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

Richard Shand: on 8/8/13 at 6:46am UTC, wrote Joseph, Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I was referring to your...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 21:10pm UTC, wrote Dear Joseph, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

JOSEPH BRENNER: on 8/7/13 at 14:42pm UTC, wrote Hello, Richard, and thank you very much for your supportive comments....

JOSEPH BRENNER: on 8/7/13 at 14:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, I guess the simplest thing to say is that comments like...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 8/7/13 at 14:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Joseph, A perfect essay in the Spirit of Descartes! Excellent...

Richard Kingsley-Nixey: on 8/7/13 at 14:07pm UTC, wrote Joseph Very impressive review if a touch pedestrian, nice to have a...

KoGuan Leo: on 8/6/13 at 16:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Joseph, Excellent essay! I do have different view but not necessarily...

Peter Jackson: on 8/6/13 at 11:58am UTC, wrote Joseph. Thanks for your message on my blog, to which I was very pleased to...


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: BIT, IT, BOTH OR NEITHER by JOSEPH E BRENNER [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 16:09 GMT
Essay Abstract

There is an age-old question as to whether geometry (form) or matter (energy) is more fundamental in the universe – the “ground of being”. The current debate – the subject of this contest - is cast in terms of information and quantum mechanics. Wheeler’s position, following Wiener, can be summarized by the following statements: 1) information is not energy; and 2) information and not energy is fundamental. A related view is that the universe operates like a digital computer, and the emergence of Its as things from Bits as immaterial digital information is the only acceptable cosmogony. In his 2011 essay “Bit-from-It”, Julian Barbour, contra Wheeler, argued in favor of the primacy of energy as things - Its, but that nature is fundamentally discontinuous and digital and continuity an illusion. However, as an either-or dichotomy, the contest question may be badly posed, excluding a possible interactive alternative, It-and¬-Bit. I first present my views of three major possible positions: • It-from-Bit: refers to an interpretation of some limited experimental data and computational hypotheses about the way the universe operates. • Bit-from-It: suggests that energy is primitive but the dynamics of the emergence of complex information is not specified. • It-and-Bit: energy and information emerge from, or are different aspects of, an as yet undefined primordial substrate more fundamental than either. In my synthesis of these positions, at some level of reality, energy is more fundamental than information, and information emerges from but is always functionally associated with it. In the macroscopic world, energy and information, as well as continuity and discontinuity, are non-separable partners.

Author Bio

I have a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from the University of Wisconsin. After my career in the chemical industry, I joined the International Center for Transdisciplinary Research, Paris. With it, and now with the International Center for the Philosophy of Information, Xi’An, China of which I am an Associate Director, I have authored a book (Logic in Reality) and some twenty papers on non-standard logic, information and the philosophy of information. I am Vice-President, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity of the International Society for Information Studies, Vienna.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Jacek Safuta wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 13:56 GMT
Hi Joseph, welcome to the contest!

I am close to the view that information and energy emerge together from AND are different aspects of a primordial substrate more fundamental than either.

I have proposed a candidate for that primordial substrate - the conformally flat spacetime having homeomorphism and elastic properties. Information, energy/matter may be a manifestation of the spacetime geometry. I do not claim that I am right. But that concept generates clear predictions and can be easily falsified by the spin experiment I have proposed (see references to my essay).

This means also that the ground of being (the spacetime) can be equated with the quantum vacuum.

In your essay’s conclusion I have found: “a picture of the universe as fundamentally either continuous or discontinuous may be usefully replaced by one in which both continuity and discontinuity are jointly and dynamically instantiated”. I would agree and propose to reformulate this statement to this one: the actual universe is computable during Lyapunov time but its evolution is non-computable.

I have some notices from the other entrants e.g. Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga that the description of my experiment is not quite clear so I could deliver an explanation if needed.

Best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 14:41 GMT
Hello, Jacek and thank you for your comments and agreement on some points. I am afraid I cannot answer at the same level of expertise, but there is one thing that we may usefully agree on to follow. That spacetime geometry may be described as you say is clear, but that energy/matter is more primitive is for the time being at least as possible. Best wishes, Joseph

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 04:50 GMT
Hello Joseph,

I thoroughly enjoyed your essay and rated it highly because I find not only your conclusion to be very logical and intuitively right that there is something perhaps more fundamental than Bit or It, but also that you challenge the very way the contest's question is posed. This was followed by good exploration of possible outcomes.

I also think that our two essays do not contradict each other. I hope you get a chance to look at mine to assess if we do indeed have any common ground.

Best Wishes for the contest!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 07:01 GMT
Hello, Anthony and thank you for the good words. Although I am not a mathematician (I started as you as a chemist), I was always fascinated by the F. sequence and its expression in nature, cf. some of the great pictures in Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science". Having said that, I am simply constituted to look at the physics of the atoms and molecules that, in the subsequent dynamics of their organization, "crystallize", literally and figuratively into something of which we /a posteriori/ define the abstract mathematics. Thus you are right in saying that we do not contradict one another directly. Our pictures address different levels of abstraction (cf. Floridi); I will stay with the intuition that it is energy that moves in and out of black holes, etc.

Best wishes,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 02:51 GMT
Hello again Joseph,

Great to see another Chemist on here by the way! I think both approaches are great. The Fibonacci idea would work for photons falling into a Black Hole too, so perhaps there is a scheme where our two ideas merge.

I've devised a theory where symmetry is broken from nothingness resolving the three laws of cosmogony.

I think you are right that energy is the best way to describe information falling into Black Holes - with Hawking Radiation coming out.

Cheers,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 14:53 GMT
Dear Joseph

Since you did not give a specific conclusion, it is difficult to evaluate your essay.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 16:01 GMT
Dear Hoang cao Hai,

In my conclusion Section, I wrote: "My response to the question of this Contest is that energy-matter is ontologically prior to, that is, more fundamental than information as digital bits". I then proceeded to examine some of the implications of my position. I regret that you did not consider this a conclusion.

I also examined the foundational issue of continuity vs. discontinuity which I feel is well within the scope of the Contest theme. Might I ask you to reconsider your view, and your rating? Thank you and kind regards.

Joseph Brenner

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 18:54 GMT
Joseph,

Excellent essay of which I have rated highly! I find myself in complete agreement of your statement, "Nothing proves that Bell’s infinitesimals (or any others in standard calculus) and those of the physical world, (if such exist), are the same. I thus conclude that there is a fatal error in any description of the universe that embodies either absolute continuity or absolutely discrete Bits as constituting its fundamental parts." as well as your comments, "I suggest that energy is more fundamental than information, and information emerges from but is always functionally associated with it."

I believe you will find my essay of interest, although different, it attempts to show how self-organization takes place in the universe. I hope you will find my current essay which unifies the four forces into one of interest and worthy of your review.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 06:57 GMT
Hello, Manuel and thank you for the good words. I have read your essay with much interest, although I cannot evaluate your physics as such. I would like to establish a dialogue with you, as I believe my Logic in Reality may complement your approach by providing additional physical descriptions of parallel chains of cause and effect (cf. my book). How do I get in touch with you to send you the relevant portions?

Best wishes,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 20:25 GMT
Dear Joseph,

I like how your essay goes through various alternatives, presenting them equidistantly, and trying to find the answer to the contest's main question. The essay is well written and well documented, and your position is clearly stated and well explained. I also like that you are interested in Stefan Lupascu's writings and derive your own logic from his.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 06:45 GMT
Dear Cristi,

Thank you for your good words. It has been a privilege for me to work with Professor Basarab Nicolescu of the International Center for Transdisiplinary Research, Paris, of which he and Lupasco were the principal founders. I hope that more people, both in and outside of Romania, will discover the importance of Lupasco's work.

Best wishes,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 14:36 GMT
Dear Joseph,

In your consideration of various possible scenarios for the relationship between the "informational" and the spatial realities you didn't cover all possibilities, and one of them, which I dare to say important, is considered in my essay.

Also, I wish to draw to your attention to a considerable *ambiguity* of both "information" and "energy", which makes them poor candidates for understanding the nature of "reality".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Walter Smilga wrote on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 16:49 GMT
Hello Joseph,

It is a great pleasure to read your excellently written essay. It presents a review of different author's statements about "information versus matter". Some of these statements raise my objections.

I will formulate my objections in general terms: There seems to be a general misunderstanding about the function of a physical theory. Whereas an experimental physicist collects data, which means information, about the "physical world", the task of a theoretical physicist is to study these data and try to find characteristic structures and interrelations within these data that would allow to "explain" these data by a "general logical principle", also called "theory". Therefore, a physical theory is always about information. Consequently, when Wheeler presents

"the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom ... an immaterial source and explanation ... in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin ...,"

then he refers to a most fundamental logical principle that could replace all other logical principles, formulated so far. It is evident that a logical principle is immaterial. Therefore, in search for a logical principle, the question is not: What is more fundamental, information or matter? The question is rather: Can we find an universal logical principle that "explains" all kinds of information about the physical world? More about this in my essay.

Regards,

Walter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 17:28 GMT
Hello, Walter,

I am afraid that we are fated to agree to disagree. I think that what we as physical creatures comprehend as physical reality is physical reality, not the result of some process of abstraction. And your statement about all the things one can do with binary elements is exactly what the question is. I have a logical principle that expléains a great deal, but I followed the rules and did not discuss, except in a brief paragraph in the Appendix, "my" logic..,

Regards,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share


Walter Smilga replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 19:14 GMT
Hello, Joseph,

Don't worry. Disagreement is often more creative than agreement, because it may lead to new insights.

Regards,

Walter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Michael Helland replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 21:32 GMT
Walter wrote: " Whereas an experimental physicist collects data, which means information, about the "physical world","

Do you think hats what is really meant by information in this contest?

I'm not so sure.

Many of the essays in this contest seem to view computer hardware as physical, and information as something stored in a physical computer.

Surely there is more to the topic of this contest than that pedestrian observation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:58 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 @ 01:23 GMT
Dear Joseph,

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....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 06:31 GMT
Hello, Satyavarapu,

I did read your paper, but was puzzled by your definition of Bit and It which seemed opposite to those of Wheeler to which the Contest is supposed to reply.

Please clarify if you have time.

Regards,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 09:56 GMT
Dear Joseph,

I clarified two or three times after the essay, in the posts after the essay. Hope you found them already

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 19:52 GMT
Dear Joseph,

Well researched and logically presented.

RE: Elementary particles can be programmed...the universe is a physical system that can be programmed to perform universal digital computation

See an example amateur program for digital motion in my essay.

You also quote Barbour severally, I quote him as well but I concur only in his saying the binary digits, 0 and 1 must stand for a thing or a state and can not just be abstract figures.

For another perspective on the discreteness vs. continuity you discussed see same essay. I will subsequently take you up on this aspect.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 10:29 GMT
Dear Joseph,

I have borrowed this sentence to David Mermin

"The key to freeing quantum mechanics from the tyranny of measurement is to note

that a measurement consists of the establishment of a particular kind of correlation between two particular kinds of subsystems, and to insist that everything that can be said about the physical reality of the correlations established in a measurement applies equally well to the correlations among any subsystems of a quantum system. If physics is about correlations among subsystems then it is a fortiori about measurement. But to insist that physics is exclusively about measurement, is unnecessarily to relegate to an inferior ontological status the more general correlations among arbitrary subsystems."

It seems that relational quantum mechanics has to do with Mermin's view, and he is a favorite thinker of mine, as you can read in my essay. In my view, the geometrization of correlations (mutually commuting operators and the resulting contextuality) is useful for understanding the ultimate meaning of quantum measurements.

Mermin again

"Correlations have physical reality; that which they correlate does not."

Acoording to him the it is correlation, do you agree with him?

Best regards,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 16:18 GMT
Dear Michel,

Thank you for this interesting position. I hope you will take my disagreement with it in the spirit of inquiry in which it is intended. I think the problem is in taking all-or-none positions.There is a lot of literature about relations without relata to which I, unfortunately perhaps, cannot relate. The objective of RQM as I understand it, is not to be eliminative about relata, but give relations the ontological status they deserve. Hence "and" not "or", and this is allowed in my logic.

Your other point relates to the first statement in my paper about "geometry". Do you not feel that at a certain point (sic), geometry is not enough?

Best regards,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:27 GMT
Joseph,

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


john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear Dr. Brenner,

Your essay provides a most thorough and helpful analysis of the possible It-Bit doctrines.

I agree with the view you quote: 'that there is an irreducible interactive relation between energy and information, such that the designation It-and-Bit corresponds better to reality.'

My paradigm is founded on the concept that all is energy, even information and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 13:17 GMT
Hello, John,

Thank you for your detailed post. I have looked at your essay and can can only gasp at the breadth of your vision. Having said that, there are things I find I can agree with and others not, so what else is new. One thing seems true of both of our papers: we think there is something missing in moden physics.However, it is not necessary to go beyond the laws of physics as we know them. Abstractions (e.g numbers) are not energy, even though they require energetic processes for their discovery. The number 1 does not change, even if its understanding may over time. You might wish to read my 2008 book, Logic in Reality, which founds logic in the properties of energy, self-duality, etc.

Best regards,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share


john stephan selye replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 14:07 GMT
Thanks Joseph,

I've noted your book, which I will look into after the contest. I did, by the way, rate your essay.

Best of luck,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
Hi dear Joseph,

I have read your essay and have find in it a consecutive and convincing analysis of the topic. Actually you have shown the contentless of subject of discussion! That is excellent my dear (despite we getting many anonymous units!) and I am with you on 100 (you just look in the top of my work PHYSICS)

That is why I go little side of question and I have trying to explain where from come such misconceptions in physics. Please try to read it. I am very hope it will interesting for you, than you see as will better. I am going to rate your work as a high.

Sincerely,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 15:24 GMT
Joseph,

I read your excellent essay twice (first in June and just now). Out of the number of entries I've read thus far you give the most comprehensive answer to the contest's main question. Your essay is also very well-written and your position is stated clearly; thus my high evaluation of it.

I have one question though and it has to do with your caution concerning the following:...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 16:39 GMT
Dear Marina,

Thank you for your very perspicacious and well-expressed critique. If you knew how few of these I get, both agreements and disagreements. . . I will comment on your essay off-line, since I am convinced it will be useful to me and I want to think it through.

Pending this, please let me make one point: since the existence of a background space-time is itself not universally accepted, it cannot be assumed that it is "what" is most fundamental either. Both in Lupasco's theory and today Rovelli's, space and time are artifacts of the underlying matter-energy and could not (in this theory) be ontologically primitive. But you are right in one epistemological sense: space-time certainly /appears/ to be primitive. In my approach, however, we have here a critical dialectics between appearance and reality, an instance of the categorial feature of non-separability. I look forward to further discussion of these points.

Best wishes,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 04:57 GMT
Dear Joseph,

I am hopeful yet got your valuable comments to my work (let it be even short) that I have ask you early (see my post above)

Regards,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 02:19 GMT
Dr. Brenner

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 JOSEPH E BRENNER wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 08:18 GMT
Dear Than Tin,

Thank you for your perspicacious reading of my essay. I will look at your paper and comment in due course, but there is one point I would like to make now: not only do the dualities you mention exist, but the /relation/ between them evolves, in my jargon, according to the Principle of Dilaectical Opposition, that is, as one element is ppotentialized, the other is actualized, alternately and reciprocally + the probability of emergence of a new entity at the point of maximum opposition. This is what is missing in most discussions of extension of the "mother of all dualities" to the macrocopic domain.

Best regards,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 14:40 GMT
Dear Joseph,

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

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 15:48 GMT
Hello, Sreenath,

I think you wrote a very good review essay. I liked one phrase in particular: "the logic of unseen relations". That is what my logic is all about.

I look forward to you comments and rating on my Essay.

Best regards,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share


Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 01:12 GMT
Dear Brenner,

Thanks for your response to my posting in your thread. I will shortly post my comments on your essay in your thread and rate it accordingly.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


William Amos Carine wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 18:03 GMT
Brenner,

This essay flowed with a logical clarity that marks it as the most beautiful in the (rather limited) batch that I have had privilege to read.

What is the difference between matter and energy? I hear them used different in view of fields and simply don't know whether they are different, the same, or have a connotative meaning based on who says them, in which case that doesn't seem a solid basis.

Best of luck,

Amos.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 19:04 GMT
Hello, Amos, and thank you for the nice words. The simplest answer to your question (and I am not a physics teacher but a recycled organic chemist) is that the term matter is commonly used to refer to more or less stable macroscopic objects and energy to gradients where something is moving, water, heat, etc. But macroscopic objects are composed of atoms in turn composed of particles, electrons and protons which are energy in different forms. But there are also flows here, as of of electrons in a current. The easiest thing is to speak of matter-energy which, literally, covers everything.

Best wishes,

Brenner

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 10:48 GMT
Dear Joseph,

Your essay is highly original and it is based on modern computational models. Your views can be concluded in your own words “matter-energy and information emerge together from some more fundamental underlying but at this time unknown substrate – the ground of being”. This something unknown substrate is the reality underlying the facts of the world. This situation reminds me of Kant when he says ‘noumenon’ is the reality underlying the ‘phenomenon’.

This is also the sort of conclusion I have come to in my essay. Considering these points I have rated your very impressive essay highly.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 01:52 GMT
Joseph,

A very comprehensive coverage of the topic. I am very much in agreement with your conclusion that reality is a dichotomy of energy and information. I think though that this relationship can be mined more deeply. Energy manifests information, while information defines energy. Since energy is conserved, in order to create new information, old information has to be erased. This...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 21:41 GMT
Hi Joseph,

I was worried, your bio indicated a professional philosopher, I was prepared for the worst.

What a pleasant surprise! Your essay is very readable, wide ranging, and incisive. It gets a very high rating (yes some bits that are really energy someplace).

Do come over to my blog. I favor a continuous space-time in conjunction with a digital concept of change (that has been masquerading as a continuous velocity). Sounds like a deep subject, but I manage to keep it humorous. It follows some of your intuitions and I think you will enjoy it.

Thanks,

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 15:13 GMT
Hello, Don, and thank you for the kind words. Re my bio, the key words are "Ph.D. in organic chemistry and career in the chemical industry". I started my second career only about ten years ago. Thank you for the invitation to join your blog. I will look at it, but have difficulty keeping up with even my one current newsgroup (Foundations of Information Science) But your description is certainly interesting. A good laugh about logic is what we all need!

Best,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 23:13 GMT
Joseph,

Your essay is a clear-cut and well-defined discussion of the contest problem. It is deliberate, yet conversational, logical, and complete.

I agree that energy is more fundamental than information and I do tend to debunk the role of consciousness in measuring or observing matter and the ambiguities of describing examples in the micro and macro world.

If in the BB the quantum vacuum (you mention it embodies energy) was the source of a cascading sea of virtual particles, did they contain energy and no information? Did gravity result from their formation? We can assume so but I have no idea how, but my essay proposes that the foundation of our perfect universe couldn't possible be observed by consciousness until 1 billion years after the BB, since we had no mixture of atoms to form into our bodies.

I would be interested in your view of my essay.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 15:22 GMT
Hello, Jim and thank you for your comments on my Essay. I found much that I agree with in yours. I also cannot stand the Hameroff nonsense. Penrose, however, has somewhat redeemed himself in my eyes in his 2011 or 2012 book, /Conformal Cyclic Cosmology/. In Steinnhardt's story, I see an unsolved problem of a first cycle, because his cycling does lose energy. How would you approach this aspect - draw on an infinite energy source "far beyond" the 2nd Law?

Best regards,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 16:42 GMT
Joseph,

I guess the earlier cyclic models failed because of heat death. The more recent, Steinhardt's too, evades energy loss with a expansion each cycle, preventing entropy from building up. None of us have the knowledge to understand colliding branes, I would think including string theorists, and will the big crunch Steinhardt speaks of change the particle interaction strength. Maybe we need to run into more advanced aliens to find out.

May your score soar.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 00:45 GMT
Hi Joseph,

Thank you for a masterful tour through the possibilities of It from Bit and Bit from It. You wrote:

> "These five It-from-Bit positions are contradicted by general relativity; which requires an inertial frame of reference; relational quantum mechanics (see below); and current cosmology which supports a configurational view of the universe in which there is neither a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 07:06 GMT
Hello, Hugh and thank you for the good words. Your essay is, in turn, a masterful tour through the latest insights from physics and computer science. I stumble, however, on the phrase "If the universe is a simulation". It is this position, of which another expression is in your comment to the effect that the "lower layers are a simulation" whose necessity I cannot comprehend. Now the good news is that my logic "predicts" the existence of our two opposing positions! They, themselves are a reflection of the energetic duality I obviously prefer, but where I still give priority, not to physics, but to the stuff I am made of. As Rescher said, quoting Peirce, the fact that we are made of the same stuff as the universe is an indication, not a guarantee, that our intuitions about it are not toally false. I include your intuitions, but give them no higher ontological purport than mine.

Cheers,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 03:24 GMT
Dear Joseph,

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.

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

eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 04:13 GMT
Dear Joseph,

After reading your essay :

« Finally,

a picture of the universe as fundamentally either continuous or discontinuous

may be usefully replaced by one in which

both continuity and discontinuity are jointly and dynamically instantiated. », by JOSEPH E. BRENNER

You'll be surprised one day to discover how your views are right.

Good Luck!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 06:51 GMT
Amazigh,

Thank you for your positive comments. We share the intuition about opposites, and what I have tried to do is to attach that intuition to a rigorous concept of emergence of new entities.

Best wishes,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share



Richard N. Shand wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 06:13 GMT
Dear Joseph,

I enjoyed reading your engaging and thought-provoking essay.

You quoted McMullin as saying that it is the potentiality, not actuality, "that reality should be attributed at its most fundamental level". If the dialectic interaction between cause and effect is framed in terms of Lagrangian mechanics, then that potentiality is quantum potential.

You also wrote that "information may be an artifact of human thought". From the perspective of quantum information theory, the observer's knowledge of bits arises from the erasure of entanglement information which encodes quantum potential. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 19:34 GMT
Richard, I return to the fray after an absence due to a brief trip. I will check (but you should too) whether it was I who said that "information may be an artifact of human thought" or the author I was quoting. I certainly do not believe it is such an artifact.

Best wishes,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share


Richard N. Shand replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 06:46 GMT
Joseph,

Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I was referring to your statement "it has been suggested that information may be an artifact of human thought". I didn't mean to infer that you were the originator. Certainly the concept of information transcends any purely anthropomorphic interpretation.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 16:55 GMT
Joseph,

I was pointed to your theory as consistent with the episto-ontology of mine. I found it not only that but also well organised, incisive and well argued. In fact I extracted some key statements and ended up with a page full. But rather than similar our essays are complimentary. (I rather crash on into the void left between QM's denial of actual quanta, particle physics, and optics!)

I agree; "higher-level information...has not been...captured by any categorial theory involving separate exclusive and exhaustive categories." and that "Nothing proves that Bell's infinitesimals (or...standard calculus) and those of the physical world...are the same." so; "there is a fatal error in any description of the universe that embodies either absolute continuity or absolutely discrete Bits..."

I agree; "causality but of a "different kind" and that; "One should, therefore, construct a basis for the emergence of information and meaning from the 'underlying invisible world of quantum fields and particles'." and; "Following Krause, I consider Bits as quasi-individuals" (well describing my 2012 essay!). Do you think that being strictly non physicists allows greater overview?

Thank you for an excellent analysis and inspired solution, very well presented. Top marks due. I hope you will read and find mine as useful. Please ignore the offputting dense abstract and be swayed to read it by the post comments; 'impressive!, 'fantastic job', 'clarified the whole issue', 'wonderful', 'significant', 'deeply impressed', 'philosophically deep', 'very sophisticated', 'groundbreaking', remarkable! etc.

I find only semantic and trivial differences, which is remarkable considering our contrasting approaches. I hope mine shows the power of your approach (do please comment on the resulting EPR resolution described).

Very best wishes,

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 06:24 GMT
Greetings Joseph,

Amazigh was emphatic that I should find my way here, as there was much in your essay that is in common with my own. It appears from reading the abstract that is likely true. I shall return with comments after reading your essay.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 19:38 GMT
Joseph,

I'm quite convinced I posted here earlier based on my notes of your excellent essay and analysis. I propose quantum uncertainty dictates at least one of the ~10,000 posts here will be lost to cyberspace. Mine must have been it!

You propose; "QM's error is in not allowing structure", which I agree and take to a physical proof, also then consistent with; "causality but of a 'different kind".

I can't help also agree that; "One should, therefore, construct a basis for the emergence of information and meaning from the 'underlying invisible world of quantum fields and particles'." as I do so in this and my previous essays.

Do you not however agree the real problem as the 'acceptance' of any such theory, however successful, by the guardians of doctrine? How can that problem be addressed?

Congratulations on an excellent job with your essay. I hope you can get to mine before the deadline and look forward to your views as to whether it may meet the specification you describe.

Very best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 20:31 GMT
It's not just Peter..

I also left a comment last night, and it has been erased. Amazigh was emphatic that I needed to check out your essay Joe, as there are areas of agreement with my own to explore. After reading your abstract, I tend to agree. I'll have more to say after reading your essay.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hugh Matlock wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 08:58 GMT
It seems that most (perhaps all) of the comments on July 31 and Aug 1 were erased... and perhaps the voting reset as well. Seems like FQXi might have reset the database for some reason. I am just surprised there is no announcement or explanation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 18:06 GMT
Hugh, Joseph,

See the explanation under BLOGS in "Essay Contest 2013". Brendan things cyberspace may return the posts so I won't re-write my comprehensive post yet.

Your essay is excellent and incisive Joseph. It is worth a high score and placing. I agreed a priori with;

One should, therefore, construct a basis for the emergence of information and meaning from the "underlying invisible world of quantum fields and particles" and have proposed such a basis and tested it in my essay. The "causality but of a "different kind" you proposed is proved in a non-local EPR paradox resolution.

I would be very grateful of your views, and points! Thank you and well done.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:58 GMT
Joseph.

Thanks for your message on my blog, to which I was very pleased to reply. I'm sure we can collaborate in the long overdue new paradigm. I've seen some other valuable parts around here which people may like to bring to the party.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:26 GMT
Dear Joseph,

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


Charles Raldo Card wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:39 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


KoGuan Leo wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Joseph,

Excellent essay! I do have different view but not necessarily that KQID has an opposing view but KQID combines and integrates and assimilate like the Star Trek Borg species.

You wrote:

Since antiquity, human beings have always had an intuition that what there is – existence – has emerged from something else. The implied question of “why is there anything...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 14:07 GMT
Joseph

Very impressive review if a touch pedestrian, nice to have a balanced approach but what we need is revolution! None the less a very good essay, and I gather from the blogs it's consistent with Peter Jackson's which for me is paradigm breaking, which I see you and others seem to you agree. See his previous essays too. Exciting times perhaps. Glad I got your score in in time.

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author JOSEPH E BRENNER replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 14:42 GMT
Hello, Richard, and thank you very much for your supportive comments. Please count me in in the revolution! My Logic in Reality, upon which my approach in my essay is based, has been called "part of the current revolution in non-classical logic", and I propose myself as the logician in whatever revolutionary council might emerge from this Contest.

Best,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 14:17 GMT
Dear Joseph,

A perfect essay in the Spirit of Descartes! Excellent analysis and synthesis of new concepts, new ideas and conclusions.

I particularly note:

«Energy and information are the most fundamental entities in the universe, but neither

is ontologically prior to the other. Information and energy emerge together from, or are different aspects of, an as yet undefined primordial substrate more fundamental than either .. »« In the macroscopic world, energy and information, as well as continuity and

discontinuity, are non-separable partners. »

«The most reasonable ontological commitment favors an interpretation of reality as the totality of structures, energetic entities, dynamically interacting with each other.»

«The approach I have adopted elsewhere [15] is to provide a demonstration of how actuality and potentiality can evolve together, alternately and reciprocally, to have the" best of both worlds ", so to speak.»

«I have considered the alternative that matter-energy and information emerge together from some more fundamental underlying but at this time unknown substrate - the ground of being.» (!!!)

«Finally, a picture of the universe as fundamentally either continuous or

discontinuous may be usefully replaced by one in which both continuity and discontinuity are jointly and dynamically instantiated. »

Highest score.

Please look also my essay and essay FQXi 2012 related to the ontology of "form" and "in-forma-tion», the ontological justification of "Absolute generating structure" - my version of «the ground of being».

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1796

http://www
.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

With best wishes and regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author JOSEPH E BRENNER wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 14:33 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I guess the simplest thing to say is that comments like yours is what keeps me going. I turn now directly to your essays, especially as I recognize, I think, your name from the Moscow FIS Conference, which I missed.

Best wishes,

Joseph

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:10 GMT
Dear Joseph,

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.