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

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/8/13 at 3:10am UTC, wrote I read, enjoyed, rated... I liked reading what you had to say about the...

Paul Borrill: on 8/6/13 at 4:27am UTC, wrote Chris - I'm pleased to see you use category theory to make your case. And...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/5/13 at 23:45pm UTC, wrote Dear Chris, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Peter Jackson: on 8/3/13 at 18:55pm UTC, wrote Chris, I see you're not answering posts. I hope you're ok. Peter

Michel Planat: on 7/26/13 at 13:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Chris, I greatly enjoyed reading your essay as well as the one your...

Conrad Johnson: on 7/25/13 at 13:05pm UTC, wrote Hi Chris - Though I'm not in a position to follow the technicalities of...

George Kirakosyan: on 7/25/13 at 5:16am UTC, wrote Dear Chris, Thank you for attention to my work. I am fully agree when you...

Antony Ryan: on 7/15/13 at 5:02am UTC, wrote Hello Chris, Nicely written, illustrated and great flow to your essay. I...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""At the risk of stroking physicists’ egos, physics is hard" But every..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

George Musser: "Imagine you could feed the data of the world into a computer and have it..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe it is wonderful this,so you are going to have a nobel prize in..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: ""I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant." It is not. It is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Georgina Woodward: "I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


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 17, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Bits and Co-bits by Chris Fields [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Chris Fields wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 16:24 GMT
Essay Abstract

Its and bits are duals: its are co-bits and bits are co-its. Neither has ontological priority. Recognizing this, it becomes natural to regard its and bits as equally model-theoretic entities, i.e. as semantics imposed on reality by the process of tensor-product decomposition.

Author Bio

Chris Fields is an independent researcher interested in the physics, neuroscience and developmental biology underlying the human perception of a classical world of bounded persistent objects. He has previously worked in academia, government, the not-for-profit sector, and industry; he has published over 130 papers in physics, molecular biology, genomics, and cognitive and information sciences. See chrisfieldsresearch.com for details.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 11:25 GMT
Hi Chris,

Welcome to the contest. I do not think we agree a lot but one of the contest’s goals is to get acquainted with new concepts. I do not feel competent to comment your essay body but in the introduction you ask how “it” actually follows from “bit” in this conception, however, also remains mysterious: it is unclear what, if anything, anchors the processing of information to an objective physical world.

My short essay is focused at the same mysterious connection between these three worlds.

I have also found “W. H. Zurek. Quantum Darwinism” in your essay’s references so I think you may be really interested.

Best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 11:37 GMT
Chris, I am sorry I forgot to login. I am not anonymous.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


JOSEPH E BRENNER wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 14:50 GMT
Hello, Chris,

I was very interested in your post that seems to "clear the air". I came to similar conclusion, much less expertly expressed, that bits are abstractions at least as defined in the standard It-from-Bit position. I would much welcome that you look at my essay, and the "logic of reality" that underlies it and tell me if you think your formalism could be applied to the REAL dualities it implies: Thank you and best regards,

Joseph Brenner

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Chris

Your conclusion that a different view to me, anyway wish you success.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 16:59 GMT
Chris,

Your conclusion, "Its and bits are duals; its are co-bits and bits are co-its. Its and bits are both results of the process of tensor-product decomposition and hence of observation, not inputs to it. Its and bits are, therefore, model-theoretic entities, not physical entities." is very profound as well as your comment, "If its are to be inferred from bits, some of the bits must come not from observation or even memory, but out of thin air."

Your statement that some of the bits must come from thin air, I found to be a factual statement of causality for something that is truly causal cannot exist until it does. These findings have led to reveal how causality unifies gravity with the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministc force. I invite you to rate my essay when you get the chance:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Good luck with your entry of which I have rated highly.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 19:36 GMT
Dear Chris,

I discern a number of truths in your essay but I think the problem you may have that makes you say

RE: "'it' actually follows from 'bit' in this conception, ...remains mysterious ..."

is a likely narrow view of what states can be codified by 1 and 0. Suppose two-states, existence and non-existence can be thus codified?

Then, your statement,

RE:......

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 05:00 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 @ 01:04 GMT
Dear Chris,

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

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 00:06 GMT
I greatly enjoyed your essay.

It was fun to learn how category-theoretic inference and tensor decomposition results in Korzybski's "The word is not the thing, and the map is not the territory." I'll have to revisit it, to fully digest what was said, but you made a highly technical description quite readable - and it made me feel smart.

Good luck in the contest.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:51 GMT
Chris,

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


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 19:52 GMT
Chris,

Great essay! The sort of relationship between functions and forms (vectors and covectors etc) is interesting. I am not sure if you essay is commensurate with my essay , as I mention at the end there is some form of Grothendieck theory or topos that may be involved. Your approach seems to have the flavor of that sort of category theory.

I agree that the classical world is virtual. I have thought for some time the measurement of a quantum state is a sort of epiphenomenology. This may have some bearing on whether consciousness or self awareness is also of this nature.

The essay contest appears to be currently closed! I was going to give your essay a high score. I don’t know if this is permanent, but if not and your essay does not get a boost rattle my cage.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 18:29 GMT
"If its are to be inferred from bits, some of the bits must come not from observation or even memory, but out of thin air." -- this is similar to ideas I've seen expressed in other essays including Dr. Boroson's and Mr. Neil Bates' and Dr. Corda's. I also feel that its outnumber, or at least out-express, bits.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 15:19 GMT
Chris,

A well written and argued essay, a pleasure to read. In particular it was so nice to find clear logical thinking such as;

"Hilbert-space decompositions have no effect on the physics: what's happening is not dependent on how it is described."

Rarely I found no proposals unsupported, and very few arguable.

I hope you do well and that my score will assist. Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 05:02 GMT
Hello Chris,

Nicely written, illustrated and great flow to your essay. I agree that neither It or Bit has ontological priority. I reach a similar conclusion in my essay. Please take a look if you get the time.

Best wishes for the contest,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 05:16 GMT
Dear Chris,

Thank you for attention to my work.

I am fully agree when you say - ,,When the sciences began seriously to diverge in the 19th century, physicists lost the idea that they needed to figure out how they worked. I do not believe that we will ever understand how electrons work until we at least address the question of how we work,,

And I am saying in my work: ,,We must to comprehend beforehand - what we are doing and what we have calculating ...,,

Einstein, Schrodinger and many luminaries has came to analogical/similar conclusions, however ... they has ,,pushed out,, from official science!

There are a lot of weighty arguments on this direction, and anybody, who has the healthy brain, may to came to this idea. So, you and me can be happy - with correctness of our viewpoints and (with our healthy brains too!) I have rating your work on high core, and I thinking suggest it to my attherants also.

Best wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 13:05 GMT
Hi Chris -

Though I'm not in a position to follow the technicalities of your argument, your conclusions make sense to me. But I think what your answer shows is just that the question about the priority of "It" or "Bit" isn't really the key issue here.

You say, "...all observations necessarily impose classicality on the quantum world... observation, by definition, imposes a classical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 13:53 GMT
Dear Chris,

I greatly enjoyed reading your essay as well as the one your wrote last year.

Building good theories of observations is a challenging question.

You write

"Decisions are semantics, not physics".

Following Wheeler, I am not sure that something else that our decisions exist at least we never have a direct access to the world as it is, only convenient representations, a convenient semantics as you would write."

As a past experimentalist I met the problem of understanding the low frequency noise ot the most (ultra)stable quartz and Caesium clocks and finally found that the mere act of observation here, that is aproximating a real number with an irreducible fraction was the key point of the noise in the measurements. Why, just because one measures one clock synchronized to another one (the two clocks are either frequency or phase locked to each other, hence there is an irreducible rational number p/q produced). You are right, this is semantics in the observation.

The corresponding quantum observation challenge is known to be more paradoxal.

At the moment, I think that quantum contextuality is what matters.

You may have some interest in my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

I hope you will take time to read and rate my essay.

Best wishes,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 18:55 GMT
Chris,

I see you're not answering posts. I hope you're ok.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:45 GMT
Dear Chris,

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


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 04:27 GMT
Chris - I'm pleased to see you use category theory to make your case.

And your conclusion was in line with my current thinking...

"Its and bits are both results of the process of tensor-product decomposition and hence observation ; not inputs to it. Its and bits are therefore, model-theoretic entities, not physical entities.

Very nice.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 03:10 GMT
I read, enjoyed, rated...

I liked reading what you had to say about the tensor product decomposition, and may have more to say later.

Good luck!

Jonathan

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.