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

Roger Granet: on 8/8/13 at 1:45am UTC, wrote Paul, Hi. Thanks for reading my essay! I'll read your essay tonight...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 21:57pm UTC, wrote Dear Roger, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Roger Granet: on 8/7/13 at 4:37am UTC, wrote Peter, Hi. Yep, I read and commented on your essay on June 15th. I...

Peter Jackson: on 8/6/13 at 17:06pm UTC, wrote Roger, Thanks for your response to my 12th June post above. Just...

Roger Granet: on 8/6/13 at 3:36am UTC, wrote Amazigh, Hi. Thanks for the comments! I'll check out your essay this...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/6/13 at 0:16am UTC, wrote Dear Roger, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Roger Granet: on 7/26/13 at 5:02am UTC, wrote Than, Hi. Thanks for the comments. I absolutely agree that the same...

Than Tin: on 7/26/13 at 4:32am UTC, wrote Dear Roger Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

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

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

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

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." 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 21, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: It from Bit or Bit from It? Maybe, It Doesn't Matter by Roger Granet [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Roger Granet wrote on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 15:57 GMT
Essay Abstract

Here, I suggest that whether the fundamental building block of our reality is called an "it" or a "bit" doesn't matter; instead, the essential feature of this building block is that it's an existent state. I further propose that more and faster progress towards a deeper understanding of the nature of existence could be made if we argued less about whether or not to call this state an "it", a "bit" or anything else, and worked more on figuring out what the properties of a generic existent state might be and how these properties could be used to build a model of the universe. Using this "philosophical engineering" approach, a simple physical-mechanical model of an expanding space that displays a symmetry breaking event and energy creation was developed.

Author Bio

I work as a biochemist in Columbus, OH. I have a Master's Degree in Molecular and Cell Biology and an MBA. I have a lifelong interest in thinking about the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and related topics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 15:02 GMT
Roger,

May I please make a comment about your essay? After a promising opening of “Existence is an existent state.” (You might have added “is an existent state” paraphrasing Gertrude Stein’s wise contention that “a rose is a rose is a rose”) the essay then lapsed into a great deal of wispy abstract speculation that was rather difficult for me to follow.

As I have gone to great pains to point 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.

This is the only reason there is only unique something once.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 11:13 GMT
Nice essay Roger,

My comment to Franklin Hu's essay applies equally to yours. And you are perfectly right when you say "I think this type of fundamental, bottom-up, logic-based thinking, which I refer to as "philosophical engineering", may be more productive in thinking about the nature of existence than arguing, in endless mathematical and/or philosophical complexity, what to call the fundamental building block of existence. If you read my essay you will see that there is no need re-inventing the wheel. That building block is (with slight modification)the same old 'monad' of the Pythagoreans, Proclus, Leibniz, etc . Now dressed in modern form as Cellular Automata by Edward Fredkin, Stephen Wolfram, etc in 'Digital Philosophy/Physics'.

All the best,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 16:49 GMT
Akinbo,

Hi. Thanks for the nice comments and for reading my essay. I agree with you about how monads, cellular automata, and my existent states are pretty much the same. It sounds like many of us are thinking along the same lines. On the cellular automata front, they may be doing this, but I wish they'd think more in three dimensions and about spheres. Also, their rules must come from the properties of the automata themselves.

I look forward to reading your essay tonight! Thanks again!

Roger

Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 14:03 GMT
Thanks for your comments on my blog. I read your essay a second time and I am certain we both have a meeting point down the line.

Now more dialectic arguments to contemplate

RE: You say more or less, "I suggest to build a model of the universe that … the fundamental building block of our reality… is an existent state "

What separates the fundamental building blocks? If nothing that is existent separates them, then they are continuous rather than discrete? This tickled my brain till I looked in the direction of 'time' rather than 'space' to do the separation.

RE: You say, "If these identical, spherical existent states were totally inflexible and non-changing, ... Nothing would ever happen, and there would be no energy or movement".

How does movement take place in such a universe? Are the building blocks pushed out of the way? Can they be pushed out of the way if they have no mass to enable action-reaction according to Newton's third law?

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 03:27 GMT
Akinbo,

Hi. I agree that our thoughts seem to be converging somewhat along with those of Franklin Hu, Kjetil Hustveit and some other essayists. It seems to make more sense to think this way, so it makes me wonder why I don't see more of it from physicists?

1. On what separates the fundamental building blocks (monads/existent states), I would say:

What separates...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 02:52 GMT
Dear Sir,

The term “philosophical engineering” appears to be an oxymoron. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. Engineering is the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures. Thus, while one is an intellectual exercise,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 03:37 GMT
Basudeba,

Hi. Thanks for the feedback!

When I said "philosophical engineering", it's just a phrase I liked that kind of summed up how I was talking about what are traditionally thought of as abstract concepts (existent states, spheres, etc.) but treating them as existent states and trying to build a model of the universe out of them. I don't distinguish between abstract concepts and other existent states. Abstract concepts are just existent states in the brain and traditional concrete objects are existent states outside the brain. No one has yet been able to show me where the Platonic realm is.

In trying to think about where everything comes from, where does perception come from? At some more fundamental level, there must have been some existent state (set of physical/mathematical laws, quantum fluctuation, etc.) that was able to give rise to a universe in which perceptions exist.

There are many things that look totally different when seen by different "perceptions", or minds. But, the underlying thing is still the same. Is that what you were trying to get at?

Thank you again for reading the essay!

Roger

Bookmark and Share


basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 18:16 GMT
Dear Sir,

We were highly impressed by your reply - at least you have taken our post in the right spirit and have not turned abusive for questioning some of your views. Perhaps it is because you are from a different discipline, where physical experimentation leads theory - not fantasy and fiction. We recommend you to kindly read our essay. May be you will get more ideas.

Regards,

basudeba.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 04:29 GMT
Basudeba,

Hi. Your posting didn't seem mean spirited at all, so I don't mind people questioning and disagreeing with my views when they're not mean about it. Some people get downright nasty, and it is kind of hard to restrain myself with them, but usually, it's just not worth it.

Did you enter an essay in the last contest (analog versus digital)? I vaguely remember your name.

I look forward to reading your essay! Thanks!

Roger

Bookmark and Share



Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 05:27 GMT
Hello Roger.

This is my first contribution to this forum, in fact, any forum, and I chose your essay because it strikes a chord with some of my own thinking. I intend to enter my own essay next week; just crossing t's and dotting i's at present. What I'm struggling with in your essay, though, is how to interpret "existent state", does it mean primordial form with substance, or just primordial form? I ask this question because "Philosophical Engineering", whatever that may mean, would have you determine which came first, the form or the substance. In philosophy the term à priori refers to that which precedes, and the grand master of its use, Emmanuel Kant, associates pure à priori with form, but even he can not do away with substance. I would also like to ask you, since you mentioned faith, and indeed anyone else who may whish to answer this question, whether it is realistic to believe we can answer the essay question without treading on the toes of theology? Is it that the site does not sanction essays with implications for theology?

ZM

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 04:54 GMT
Zoran,

Hi. Thanks for reading my essay and for the feedback!

The phrase "philosophical engineering" was just a catchy sounding phrase I liked that kind of summed up how I was talking about what are traditionally thought of as abstract concepts (existent states, spheres, etc.) but treating them as existent states and trying to build a model of the universe out of them.

I'm not familiar enough with Kant's philosophy to talk about "form" and "substance", but I think from what little I know, my existent states are like his "substance". I don't distinguish between abstract concepts and other, physical/concrete existent states. Abstract concepts are just existent states in the brain that are made of neuronal interconnections, molecules, etc., and traditional concrete objects are existent states outside the brain. No one has yet been able to show me where a Platonic realm is.

I agree totally that all these questions about what our existence is made of (it/bit, something/nothing, etc.) could also be answered theologically. I can't speak for whether or not the fqxi site would sanction essays related to theology, but I haven't seen any rules against it. My own views are more mechanical and materialistic, but when it comes to proof, I can't prove why there's something rather than nothing any more than any scientist or any theologian.

I look forward to your essay! Thanks!

Roger

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 15:27 GMT
Roger,

What a wonderful dose of realism, right out of the top drawer. I liked your 'philosophical engineering', though I'd anticipate a few here won't! I used philosophical realism last year (and real 3D properties of state this year in fact) but reality is seen as anti mathematics so has a mixed reception. I agree entirely a real 3D existent state.

What I disagree with is a simple sphere, and I cite a lot of real modern optics to logically propose another continuously curved form, the torus, though emissions are spherical (infinitely many interacting expanding 'spherelets' in fact!) However, when toroids combine to form massive particles there would also be a spherical 'surface'. But the important think is I apply it physically to solve a bit paradox, so I hope that excites you to read it and give me your views. (I also 'split off' and shed metaphysics!).

Well done for yours, nice and easy to read. I don't care if it was a bit short, in fact I probably tried to cram too much into mine building the case so it may be more work to read! Your's deserves not to be languishing and I'll be helping when I score it. Long live physical reality!

Best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 05:06 GMT
Peter,

Hi. Thanks for reading my essay and for the nice comments!

I know what you mean about the pro-mathematical bias. Physicists and philosophers of science seem to have undergone "regulatory capture" (I heard that term on the news about how regulators are captured by pro-Wall Street or other special interest group type thinking) by mathematics. And, you're right that "philosophical engineering" has gotten a mixed reception. I just thought it was a catchy sounding phrase that kind of summed up how I was talking about what are traditionally thought of as abstract concepts (existent states, spheres, etc.) but treating them as physically real, concrete, existent states and trying to build a model of the universe out of them.

I agree that the important thing about our ideas is how we might be able to use them to solve real physics issues and make testable predictions. It sounds like you've made more progress in your thinking than me. I've got a long ways to go before I can make any predictions.

In regard to Platonic realms, no one has ever been able to point one of these out to me. If someone can, that realm would still be an existent state like any other.

I look forward to reading your essay and thinking about toroids! Thanks again!

Roger

Bookmark and Share



Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 08:01 GMT
Roger,

Thanks for your reply. I had a feeling that you were speaking of substance, and now that I know, I like your essay even more. I agree that the word "abstract" as it is used by mathematics and metaphysics has had its day. With the advent of the standard model in physics, and advanced imaging of neurons and their functionality, there is little left to play with in the metaphysics toy box. And the flights of fancy of mathematicians is all to obvious, even for the rock star variety. I look forward to rating you essay when I figure out a structured way to do so, and for that need to look at a few more first.

Many Thanks

Zoran

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 10:41 GMT
Hi, Roger!

Your line of thinking, I fully support. Quite timely to raise the question: «What is the fundamental building block of existence?»

I agree with your conclusion: «Based on this, I suggest that more and faster progress towards a deeper understanding of the nature of existence could be made if we argued less about whether or not to call the fundamental building block of existence an" it "or a "bit" and worked more on figuring out what the properties of a generic existent state might be and how these properties could be used to build a model of the universe. »

I would add only the dialectic - the dialectic of absolute forms of existence of matter. I invite you to see my essay. I wish you every success, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 03:20 GMT
Vladimir,

Hi. Thanks for reading my essay and the feedback! I look forward to reading your essay, too!

Roger

Bookmark and Share



John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 21:58 GMT
Roger,

Nice concise and to the point. In many ways I agree; and while I emphasized the importance of Bit in my essay (i.e. how does form 'know' how to form?), I concluded my own writing w/ a similar conclusion that says both It and Bit are necessary/fundamental. I think the arguing over which is more important is somewhat pointless; because as you seem to be driving at each one sort of loses its identity/usefulness if not seen in the context of the other.

All the best,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 03:54 GMT
John,

Hi. Thanks for reading the essay and the feedback! I agree that it doesn't seem the most effective use of time to argue about which is more important. I would just like to see our leading academic physicists and philosopher use a bottom-up type reasoning process and move on from the it/bit, analog/digital type debates.

I look forward to reading your essay! Thanks.

Roger

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 21:40 GMT
Dear Roger

Yes - It from Bit or Bit from It? Maybe, It Doesn't Matter - it is important that true nature of them.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 04:26 GMT
Hoang,

Hi. Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate it.

Roger

Bookmark and Share



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


Patrick Tonin wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 10:27 GMT
Hi Roger,

Nice essay. I can see that we have a similar way of thinking, keep it simple and start with a bottom-up approach.

I also started my theory with the simplest thing I could find (for me, it was a bit of two states: existence/non-existence). But if you consider this bit as a sphere and just add simple spheres around the first sphere, your world looses coherence if you suppose that all the spheres are the simplest thing (you can't apply the 4PiR2 formula anymore because your R is now 2). I have found a solution to that problem in my theory.

I think that you will understand what I mean if you read my essay. If you like my ideas then you might want to read my 3D Universe Theory.

Cheers,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Roger Granet wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 18:06 GMT
Patrick,

Hi. Thanks for the comments! I look forward to reading your essay. Because there are so many of them, it's been hard to keep up, but I'll check it out.

Good luck on your thinking and in the contest.

Roger

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 00:55 GMT
Hi Roger,

just to let you know I've read your essay, teeny tiny text wasn't helpful : ) Felt a bit like you had thrown the towel in by calling both information and material an existent state, before the match had really begun. You could have concluded it there, with 'don't bother about it any more'. Nevertheless read it to the end and found it an enjoyable,comprehensible, not too long read. Good luck, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 03:26 GMT
Georgina,

Hi. Thank you for reading the essay. I don't agree that arguing that "it" and "bit" are basically the same thing, existent entities, is a waste of time as you apparently do.

Roger

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:10 GMT
Roger

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


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 08:59 GMT
Dear Roger,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments. Perhaps, the biology section of my essay interests you.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 03:42 GMT
Sreenath,

Hi. Thanks in advance for any comments you might have on my essay. Sorry about the small font. I typed it on a text editor and it looked fine on my home computer, but I guess that didn't translate to the PDF format. I'm going to check your essay out right now.

I have no illusions about getting anywhere in these contests, and that's one reason I made my essay short. Sometimes, I think they're just a way for the academics to keep us amateurs busy and off their backs. But, I do appreciate those few academics who actually read our essays and respond to our comments. That speaks highly of them.

Sorry for the cynicism, and I wish you luck in your own thinking! See you!

Roger

Bookmark and Share


Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 09:56 GMT
Dear Roger,

Thanks for your brief but lucid essay and in which you are thinking of building a model of the universe by figuring out what the properties of a generic existent states are. So in this model the priority between It and Bit is only of secondary importance and this approach you call “philosophical engineering". In this very terminology, “philosophical engineering", according to me, everything is contained which can be used/ applied to build the model of our universe. This is good thinking as you are trying to unite fundamentals of our philosophical thinking with the technology to achieve the above goal. If this technology is bio- technology, for me it looks good because our mind/ brain is an off-shoot of this bio- technology in a broad sense. This sort of explanation also satisfies you too, for you are a molecular biologist.

Have you developed a simple physical-mechanical model of an expanding space that displays symmetry breaking and energy creation?

You don't have to be a cynic in your life but on the contrary be always optimistic just the way I am till we achieve the goal we have set up for ourselves is reached and in reaching that you find happiness in your life.

All the best in your endeavor,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 04:31 GMT
Sreenath,

Thanks for the encouragement! I'm still trying in my spare time to work on my ideas and hope to make progress on them someday! I agree that we have to never give up.

Pretty much the simple physical-mechanical model of an expanding space that displays symmetry breaking and energy creation is the one I had in my essay, that is space is made of the existent entities that make replicas of themselves. As these spherical entities overlap and create pressure on, and push against, each other, this leads to shape changes in and energy transferral between the spheres. It's very complicated to model shape changes in flexible spheres after you get out to even the second or third layers of spheres, so it's taking time, but I think it leads naturally to transfer of energy at a constant speed no matter what the energy, as in a photon. I'm still working on it, though.

Good luck in your thinking, too!

Roger

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
Hi Roger,

Good to see you here again. The first part of your paper reminds me a little of another entry, written by Sundance Bilson-Thompson. His is also very short.

I can see that your example with the packed spheres you are trying to construct a model for an existent state with a minimum of assumptions, but somehow the model still seems a little contrived, in fact I was reminded of your professional background where I imagine one frequently sees models similar to the one you mention as representations of molecules. However, I commend you for sticking your neck out and making an attempt.

To me, the question of whether or not something exists is incomplete, because it does not specify where it is that the thing's existence is asked about. It is natural for us to assume that everything exists in spacetime, but is it not possible that that in assuming that we are making the same mistake as our ancestors, who 500 years ago thought that the earth was the center of the universe? You may find this paper interesting, which is not my contest entry but a paper that might be in tune with your lifelong interest: Do photons exist in spacetime?. If this idea has any merit, then your Wittgensteinian approach to ontological questions may need to be differentiated some more.

Anyway, I wish you all the best

Armin

PS: Are there any new developments on your idea pertaining to infinities, which we discussed last year?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 04:06 GMT
Armin,

Hi. Thanks for the comments! I'm looking forward to reading your essay, hopefully sometime this week. I actually commented on Dr. Bilson-Thompson's essay about the similarities between our thinking.

I can understand why my model might seem contrived, but when it's compared to other models in physics, like string theory with its 10 or 23 or however many dimensions,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 20:09 GMT
Dear Roger,

A couple of quick comments:

"The idea of the sphere as the shape an existent entity would be when there's no information provided by the entity about shape provided seems to make sense to me."

This is exactly an example of the central principle that I mention in my entry as underlying quantum superposition e.g compare a sphere specified only by r=3 with one given by the double integral


I am glad to see that you have already arrived at the essence of this insight yourself.

"If these spheres were totally inflexible and didn't move at all, I can't see how there would be any time."

I think the central lesson of relativity is that space and time are on an equal footing, though of course they manifest themselves differently. What distinguishes massive objects from massless energy is a finite proper time, and proper time is proportional to the four-dimensional interval.

That you can have time even in a spacetime with inflexible solids which do not move with respect each other is, I believe, due to a deep connection between proper time and gravity (Since gravity in effect a manifestation of the deviation from distances in flat i.e. Minkowski spacetime). Specifically, each of the solids still sets up a gravity field that propagates outwards at a finite speed. This is in effect a clock because you can distinguish the shape of spacetime before and after the gravity field has reached a given region that is a certain distance from the solids.

Pertaining to your question, yes, I was supposed to graduate last term but couldn't decide whether to continue on in philosophy or in physics, so I decided to stay a little longer. Too bad about Ann Arbor, but if you do happen to know that you will be coming up here let me know, my email is armin@umich.edu.

All the best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 03:29 GMT
Armin,

Hi. Well, in terms of spheres, I guess great minds think alike! :-) I noticed you'd posted a comment over on Sundance Bilson-Thompson's essay. I had commented there also that I thought his idea of minimal arbitrariness which says that if there's no info. telling a body to curve, it will keep going straight was very similar to the reasoning I use in the sphere example. That...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 08:09 GMT
Dear Roger,

I welcome your essay that written in attractive - readable style (as the good essay and no else!) And you came to a healthy-realistic conclusion. The color of cat is not so important, but important is - is he hunting the mice? (I think this is Russian parable!) I will read your work one more time to say something more important. And I offer you my work ESSAY hope it will in your test then we can exchange opinions. I will wait you in my forum.

Good wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 04:29 GMT
George,

Thanks for your nice comments! And, that saying is very true not just in physics but in life! I'll try to read your essay this week.

Roger

Bookmark and Share


George Kirakosyan replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 06:09 GMT
Dear Roger,

I have re-read and rated your essay as very likely for me work (then only!)

I hope we will continue contact on further (my email in my essay)

Best wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 15:37 GMT
Dear Roger,

I think you are asking a very sensible and logical question here. I too think that the nature of "existent state" is most important. I formulated a geometric scheme that partly unifies the forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. From this theory, my essay entry came. I concluded Bit and It were equally fundamental, but actually your existent state would be an equivalent result from what I find around the Fibonacci sequence and entropy.

Well done - great work! Nice read and very interesting!

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 02:52 GMT
Antony,

Hi. Thank you for the comments and feedback! I'm going over to read your essay now. Good luck in the contest and in your thinking!

Roger

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 04:32 GMT
Dear Roger

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 05:02 GMT
Than,

Hi. Thanks for the comments. I absolutely agree that the same underlying thing can be thought of in completely different and even opposite ways just depending on how you're thinking of it or from what perspective you're looking at it. I even think that "something" and "nothing" are just two different names for the same underlying thing, which is what we've previously called the lack-of-all.

This lack-of-all in and of itself is the entirety. It's everything that is present. Entirety and everything are relationships defining what is contained within, and I believe that a relationship defining what is contained within is an existent entity. Just like how the complete list of elements in a grouping is what defines a set (e.g. an existent entity). So, in this way, I think "something" and "nothing" are both ways of looking at the presence of an existent entity.

I'll head on over to your essay hopefully this weekend. Thanks!

Roger

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 00:16 GMT
Dear Roger,

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

Author Roger Granet replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:36 GMT
Amazigh,

Hi. Thanks for the comments! I'll check out your essay this week.

Roger

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 17:06 GMT
Roger,

Thanks for your response to my 12th June post above. Just completing scoring and saw I'd missed yours, you'll be pleased to see it's now going on.

With nearly 200 essays read, 220 blog posts on mine, no 'search function' and being over 60 I now have info overload and can't remember if you've read and commented on mine. If not then all points are very welcome.

Well done again for yours. I think 'real' existent states win but what the hell IS real anyway? I think it's been a very useful subject for focussing minds.

Best

peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Roger Granet replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 04:37 GMT
Peter,

Hi. Yep, I read and commented on your essay on June 15th. I can't remember what I said, unfortunately. I know what you mean about info. overload. I tried to at least scan through all the essays, but there's a lot of stuff out there to keep track of!

I totally agree with you about what "is" real? Physicists think of electrons as particles, but what's inside an electron. What's inside a bit of information? I still think the most we can say is that, at base, these are existent entities, and "electron" and "bit" are just two different names for some existent thing.

Good luck to you in the contest and in your thinking!

Roger

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:57 GMT
Dear Roger,

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

Author Roger Granet replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 01:45 GMT
Paul,

Hi. Thanks for reading my essay! I'll read your essay tonight or sometime this week. There are a lot of essays! But, they're very interesting, I agree.

Good luck to you!

Roger

Bookmark and Share



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.