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

David Reid: on 8/7/13 at 18:06pm UTC, wrote Hi, Michael, Excellent essay: straightforward, getting the point across...

David Reid: on 8/7/13 at 17:57pm UTC, wrote Hi, Paul, Once again, thank you for your kind comments on my essay. Zeus...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 17:32pm UTC, wrote David - I found your essay highly entertaining, and your introduction of...

Michael Helland: on 8/7/13 at 16:40pm UTC, wrote Hello, nice writing. I gave it a ten to help out. I hope you like mine: ...

David Reid: on 8/7/13 at 7:42am UTC, wrote Hi, again, Peter, As the clock ticks towards the finish of this contest,...

David Reid: on 8/7/13 at 3:48am UTC, wrote Hi, Paul, Thanks for your kind comments to my essay, but even more so for...

Paul Borrill: on 8/6/13 at 18:05pm UTC, wrote David - it took me a while to match the printed out copy of your paper with...

David Reid: on 8/5/13 at 17:43pm UTC, wrote Hi, Peter, I have a rather busy week ahead of me, but after that I would...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "State latency is an explanation for the results of Stern Gerlach experiment..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

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:...


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 24, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: The secret love affair between It and Bit by David M Reid [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author David M Reid wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 14:25 GMT
Essay Abstract

Disagreements about the relationship between information and reality are inevitable because physics lumps together concepts of information and of physical reality. Model Theory is ideally suited to disentangle the concepts, thus leading to a clearer resolution of the problem. The text is written for the lay person; there are references for those who wish to delve deeper.

Author Bio

David Reid synthesizes the bit and the it: his Master's in Mathematics at the University of Heidelberg (Germany) was a stop in a nomadic existence, spread out through all the world's habitable continents.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 05:55 GMT
Dear David

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. . . .Or only Gods can do that?

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 18:01 GMT
Hi, Satyavarapu,

Thank you for looking at the abstract. The abstract was a bit short, so I could see how you could have jumped to conclusions about the text. I hope you will have a chance to read the full text of my essay and see that the only mention of divinity is in a playful literary device, and no implication of divine forces are included. Also, you will see that there are numerous references to empirical results in that essay, which was one of your justified concerns.

I have read your essay and posted my comments in the thread below it.

Best wishes, David

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 15:19 GMT
Mr. Reid,

I rated your essay a ten. It is the most unnerving essay I have ever read. I know that one real unique Universe is eternally occurring, once.

You made it crystal clear in your essay that not one philosopher, or physicist, or mathematician who has ever lived or who is presently alive, has ever known, or knows, what the words unique and once actually mean.

Only Kurt Gödel even mentioned unique, and he misinterpreted its meaning when he stated: “There are enough numbers so that every sentences can correspond to a unique number code; that is, so that the quantity and the code have the same interpretation…,” Unique is not same.

If we Wheeler it, we get: Is unique real? Yes (once)

Is information real? No (always)

Please reassure me that I am not the only person who knows what the words unique and once mean.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 17:51 GMT
Hello, Mr. Fisher,

Thank you for your kind approach to my essay. It was an interesting interpretation to my essay, which left some leeway in its possibilities for interpretation.

The relationships between "uniqueness" and "sameness" provide Model Theory with a lot to work with, as equivalence classes help build Ultrafilters which are used as models, or where one investigates the conditions under which a series in a theory can be indistinguishable from another under a given model, and many other topics. Although I noticed at the end of your essay (which I will have to re-read more carefully before I can post a comment)that you said that you are not interested in logic, the meanings of "unique" and "once" have gradations which are indeed being intensively researched by logicians. I hope that is some reassurance.

Best, David

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 18:07 GMT
David,

I do not quite know how to explain this, but unique cannot be researched. Unique happens once and it is complete unto itself. We see similarity all the time. We have no way of assessing unique. It is totally elusive because it completes, once. This makes prediction impossible. Scientists acknowledge the uniqueness of each snowflake or strand of DNA assuming that the difference in structure is small. I maintain that each snowflake or strand of DNA (or anything) is unique as to every part of it. Each of a snowflake's parts must be unique, once. Each bit of everything must be unique, once. Although we may pretend to be able to measure stuff, unique, once cannot be measured.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 13:23 GMT
Hi, Joe,

The position that everything is unique is a philosophical position which is perfectly defensible. However, as you remark, without some way around this uniqueness, physics , along with most other human activities, becomes impossible. This is the reason why, in a strict treatment, equality is mostly replaced by "equivalent". Equivalence classes then form the backbone of a large amount of Mathematical Logic; physicists are a bit looser in their usage, often using equality instead of equivalence.

David

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 16:44 GMT
Dear David,

Nicely written essay - I think it would make a great video too! It was a pleasant read and a great idea to keep it clear with references if the reader wanted to delve deeper - flowed better than some essays. Reminded me a little of a previous winner's approach - which is always a good thing.

My essay might not be along the lines of yours, but if you get the chance, I'd appreciate your views.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 17:40 GMT
Hi, Antony, Thanks for your kind words about my humble essay.

I have read your essay, and posted my comments in the thread following it. But for a spoiler, a summary of my comments: intriguing ideas well worth pursuing.

All the best, David

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 12:57 GMT
Hi David,

Thanks for your comments over on my page. Hope you're enjoying reading so many great essays - I am!

Best wishes for the contest,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 19:39 GMT
David,

I have the sense you are exploring how physics is getting sucked down the same rabbit hole as philosophy. May I offer an answer to the question of reality?

Reality is the extant. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well, then how do we decide what is extant and what is not?

A bit like carving a statue of Zeus. Chip away all that is not and leave all that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 04:29 GMT
John,

Thanks for your observations. One section of my essay explicitly warned against philosophy that was not backed up by physics or mathematics, yes. The main thrust of the essay was to indicate that, since 'meaning' is an unspoken element in even physical and mathematical treatments of the link between reality and information, it would be a good idea to turn to Model Theory, since it formalizes the concept of 'meaning' in strict mathematical form in such a way as to be consistent with the current physical theories. I introduce no new physical theory; I mention a little slice of quantum theory, since this is the part that gives the most headaches when attempting to describe reality. Your observations are more towards the macro realm, where there are fewer problems in formulating physical theory in terms of information.

Bookmark and Share


John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 11:07 GMT
David,

What is meaning, other than the desired outcome or consequence and how do we arrive at it, other than distilling away all that is meaningless? It seems to me meaning is another static reductionism of a dynamically wholistic reality. Is this desire for knowledge really that different than the desire for food or sex? The unspoken need is continuation of the self and genes.

My issue with the quantum realm is its insistence on point particles as the be all, end all. This seems more the result of reductionist tendencies, than overwhelming evidence. We can measure them better.

We can measure duration, but is it really a vector that transcends the present, or is simply the state of the present between events? You would think that if time is a vector from past to future, the faster clock would move into the future faster, but the opposite it true. It ages quicker and so moves into the past quicker.

Epicycles are mathematically effective, but it was the physical theories to explain them that was the problem. Are all these patches and propositions from inflation to blocktime, to dark energy, to multiworlds and multiverses the modern example of giant cosmic gear wheels? When the solutions create as many problems as they solve, it is not good.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 11:20 GMT
It seems physics has achieved consensus more on measurability than logic. Maybe they do need to question their philosophy.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 05:07 GMT
Dear David

An interesting expression: easy to understand and focus on the subject.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 05:45 GMT
Grading method (compared to my goal ) = 5 criteria with 2 points each : The idea actually,Similar views,Measures consistent,Conclusions detail,Applying diversity.

But it seems I did not really understand your conclusion:

"Entwined,yes.It from bit and qubit ?" Sure; look at the creation of models, the computer simulations, and so forth. Bit from it? Sure; a model has a theory.However ,I wouldn't use the word inextricably .Use the microscope of model the ory. Are bit and it the same? Are Romeo and Juliet the same ?"

It is from the bit and bit also from it, tied but still can be separated - What is the true meaning?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 06:37 GMT
Dear Hoang coa Hai,

Oops, I accidentally entered my reply to your message in an independent window. Sorry. See the reply in the next post.

David

Bookmark and Share



Author David M Reid wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 06:35 GMT
Dear Hoang coa Hai, Thank you for reading my essay. The conclusion is that information and reality are interdependent and overlapping, but not identical. (Much of the essay is to show how Model Theory can differentiate between the two.) It is a little like an isomorphism between two structures which share some of the same symbols, thereby confusing anyone who is a little sloppy with notation. An isomorphism can often be shown by what is called a 'back-and-forth' method, which is essentially what happens (ontologically, not temporally) between information and physical reality. Alternatively, you can make an analogy with the paraphrase of Wheeler "Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter where to go." Spacetime and matter are not identical, yet they are intertwined. So too, information (analogous to spacetime geometry) and physical reality (analogous to matter).

I hope this clears it up a little.

Best, David

Bookmark and Share



Darrell R. Poeppelmeyer wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 17:25 GMT
David, This was spritely written. This is a great heuristic run through philosophers, mathematicians, and physicists. Thank god for the myths. It certainly makes me want to investigate model theory. Using the generic sense of the word model, it seems possible to me the public could someday imagine a model that could explain what we can perceive within reality as long as it also explained why we cannot (and will never) perceive other aspects of reality.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author David M Reid wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 05:21 GMT
Hi, Darrell, Your kind comments to my humble essay were much appreciated. If indeed you do indeed find some interest in Model Theory, my efforts will not have been in vain. You brightened my day; thanks again.

David

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 05:36 GMT
Dear David,

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 David M Reid replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 06:50 GMT
Hi, Sreenath,

I shall indeed post comments on your essay. In the meantime, good luck also to you in your investigations.

David

Bookmark and Share


Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 16:47 GMT
Dear David,

Thanks for going through my essay in detail and with care. There is no exaggeration in what I have said in my essay. I would like to answer all your questions point by point.

String Theory, Loop QG and the like are not physical theories; they are just mathematical ploys which intimidate physics by posing themselves as unified physical theories. I reject them because in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 03:25 GMT
Hi, Sreenath,

I appreciate you responding to my comments, but this response is supposed to be in the thread under your essay, not mine. The idea is that the discussion is supposed to be open to everyone reading that page, and your comments are relevant to your essay, not mine, and hence should be available for the readers of your essay, not mine. If you would re-post your comments (you can cut-and-paste) into the thread under your essay, I would be glad to continue the discussion.

Cheers, David

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 05:16 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT
David,

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


Author David M Reid wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 09:33 GMT
To those who might want to follow up on my references, there is a small typo: "Löwenheim" was accidentally written "Löwenstein" (referring to the Löwenheim-Skolem theorems).

David

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 14:01 GMT
Dear David,

A great essay! Excellent knowledge of physics, mathematics and philosophy, a giant fantasy, giant sense of humor! For the first time I read this intriguing essay! A huge amount of information and a clear path to a goal - "grasp" the nature of the information and its "place" in reality, "grasp" the fundamental structure of reality.

A Gottlieb Frege is brilliant! In the "point":

"But I want to go back to structure versus content. I've heard that physical reality gives 'meaning' to information. What, then, is 'meaning'?"

Yes, the "model of self-aware Universe" to design and paint a not so easy!

Here I added the idea of Alexander Zenkina from "Scientific counter-revolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.»

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

David, but in your opinion?

Yes, of course, world physicists are gradually approaching the picture of the world lyricists her spirit, meaning and love. And the crisis «interpretation and representation " will be overcome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

Excellent!
Ten points!

I invite you to visit my blog.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 18:05 GMT
Привет Владимир

Beca
use I type so slowly in Cyrillic, and for the interest of others who might want to read this thread, I will continue in English. (But feel free to refer me to articles in Russian if you continue this thread or the one under your article.)

I am very grateful for your kind evaluation of my essay. To some of your points: starting from the bottom and going up, I have read your excellent essay, and will put a comment in a thread under it.

The YouTube you cited led me to a romance by Николай Носков, which I assumed was meant to illustrate the lyrical spirit which physicists may one day return to.

Thank you for introducing me to Alexander Zenkin. Many of the links to his further articles end up as dead ends, even when one knows his patronymic Alexandrovich. So the link you provided http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm was a big help. [Another article of his in English is http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=D
isplay&handle=euclid.rml/1203431978; the bibliography in http://www.raai.org/about/persons/zenkin/ is not bad.] I won't go into his dispute about infinity (I think that there is room for both kinds of systems: some that admit actual infinities, and some which don't. But that is another subject.) I would welcome an attempt to provide a sense of mathematical systems in the way he suggests (reminiscent of the attempts of Steiner's followers, the anthroposophists, who tried something similar, but with less technology), although I would use the word "truth" much more cautiously. With new technology, that is becoming possible. Perhaps a new generation of physicists would arise with more inspiration; whereas physics also needs the number-crunchers, the truly great physicists also have poetry and music in their souls.

Best, David

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 11:58 GMT
Hi David,

Thank you for your encouraging comments and appreciation of my essay!

In the Russian version of the paper by Alexander Zenkina shorter phrase: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators.» I understand it as an impetus to the idea of Kant's most profound concepts - figure synthesis. That synthesis, which can be done only interested in the truth of the researcher. What kind of truth is it that excites and poets - the deep structure of the world (Universe).

Once again, thank you very much for your understanding and approval!

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 21:21 GMT
Dear David,

I'm away for a few days but have printed off your essay as it sounds fascinating, with some others I hope to read, so will comment and score when I get back. I do hope you may also manage read and score mine. To try to tempt you I include a few comments so far below.

Joe; I accept unequivocally your solution to the unique/identical problem.

Phil; you have made a valuable contribution to the essay contest. It is a pleasure to read.

Akinbo; Very thought provoking essay... ..Many thanks indeed,

Edwin; As always, you're impressive!

Anthony; This seems to be one of the more interesting approaches I've read … ...That's testament to your great writing ability - I think you've done a fantastic job.

James; one could make a career out of studying your piece.

Richard; Your essay has clarified the whole issue of no-go theorems.

Jeff; Peter and others interested in his wonderful essay,

John S; I think your work is clearly significant, and will resolve certain apparently 'metaphysical' aspects of reality to the 'physical' Cosmos.

Ralph; I am deeply impressed with your depth of knowledge. I am also struck the depth of your thinking, your graphics, and your willingness to 'put yourself on the line' intellectually.

Michel; Your essay is attractive and I read it with much interest.

Than; we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Helmut; Technically challenging and philosophically deep - very few papers meet both. This is one of them.

And; I hope this astonishing paper finds many many readers, especially among theoretical physicists: It is groundbreaking.

Very Best wishes for the run in

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 11:26 GMT
Hi, Peter,

I look forward to your comments. I have downloaded your essay (the advertising wasn't really necessary) and have begun to read it, and will finish reading it later, at which time I will put my comments under your essay.

Ciao, David

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 20:05 GMT
David,

Thanks for your helpful comments on my blog, to which I've responded. I understood them better for reading your own excellent and entertaining essay, covering many of the issues my ontology physically contacts as it rushes through space over time (see my last 2 essays).

I have to admit I was getting a little lost in the crowd at one stage as they all chirped in, a bit like Hyde Park Corner, but at least they respectfully took it in turn. If only real life were so well ordered and less uncertain!

Two small comments;

[1] Kierkegaard seems to dismiss the SR concept that; "an observer can be any particle not just a human." Yet I suggest that much is solved by proper definition, so if we add the requirement of 'computation' to 'detection' to obtain a measurement, then we can define 'observer' as one producing a measurement, yet Einstein's point about 'localisation by interaction' still stands, and we can now then say this is 'localisation to propagation speed c'. Which by my reckoning then tends to unify all physics!?

[2] I simply couldn't make any sense of your position, which seems to be not just half way betwixt but even closer to the bottom than the top! I would have expected an incisive, relevant and readable work such as yours to be around 5 not 3. My very best double figure efforts to this end are on the way now. Perhaps we were both a bit to far out in the literary extremes, if not near the same edge.

Well done and thank you for an enjoyable and helpful read.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 16:31 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for your comments. I enjoy constructive criticism; otherwise how does one learn?

I have also continued the discussion under your essay.

Could you give me the links to your last two essays?

To your comments:

[1] My fault for not making a Kierkegaard speak in complete sentences. Kierkegaard is meant to be embracing that SR concept, not dismissing it. Sorry.

You make a very good point that even pairs of entangled particles can only be fully measured as a system within the appropriate light cone. I believe Penrose did some work starting with this idea, but I would have to look it up to get the details.

[2] True, I would've liked to explain my central position better, but I ran out of room. The position is summed up in the final dialogue noting that information and physical reality are so tied up with one another (in a fashion best pointed out by a model-theoretic analysis) that it is a fallacy to assert that one is ontologically primary to the other.

My low score is of little import, as I wrote the essay for the fun of it, but I am gratified to find a few readers who nonetheless enjoyed it. So, thanks again.

David

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 16:21 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 16:35 GMT
Hi, John,

Thanks for sharing your insights, but I believe that you put them in the wrong place: since they did not address my essay, but only commented on your own, they belong under your essay, not mine.

David

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 19:25 GMT
Dear David,

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 David M Reid replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 03:17 GMT
Hello, Amazigh

Thank you for reading my essay. I hope you enjoyed it.

I have visited your essay as you requested. I will comment under that essay.

In the above comment you use the coined words eUniverse, eReality, eEnergy, eInfo. You use the coined word eDuality in the title of your essay. Yet I could not find a definition of this "e-" prefix. Perhaps I overlooked it somewhere. Could you explain what you meant?

Layhannike

David

Bookmark and Share


eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 12:08 GMT
Dear David M Reid,

Yes, (e) is a mystery.

(e) for eEnergy, for a new science in coming : a binary Science, dual Science, fundamental Science.

I have discovered the functionning of eUniverse : eDuality is in all things, like motion.

And all things arising, by couple, pair.

« simple, complex », « wave, particle », « space, time », « matter, antimatter », « electicity, magnetism », « Weak force , Strong force », « gravity, expansion of space », and so on...

Duality is in all cultures (Egyptians, Greecs, Indians, Chineses, ...) and in each one of us, but never explained and equaled like in China.

The « Yin, Yang » duality is full of truth, but this must be completed and reinterpreted, like our Science.

eDuality is present in physics, mathematics, philosophy, economics, biology, chemistry, religion, our thinking, in computers and mechanical machinery, linguistics, and so on...

Each one of us speaks with eDuality.

eDuality is the same everywhere.

There is one kind of eDuality when this concept is clear known.

eUniverse is very simple at the begining, very complex after.

This eDuality, these opposites, these contraries, are the 0 and 1 of information.

It takes a book to explain all these concepts : eEnergy, eInfo, eReality, eDuality, and so on...

Good luck,

Amazigh H.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:05 GMT
David - it took me a while to match the printed out copy of your paper with your name. But I’m glad I did, and that I read your essay. I left you a good rating for an Entertaining essay.

Here’s another way you might thing of adding a new axis to the circle:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a
.pdf

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 03:48 GMT
Hi, Paul,

Thanks for your kind comments to my essay, but even more so for the link to your excellent essay. I have commented on it under your essay.

Best regards, David

Bookmark and Share



Michael Helland wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:40 GMT
Hello, nice writing. I gave it a ten to help out.

I hope you like mine:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:06 GMT
Hi, Michael,

Excellent essay: straightforward, getting the point across in a very readable fashion.

In my time zone it is night, so I have no more time to comment; I shall now give you a top rating, and then go to bed.

All the best, David

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:32 GMT
David - I found your essay highly entertaining, and your introduction of model theory very insightful. Thank you.

I wonder I wonder what Hermes and Zeus would think of my essay?

I begin with the question of EPR, assume the constancy of speed of light, but question our ability to measure intervals in “time” in separate locations. I introduce the concept of a reversible subtime in order to explain the violations in Bell correlations, and show (at least in descriptive form) that it is possible to understand these results without sacrificing locality. My conclusion: the photon is the carrier of time and the universe is a network automata.

You can find the latest version 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).

Kind regards, Paul



.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author David M Reid replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:57 GMT
Hi, Paul,

Once again, thank you for your kind comments on my essay. Zeus and Hermes, aka me, definitely had a very high opinion of your essay, as I mentioned after your previous comment to my essay and much more expansively in the comment I left under your essay. In a nutshell, I encourage you to expand your essay, giving it the necessary mathematical formalization (which does exist), and publish the expanded essay elsewhere for wider peer review. The central ideas have been suggested before: Hawking suggested another time dimension, Penrose suggested using light as the carrier of time, and Beane, Davoudi & Savage in Germany have put some fine points on the idea of the universe as a network automata, but no one has put these three streams together.

Best regards, David

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.