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 19:35pm UTC, wrote Dear James, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Charles Card: on 8/6/13 at 3:52am UTC, wrote Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read I am sending to you...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 7/31/13 at 14:07pm UTC, wrote Dear James, Whether you speak of duality is good. Whether you have a...

Manuel Morales: on 7/26/13 at 14:47pm UTC, wrote James, "Shave and a haircut, two bits" - Loved it! I would like to rate...

Akinbo Ojo: on 7/25/13 at 19:58pm UTC, wrote Very nice essay sir. Please indulge me to ask a question which may be off...

Peter Jackson: on 7/12/13 at 18:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Professor Beichler, A highly commendable essay in every way. You...

James Hoover: on 7/3/13 at 19:18pm UTC, wrote James, If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I...

basudeba mishra: on 7/1/13 at 21:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Sir, Starting to read your essay, we were momentarily taken aback as...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained 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...

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...

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 22, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Shave and a haircut, two bits by James Edward Beichler [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author James Edward Beichler wrote on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 18:00 GMT
Essay Abstract

The debate whether it (matter) or bit (information) is more fundamental is the product of several millennia worth of human thought in one form or another and it will be resolved in much the same way that it was solved in the past. It is a just a new variation on the theme ‘is reality the internal product of human mind or is it external to human mind in the material world?’ The new information argument is alluring because it is relates questions on the ultimate nature of reality to other modern ideas concerning the human mind and consciousness. If the brain processes information like a computer, whereby mind is a mere epiphenomenon, then the internal and external worlds could be more easily reduced to a single model. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The argument for an information based reality is itself founded upon the faulty assumption that reality is discrete at its lowest discernible and most fundamental level. In this case, the physical concepts of matter and motion could be further reduced to two and only two physical variables or bits of information, as expressed in one or the other forms of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. However, reality is not discrete, whether in the form of bits of information or quanta, and the uncertainty principle gives an incomplete description of reality. The only possible answer to the paradox of describing nature using two extremely successful but mutually incompatible paradigms, the discrete quantum and continuous relativity, would be to find the point where their incompatibility breaks down and they become compatible, thereby merging them into a single theory. This new theory will be based on the concept of a single substantial field rather than an insubstantial field of information bits.

Author Bio

Professor Beichler taught Physics, Mathematics, the History and Philosophy of Science and European History for more than three decades before recently retiring. He earned his PhD in 1999 from the Union Institute and University in Theoretical Paraphysics. He is presently conducting theoretical research in Cosmology to explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy as well as Physics to explain the fundamental nature of life, mind, consciousness and matter, space and time in a theory based on a single quantized potential field that unifies the quantum and relativity in a five-dimensional Einstein-Kaluza model of space-time.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 05:53 GMT
Dear James Beichler,

I do not see how anyone can disagree with your essay, but disagree they will. You so clearly frame the issue and analyze the aspects of the problem. Yet the 'rigorization' has apparently transcended a program and is on the way to becoming a religion, as belief in it is palpable.

Nevertheless I agree with you almost 100%. Only Eckhard Blumschein's essay has...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
Professor Beichler,

The clarity of the writing and the meticulous logic expressed in your awesome essay are phenomenal.

As a decrepit old realist, may I humbly make one comment? I do not know what the theory of everything is. I have noted in my essay BITTERS that the absolute of everything is one.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 03:16 GMT
Dear James

Very interesting but still somewhat abstract.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jacek Safuta wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 16:16 GMT
Dear Professor James,

I have read your essay with great pleasure. It should be a must read for all entrants before writing anything. Obviously in general I agree with you.

You claim “That single substantial thing could only be a single continuous potential field. This field cannot be just a mathematical construct or abstraction. It must be real and substantial”

My...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert Bennett wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 16:43 GMT
Prof. Beichler,

re: "That goal can only be accomplished if the question of whether mind creates reality or reality creates mind is answered."

The statement implies that reality and mind are separate....that reality is only physical...

If reality represents all that humans experience, then what is the reasoning behind rejecting a reality in which both the physical and immaterial co-exist, sometimes independently... sometimes not?

All the best,

Robert

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 13:57 GMT
Dr. Beichler:

You make some interesting points in your essay. If I understand it correctly, your key point is that nature is continuous rather than discrete. And of course space and time are continuous, but charge and spin seem to be discrete. The key point in my own essay ("Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time") is that all matter and energy are ultimately composed of continuous relativistic vector fields (like the electromagnetic field). But each field self-organizes into coherent quantized domains, each domain with spin in integral (or half-integral) units of Planck's constant h-bar. The rest of quantum mechanics follows directly from this primary spin quantization. Remarkably, this simple picture provides a consistent basis as well for general relativity; a rotating vector field acts as a local clock.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 03:57 GMT
Dear Professor Beichler,

Nicely written essay which I'm pleased to report wasn't too over my head. Nice use of uncertainty and ToE's always whet my appetite for more! I found it both interesting and relevant.

I'll be delighted if you find the time to look at my essay.

Kind regards,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael Helland wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 01:39 GMT
Hello.

You say:

"

It is a just a new variation on the theme ‘is reality the internal product of human mind or is it external to human mind in the material world?"

This is a false dilemma.

Does reality follow recipe A or recipe B?

It doesn't work like that. Reality isn't a stew pot for ingredients to mix together.

You mention the shadows on the cave wall.

Those are the objects we observe and measure, the its, still products of the human mind.

The bits (monads) are what is external.

So the answer is both.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:50 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


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 01:43 GMT
Dear

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:21 GMT
Dear Sir,

Starting to read your essay, we were momentarily taken aback as we felt we were reading in a different format our essay: “INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776” published here on May 31. The thoughts are so similar, though our logics may be different!

The abstraction claimed by physicists does not come...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
James,

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


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 18:02 GMT
Dear Professor Beichler,

A highly commendable essay in every way.

You point out;

"The present goal of physics in the minds of many physicists and scientists is at least finding a way that the quantum and relativity can live in harmony if not outright unification." and;

"This new theory will be based on the concept of a single substantial field"

How wonderful to find a rare genuine realist who can think, not rely on doctrine. But how will we recognise this theory when it first appears?

My essay runs a test of a an entirely new dynamic ontological construction with great epistemological and self consistency appearing to do just what you suggest, which I then show able to resolve the EPR paradox in the way Bell and von Neumann expected. I'd be very grateful if you would look it over and offer any falsification. All such has failed to date.

Well done and thank you for yours.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 19:58 GMT
Very nice essay sir. Please indulge me to ask a question which may be off topic

I am taking advantage of this forum to ask professional physicists so I can be better enlightened. Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 14:47 GMT
James,

"Shave and a haircut, two bits" - Loved it! I would like to rate your essay highly but it seems from the lack of responses from you on your essay page that perhaps you are not interested in such things.

In any case, I would like to run some questions by you if I may via email. My email address is msm@physicsofdestiny.com if interested in contacting me. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 14:07 GMT
Dear James,

Whether you speak of duality is good. Whether you have a contrary view is good too. Knowing something is also understanding its opposite.

Important is to talk about it.

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

eDuality is the first principle.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words, but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Charles Raldo Card wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:52 GMT
Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:35 GMT
Dear James,

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.