07:15 GMT
You raise questions that perfectly exemplify the present world-view, or a paradigm if you will.

In this paradigm, there are two parallel worlds: one of "real stuff" and one of its "properties". For example, an electron is "real" and its charge and spin are its "properties". This is considered so, even if we can't say absolutely nothing about what an electron really is. We can only say...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author R.J. Michie replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 07:28 GMT
Here is the reply to the second part of your post. It refers to the cause and effect combined to application of force. I think the crucial question you pose here is how is information used across space, so that force can exist? Correct me if I misunderstood your post.

The answer, in short, is that information originates in a single point in space, but it exists everywhere, instantly. The density of information declines with the square of distance. There are very good reasons for this. They are explained in the book. If every book, or even a paper, could be compressed into an essay, and then as random comments about it, everyone would be writing essays. I hope you understand this. I am sorry if you find my mention of the book as an attempt to monetize on it. If you are an Amazon Prime member, you can borrow it for free.

Everything I say here must sound incomplete and kind of off-handed. I understand that. Again, read the book and things may clear up for you. If you don't want to, that's your business.

Bookmark and Share


Author R.J. Michie replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 07:49 GMT
And finally, a comment on "previous" and "current" information.

I am not trying to describe any algorithm whatsoever. Not at all. But I do know what framework Nature must use for information processing. I do know why certain aspects of information use must be the way they are. My work is in the much broader context that looking at some clever algorithms as a hammer, and everything in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 11:49 GMT
Dear Sir,

Welcome to the contest. The only aspect I will be commenting on is "This is the “time dilation” in Special Relativity, deduced without any postulates".

It is unfortunate that phrases like 'time dilation', 'length contraction', 'velocity of light is a constant' are frequently being made without regard to the full context in which they must be stated. For example, the 'time dilation' in Special relativity is the mechanism which Einstein proposes to prevent the earlier arrival of light to an observer moving towards incoming light which would have otherwise occurred due to a higher RESULTANT velocity.

Such earlier arrival was not seen in the Michelson-Morley experiment in spite of motion towards the light. Neither was delay seen due to motion away from incoming light (explained with length contraction).

Note that in other experiments like Sagnac's and with the GPS, 'time dilation' fails to prevent earlier arrival of signals and thus higher resultant velocity is observed (i.e. c+v).

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 00:33 GMT
Dear Sir,

Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author R.J. Michie replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 08:01 GMT
Good points, Sir. I have talked in the book much about these "tricks" Einstein used. I called them out for what they are: cheating. However, don't get me wrong. Einstein was my childhood hero. I consider him a genius. What he had done for his era was astounding. But I got over it. And so will everyone else, eventually.

Now, I will mention one important result of my theory: the speed of light is constant "c" relative to a dominant source of information. In the case of all of us, living here on Earth, it is the Earth to which the speed of light is relative to, for all the experiments performed near it.

Away from Earth, for example, close to the Sun, the speed of light is "c" relative to the Sun. As a photon approaches Earth, it becomes "c" relative to Earth. This is easy to substantiate.

If so, then explaining Michelson Morley is trivial. A photon always moves at speed "c" relative to the dominant information source, which in case of Michelson, Morley, and all other diligent experimenters since, is Earth.

One more interesting tidbit. It turns out that the speed of light (300,000km/s) is the slowest of all possible maximum speeds.

The maximum local speed can be many different values, and the value of 300,000 km/s is the lowest of them. It can be shown in no uncertain terms that a much larger mass can accelerate past 300,000 km/s, when away from large bodies.

Again: the speed of a photon is the slowest of all possible maximum speeds. The math to show this is in the book.

Bookmark and Share


Author R.J. Michie replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 08:24 GMT
Basudeba,

here is the answer to your discussion about waves.

I understand your analysis. Einstein eliminated the "medium" in order to justify his postulates.

However, if an informational approach can produce what's known as "time dilation" equations, and if this approach doesn't presuppose the postulate of light speed, and if it doesn't preclude the existence of medium, then...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 14:25 GMT
Dear R.J.Michi,

Excellent essay, good comments and wonderful conclusion: It is clear that anew kind of physics is needed.

Just one question: what is the first axiom that if you take a well-honed Occam's razor?

Good luck, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author R.J. Michie replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 04:30 GMT
The first axiom is that nothing specific (i.e. non-random) can happen without the use of information.

This is, by itself, axiomatic unless we consider present-day physics where specific things are said to happen because of a physical law. It is in fact, a non explanation. The very foundation of law-based physics is a giant postulate, and an impossible one to accept by reason.

It's a peculiar human condition where declaring a 'law' seems to turn critics into believers, just because this law works out mathematically. This isn't enough. You can reverse engineer many things and the math works out, but you still have no idea how it works. This simple conundrum somehow escaped the physics community for centuries.

I am driving home the idea that nothing, not even Nature, can escape the reach of this axiom.

RJ

Bookmark and Share



John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 19:19 GMT
R.J,

Nice read. Definitely reminded me of the premise of my essay at its core when you wrote:

"Not even electrons or protons can display any specific behavior without the use of information"

But I must ask, and I have toiled w/ this question a bit as well, does information 'compose' stuff or just 'guides' stuff? Can one truly precede the other?

Take care.

JM

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author R.J. Michie replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 04:50 GMT
JM,

information composes stuff.

We are presented with inherent inability to know what stuff is. We can only know some facts about it. If you think about it, if you have a conceptually unknowable entity mingled with information, all you really have is information.

Even the very existence of any specific information can be tied to the lack of information about whether such information should exist or not.

I talk a lot more about this in my book. In a nutshell, an axiomatic case can be presented that solidly props information as the only foundational and truly the final aspect of any reality.

It is a big shift in physics, but one that is inevitable.

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 21:35 GMT
Dear R.J

All of current theories are not sure, it is not the truth. Must be the Truth is Absolute?

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author R.J. Michie replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 05:09 GMT
Sorry, I don't have a good answer to this. It's a question that goes beyond scientific (and ultimately axiomatic) and crosses over to the realm of faith and conviction.

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:26 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


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:33 GMT
R. J. Michie,

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


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear RJ,

A fascinating and nicely argued case for, in some ways, the logical conclusion of Wheelers proposal. Slightly unexpectedly I did find, at one level, great agreement with your argument. Certainly all we 'see' is information, which consists of quantum fluctuations. As 'matter' also only ultimately consists of quantum fluctuations then there is certainly an argument to put, which you...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 11:22 GMT
RJ. Auto-logout strikes again! That was me; "The Intelligent Bit"

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author R.J. Michie replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 21:28 GMT
Thanks Peter. I will take a look at your post.

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 12:11 GMT
RJ,

Hope you do get to read and comment on (and score!) my essay, which is better framed if you can look over my previous 2 (both 7th in community - but not prizewinners!). I'm now sorting out scoring an am pleased I still think yours should be well above it's current position, so glad to assist. Best of luck in the run in.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 14:45 GMT
Dear R.J,

Nice essay - I really enjoyed it! I like that you have attacked this from a very original and logical direction. Information being most fundamental because there is nothing without it. Great theory!

It made me think about my conclusion again, and I think rather than mine disagreeing with yours, I think that you may be right that all we have is information. This wouldn't contradict my essay. I still would say that information and reality are equal, but we need information to know about reality, but can't have one without the other!

Brilliant - thanks for some excellent thoughts - very interesting and relevant!

High rating from me!

Please take a look at my essay - hope you like it.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author R.J. Michie replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 21:25 GMT
Antony, I really appreciate it! I will look at your essay too!

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 18:23 GMT
Dear Michie,

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


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 09:56 GMT
Hello RJ,

You didn't comment on my earlier post. No matter as you may have been busy. Can you take a look at my essay. Also following my exchanges with other essayists on this forum judgement was delivered in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. In that judgement points and monads turnout to be the possible bits. This may have a bearing on your theory as space becomes a "something" rather than a "nothing" which you also tend to support in your promising theory.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear R.J.,

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.