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

Israel Perez: on 8/22/13 at 7:34am UTC, wrote Hi Marina I haven't seen that case, so I'm afraid I can't help with that....

M. Vasilyeva: on 8/21/13 at 3:31am UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Perez, so nice to hear from you! I have just downloaded Hinton's...

Israel Perez: on 8/19/13 at 17:41pm UTC, wrote Hi Marina No problem, I can see that you are busy in another discussions....

Daryl Janzen: on 8/19/13 at 2:38am UTC, wrote Dear Marina, Sorry for the slow response. I wanted to say thanks, and that...

M. Vasilyeva: on 8/14/13 at 19:36pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Perez, please forgive me for taking so long to reply to your most...

M. Vasilyeva: on 8/14/13 at 19:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Darryl, thank you for your very interesting comments. Regarding...

Daryl Janzen: on 8/12/13 at 17:57pm UTC, wrote Dear Marina, I don't think you should be so critical of your essay. It's...

M. Vasilyeva: on 8/12/13 at 13:45pm UTC, wrote oops! This morning I finished reading the article in Discover and see what...


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: The Play of Mind in Emptiness by M. V. Vasilyeva [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 16:12 GMT
Essay Abstract

I defend the position that information lies not only in the heart of Life but also is at core of the reality studied by physics. Despite the central role information plays in shaping reality, It is more fundamental than Bit, the latter being just the reflection of the former. Once reflected though, bits are absorbed into It and become the integral part of the emerging reality which in turn is reflected again, and again, in a recursive loop, where the results of the previous iteration are plugged in as the input for the next. The recursion suggests that information is continuously generated by the events large and small, near and far; and that each event sees its own thread of causality. Together these threads weave into the intricate tapestry of reality. The view of flow of time as a fractal wave implies that information about the future may arrive beforehand in the form of smaller and seemingly unrelated events. Finally, the idea is advanced that nature may store information in the `now’ of an idling process waiting for the set of input, it requires in order to run, to complete, thus explaining the quantized flow of energy.

Author Bio

Ms. Vasilyeva grew up in the former Soviet Union. She graduated from NYU with a degree in computer science. Having worked in the industry in NY and LA, she now lives with her family in the woods of Pennsylvania, pursuing her interests in history of ideas, physiology and physics. A gifted analyst, she loves a good puzzle.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 22:13 GMT
Dear Vasilieva:

Congratulations, seems to me that your essay will help people to come down to earth and keep their feet on it. This does not mean that they should not dream, but if they want to have their heads at cloud level, they should grow all they can, tying for it without leaving their feet from the ground. Seems to me that I am out of your field of knowledge,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 00:51 GMT
Marina,

I like you down to earth approach and insight. May I ask what your thoughts are on 'how' these observed states come into being?

This is the focus of my essay and so I looking to see if this was also a consideration of yours. So far only Alexei essay has addressed such a consideration. I highly recommend you check out his essay... and of course mine as well if you get the chance.

Best of luck.

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 09:57 GMT
Dear Ms. Vasilyeva,

You are right to define information in biological terms, giving importance to our experience of reality. Over the centuries we've moved away from a balanced 'intuitive-abstract' take on reality, so that we now accentuate abstractions. This leads to excesses: The proposition that the universe is entirely composed of information is limiting and impractical, as you...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 13:13 GMT
Spacibo Vasilyeva for a nice essay presented here.

Your words''''' Despite the central role information plays in shaping reality, It is more fundamental than Bit, the latter being just the reflection of the former. Once reflected though, bits are absorbed into It and become the integral part of the emerging reality which in turn is reflected again, and again, in a recursive loop''''' are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 15:18 GMT
Gentlemen,

thank you for taking time to read and comment on my essay. I am going to do the same, even though I must admit that I too am overwhelmed by the sheer volume of entries -- which forces one read 'diagonally' lol. Thus, to address some of your concerns:

_Nowhere_ did I say that "the proposition that the universe is entirely composed of information is limiting and impractical."

The two central ideas of my essay are that 'It' is unknown except through the means of 'bits' delivered to our senses -and sensors- and that until the arrival of SR 'Bit' and 'It' were one and the same in our minds.

I offer a straightforward analysis of what we mean by 'information', in both our direct experience and the physics of macro world, and suggest that the same approach may not be applicable to the world of Quantum. I bring attention to the crudeness of the quantum measuring process -- despite it representing our highest technological achievement -- and suggest that it should be possible, at least in principle, to capture other _kinds of bits_ out there -- ether directly, by means of improved or entirely different technology, or indirectly, through reasoning. My call is to free ourselves from the restrictions imposed by our current conventions and, in Héctor's words above, allow ourselves to "dream" of what those _other kinds of bits_ may be.

Regarding "'how' these observed states come into being" and whether it is "practical [to model the reality on a computer]":

My view is in line with spacetime emerging as a result of Cellular-Automaton-like processes, described with such eloquence and sophistication by Prof. D'Ariano -- even though I intentionally speak of the same in simple, down to earth terms (hopefully without making it sound dumb in the process). But! While I believe that it is possible to model reality on a computer, certainly some aspects of the whole, I invite to go beyond the simplicity of binary choices, and instead of asking, is it 0 or 1, ask instead what happens _at the boundary_, real or implied, where 1 and 0 meet.

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 17:27 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva

A very deep essays, especially "If information arrives in the shape of a fractal wave, instead of a neat cone of causality,then the front of this wave, at the boundary of now separating future from the past,contains many small and smaller yet events which, having already completed,repeatedly herald of larger events to come. They do it through means of similarity in their...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:32 GMT
M. V. Vasilyeva,

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


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 08:52 GMT
Dear Marina Vasilyeva,

I am really enjoyed (surprised) reading your essay where you show seriously analytical approach to how need to put correct questions. However, if you will continue in such spirit maybe you will get a lot of problems in your life. I think already that most of people just do not want look the reality but they want to see something beauty-mystery round of which is possible talk long empty! I am intendant rate your work as one of best. But I ask you try read my work also (where you will find more poison!) and response pishite mne from there.

Best wishes,

George

ESSAY

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 09:04 GMT
Sorry,

In above post some error

Please open from here:

George Kirakosyan

ESSAY

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Marina,

Congratulations for a very nicely written essay.

Yes "Quantum milieu must differ somehow from both space and spacetime".

We have found that projective geometry, including Flatland, still play an immense role in the quantum observations. If you have time you may have a look, and some insights, about the 'dessins d'enfants' that I introduce in my essay.

Good luck,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 17:55 GMT
Dear Marina,

You have give me good lesson! Maybe I am actually more pessimist than necessary. It is maybe because I am not so young and you can be right on this point. Now new generation is grooving up who already do not want the false! It gave some hope on future. Your work is nice by its trust, and I appreciate it by 8 point with clean heart.

I am very hopeful you will not outsider!

With best wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 19:11 GMT
Dear Marina.

What is "the same information"?

The question goes back to Plato.

All the best.

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 20:34 GMT
Dear Yuri,

glad to see you again and thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. It is hard to find a quiet moment in this holiday bustle to read and comment on so many essays! The precise context of quote you refer to escapes me at the moment. But I think it may relate more to your essay than mine. I will read and comment on it when I get a chance.

I wish you fun bbq and spectacular fireworks :)

Bookmark and Share


Yuri Danoyan replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 14:20 GMT
Dear Marina

I gave you July 5 5x2=10 grade

No joking.

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 22:30 GMT
Dear Dr Vasilyeva,

I like your idea that information is repeatedly re-absorbed by reality. It's a very logical argument and immediately made me think of fractals. So glad to see these mentioned.

Original and one of my favourite essays so far!

My essay based partly around the Fibonacci sequence will hopefully be of interest to you.

Excellent work - well done!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 00:09 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva:



I congratulated you because with your essay seemed to me that help people to come down to earth. I appreciate that your view of my essay as unique, refer to that nobody know, or ever had my view including the greatest minds of mankind. This make me feel as a stupid, just because I can see that I was unable to take the mysterious time down to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 21:34 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva:

Thank you

Héctor

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 10:42 GMT
Dear Marina,

This years essay did not disappoint. I believe your perceptions are excellent, including 'recursive loops', sensor dependency, limbic system processing, that "output, or new information, is always generated at the boundary that separates two different environments", and that "participatory scheme... implies that reality is a local phenomenon, perpetually generated anew,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 21:00 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva

The absolute in any society that is: whether democracy or monarchy - that society is also will absolute only one type of "boss".

You absolute are yourself - can not be any exceptions or any equivalent.

The presence and your existence will absolute is not the dependent on observation, feeling or assessment of any person - whether it's about more than 6 billion people be still not yet to known to you.

You can be also ever have that thought.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 15:36 GMT
Marina,

I was intrigued by your essay especially the sentence : Reality is continuesly emerging anew....

There you really are touching my preception.

About the various creatures , of course there are various forms of consciousness, forms that are not acessible to our five senses feeded consciousness, our awareness is only one aspect of the whole spectrum of information that is "available". In an earlier paper (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/913) "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" I introduced the so called "Subjective Simultaneity Sphere" with in its center a singularity called "consciousness" that is the origin of the reality awareness of an individual, of course this counts for every form of creature.

The what you call "participation" (page 3) is an effect of decoherence in my view.

I hope that you can read, comment and also rate (I am not a professional !) my essay : "THE QUEST FOR THE PRIMAL SEQUENCE"

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
Sorry marina, I forgot to log in, anonymus is Wilhelmus. (the rating succeeded when not logged in...)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 17:33 GMT
Marina,

Thank you for your kind comments on my thread. I reread your entry and it is a very clear, insightful and sensible analysis of the field of physics. I find myself somewhat outside the fold though. I don't think we can understand information only in terms of other information. I think its properties and limitations are largely determined by the nature of energy as medium. If it were up to information alone, it would propagate endlessly and only be limited by informational conflicts. In order for new information to be created, old is erased, which goes against the idea information is never lost. This goes to my argument about time, that it is not a vector from past to future, but change causing future to become past. Duration is only a measure of the dynamic process and is the state of what is present, not a vector on which present moves. I think the relationship between energy and information is not only similar to, but part of the relation between radiation and mass. In fact, it is the tendency to apply the structural confines of mass/information, to energy/radiation, which biases our understanding of this side of the cycle. For instance, I suspect we will come to understand how redshift is a natural effect of radiation expanding out on release and received as samplings, rather than traveling as point particles over intergalactic distances.

On a personal level, I don't have the time or talent to pursue these debates to the degree they need, so I try to stick to very basic debating points and not expose my limitations too much.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 05:33 GMT
Marina

Amongst other things on my essay blog you pointed me to your comments on SR.

Now, had Einstein done what he said he was going to do, then it would be a ‘theory of the relativity of information’ (as you phrase it). But he didn’t, so it isn’t. It is just wrong.

There are two phases to explaining this:

1 What actually is SR.

As defined by...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 10:29 GMT
Dear Marina,

I just read your essay and would like to provide my feedback.

First, the title: It strikes me as perhaps the most lyrical of all the entries, but that by itself is not a big deal; (most) anyone can come up with lyrical expressions of some sort or another. To make it lyrical and to have it precisely sum up the body of the essay is to me a form of art, and you did it.

Second, the body: The approach followed in your essay is consistent with the informal tone you set at the beginning. But informal does not mean that there are not some important insights to be shared. I gleaned three major ones:

1) "...each kind of creature perceives the world through its own set of narrow bands on various spectra of available information..." How true! I have sometimes tried to imagine what the world would be like if I could perceive it as some of the animals you mentioned (and others) do. Surely it would be very different. You can see just from astronomical pictures that the world looks quite different at different wavelengths. If the temperature of the sun were a just a bit different, we would have probably evolved sight within a visible spectrum that is different from our actual one. Perhaps, instead of using Magnesium to make chlorophyll, plants would have used iron to make hemoglobin-like compounds to perform photosynthesis (This is actually a research subject). Then plants would be red instead of green. I'm sure your friend wouldn't mind, though.

But seriously, the fact that this is so often forgotten is just another reflection of the the anthropocentric aspect that is imperceptibly interwoven in our worldview, which brings me to the second insight

2) "It [i.e. Wheeler's purported scheme whereby everything is reducible to the apparatus-elicited answer of a yes or no question] is limiting because it presupposes an a priori knowledge about both the universe at large and every specific thing in it..." I have now read many entries to this contest, and a fair number of them mentioned Wheeler's scheme, but none pointed out this implication, it did not even occur to me. But you are absolutely right, one can't ask yes or no questions about things about which one has no inkling and I agree that this is a serious limitation of his scheme. I think you have uncovered an anthropocentric facet that goes beyond the talk about measurement devices and questions because it makes plain that his scheme depends in an unmitigable manner on the observer's prior knowledge.

3) "From here it is natural to infer that it [i.e. participation] must also hold true for each and every thing in existence." I think this is a profound thought. Consider how many philosophers have tried to (unsuccessfully) define "existence". For example, if you look at the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, you will find a lengthy article which fails to come to a conclusion. I have myself pondered the question for a long time (in fact, I have an essay in preparation which is tentatively titled "Quantum Mechanics and Existence"). If your approach works, then it can be used as a working definition for physical existence. The main question I would have is in what ways you would differentiate between 'participation' and a physical interaction. You have presented a cyclic schema, but it seems to me that one could label the steps also as components of interactions, though your discussion of the applicability of this schema in quantum mechanics suggests an approach for differentiating between them.

In any event, thinking of participation in this generalized sense seems to me immensely more sensible and fruitful than thinking of it in terms of the anthropic principle (you can probably tell that I am not a fan of it).

Here are some other short comments:

-the phrase "Grappling in the dark..." sounds vaguely familiar, where did I encounter this before?

-I also like the humor in your essay. I'm curious about the Russian expression, because I thought hamburgers were an American invention

-I think I got the general idea behind the fractal waves, but I think as you stated it, it may easily give one the impression that you are raising the possibility of superluminal signal transmission or information transfer. I would probably have been better to flesh out the idea some more. It may well be that there are locally causal chains of which we are not aware at a conscious level, but which we recognize subconsciously , and which would therefore, upon encounter with the effects of the first few members of the chain, trigger the kind of reaction that you mentioned.

I enjoyed your insightful and fun essay very much and wish you all the best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 14:40 GMT
Thank you Armin for your feedback!

Re: 'existence' I do not pretend to have a better definition than you or many philosophers in history have suggested. I only responded to Wheeler's idea of 'participation in the universe'. You ask, "in what ways you would differentiate between 'participation' and a physical interaction." I don't. However, in terms of information as knowledge of something, it is self-evident that unless two processes interact, either directly or indirectly, they remain ignorant of each other. In other words, one knows of existence of only those processes with which one interacts within the same shared milieu.

.

Re: fractal waves and an impression that I am "raising the possibility of superluminal signal transmission or information transfer" -- not really. I merely point out that if it is shaped as a fractal, then information about the 'main event' arrives before the event itself.

In real life situation, a good example is an approaching thunder storm. There are many smaller events heralding its arrival, like, say, positive charge building up on the ground -- but of course there are many, many others. If you look around, even the 'dumb' insects 'know' when the storm is coming. They stop flying around and instead seek out shelter, which they find beneath the leaves, where they just sit, waiting (and look very cute doing it, I may add).

This is just an example of how in real life no event occurs singly but in the context of may other events. It is in this sense that I mean that information arrives in a shape of a fractal. The main feature of a fractal is that distinct patterns are repeated, even though never precisely, on many levels, regardless of how far one cares to zoom in or out. If the 'main event' is a completed pattern on the level of a certain scale, then many smaller similar patterns/events are formed before the larger one and in effect comprise the larger one.

I apply the same general idea to the realm of Quantum, following the clue that the output of cellular automata (CA) often has many features of a fractal. And so I visualize spacetime emerging as a result of CA-like processes that generate 'events'. In the terms of a 'participatory scheme' it means that such a process takes some 'bits' of energy as input and outputs some other 'bits' or a 'bit' in turn (this is my version of the CA of which Prof. D'Ariano speaks in his essay). To this general setup I apply the central theme of SR which implies that each process 'sees' its own order of the preceding events, each from its own reference frame (even though the definition of RF is somewhat different here). If the relevant events generating those input bits for the processes in question are represented as a set, then this set is ordered differently by each process that draws its input from this set. I thought this offered a good visualization of how the 'beads' of events are 'weaved' with the specific to each process 'thread of causality' into the fabric of spacetime underlying reality.

.

Re: Russian humor, the word is 'cutlet' (as in "a patty of chopped meat or fish, usually coated with bread crumbs and fried"), which I thought was better replaced with more familiar 'hamburger'.

Thanks again for your sincere feedback. I value it a lot :)

Bookmark and Share



Lorraine Ford wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 05:11 GMT
Hello Marina,

I think yours is an interesting essay, well written and easy to read (apart from a few spelling glitches).

I think it's appropriate that you discuss the rich variety of information captured by nature's plants, animals and other organisms - it's easy to forget that other organisms routinely acquire information about the world that is different to the information we acquire - whether it is sensitivity to different frequencies of sound waves or different wavelengths of light, or more acute sight or sensitivity to minute electric currents.

I liked the bit where you question Wheeler's "apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions" idea as "both limiting and impractical". I found your discussion relating to Wheeler's "participatory universe" interesting, though I think that the "participatory universe" idea should perhaps also be questioned because, as you described it, it might seem that there is no essential difference between the participation of a sausage and the participation of a person! I personally think his "participatory universe" idea is of value, but of limited value.

In your final discussion where you talk about "each participating event, or a process", are you talking about subjects? If not, if reality is just "a process of active information exchange", what is it that differentiates anything so that it can be described as an event or a process?

Cheers,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 18:13 GMT
Thank you Lorraine for taking time to read and comment on my essay :)

You wrote: "In your final discussion where you talk about "each participating event, or a process", are you talking about subjects? If not, if reality is just "a process of active information exchange", what is it that differentiates anything so that it can be described as an event or a process?"

Well, in my view a process generates an event; and an event is the act of putting out a transformed form of energy. And I am not talking about subjects, even though it was Life that I said could be defined as "a process of active information exchange between the living things and their environment". Clearly 'dead matter' also exchanges information with its environment, in a far simpler form than life processes.

.

I wanted to convey the idea of reality as emerging as a result of underlying processes that together shape the dynamic structure of space-time. In essence, this view is similar to Margriet Anne O'Regan's who finds information's ontological identity in pure geometry of all things in existence. In our current understanding of 'things' everything is ultimately 'made of' the underlying quantum processes. Here information is a process that gives 'space' its dynamic shape, thus revealing the geometry of 'things in it'. I believe this is what ancients also meant, within their own framework, in the quote I used for the title.

.

Re: Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle, according to the essay by 3 authors Singleton, Vagenas, and Zhu, he came up with it and coined the phrase "it from bit" back in the 1950s and not the late 1980s, as some people assumed by the publishing date of the most commonly available reference. This makes more sense, as in the 1950s these ideas not only looked more fresh and intriguing, but also fit the context of the state of knowledge of the time. Nowadays, while the question of information is still actual, so far I have not seen one essay that took Wheeler's PAP seriously.

..Which unfortunately does not mean that anthropocentrism is no longer ingrained in our approach to science. Thus regarding my allusions that there are other types of energy/information waiting to be discovered, I may as well confess now that when I decided to participate in this contest, my initial intent was to challenge the current assumption that we already know all energies/forces shaping the reality and now only pursue a deeper understanding of them.

I had a good example of such an ignored and => unexplored type of energy in mind, but then decided against bringing it up, mainly due to the controversy surrounding the phenomenon (even though the reality of it can be easily assessed by anyone interested -- I know of at least 2 tests one can perform to establish this fact). By extension, this would suggest that, in addition, there may be yet other types of energy/information still unexplored and they may be the way out of the current impasse physics reached with QM. However, the search for these 'other interactions' that could be detected with either improved or entirely different technology is precluded as unscientific by the constrains of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Later I may still bring up that missing context, without which, admittedly, my allusions that there must be other types of information 'out there' seems unjustified. However, I would also like to point out that the main difficulty surrounding the phenomenon lies in the fact that, while being of physical nature (as in clearly affecting biological systems), it does not fit into any of our current scientific schemes. It is on these grounds --i.e. that we have no clue how it works-- that the reality of it is denied (!) This is the manifestation of the anthropocentric principle at its worst, for it demands in effect that the universe must match our established schemes about it and not the other way around.

.

You mentioned spelling glitches (thank you :). I obviously don't know what you refer to, for otherwise I'd fix them. I generally rely on Word, which of course is of no help when I use totally wrong words lol. It is true that English is not my native tongue and my 'print accent' usually shows in wrong placement of articles and odd use of prepositions. Perhaps you recall what exactly those glitches were? I'd really, really appreciate it. I hope there was more to it than just 'spacetime' -? I am aware that there is another spelling but prefer this one, anticipating that it might be the 'right' one in not so distant future :)

Thank you again for your positive comments and your feedback on my essay!

Bookmark and Share


Lorraine Ford replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 01:17 GMT
Thanks Marina for your reply to my comments/question.

Your English expression and fluency is excellent, in many ways better than mine. But as you have requested it, and at the risk of my being seen as a nitpicker, here are the spelling glitches I noticed:

"the living lings and their environment" page 1

"In his thesis Wheel conjectured" page 3

"maybe his main intension...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 15:08 GMT
Dear Madam,

Your essay is very interesting and different from most essays, though have many similarities with our essay. Hence kindly bear with our lengthy comment.

The last paragraph of your first part is interesting reading, but you left out the conclusions. We perceive the result of measurement by our sense organs. Where the instrument is faulty, the readings will also be faulty....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 21:41 GMT
Hello Basudeba and Mishra!

I assume there are two of you, sine you always refer to your essay as 'our' :) Thank you for taking time to read and comment on my essay. You touch on many important points, out of which I am in the mood for answering these:

You speak of 'perception' as requiring a prior knowledge. Yours is different definition from mine, which is simply the act of.. well,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 02:14 GMT
Dear Madam,

Like your essay, this post is also very interesting in the sense it provides food for thought. But first the clarification: basudeba and mishra are the same person’s first and last names. When it comes to consciousness as the perceptor, there is no difference between individual perceptions – they all are perceived as ‘I know…’. Since we are not addressing each others...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 12:11 GMT
Dear Madam,

We have commented on the essay of Madam CAROLYN DEVEREUX in her thread. You can see it there. Still we recommend you to read our essay.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Patrick Tonin wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Marina,

Very nice essay.

I have also seen your post on Mauro's blog:

"Thus, in my understanding, if ToE is ever to be found, such a theory would naturally have to be background independent -- in fact, the organization of what we define as background would emerge from it -- and everything else would emerge from this background. Or, in layman terms again, every 'thing', including space-time itself, is ultimately 'made of' the underlying quantum processes."

I completly agree with you and that is what I have developped in my essay. It is written in layman terms (I am not a physicist) and I think that you might like to read it. If so, please let me have your comments. (The full theory is here, if you are interested)

Patrick

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 15:50 GMT
Marina,

This fine essay meticulously complies with the intent of the essay contest in that it contains a very high degree of relevance; it is also an absorbingly interesting work to read from start to finish. It unerringly points to the untold tragedy of physics.

You wrote: “What constitutes information for each creature, be it bacterium, protozoan, plant, animal or insect, depends entirely on what its sensors or senses can deliver.

Scientific man has ended that. All life forms on the planet can now only smell scientifically adulterated scents for all of the air is now polluted. All life forms on the planet can now only see scientifically altered scenery. All life forms on the planet can now only hear scientifically enhanced sounds. All life forms on the planet can only be touched by scientifically altered textures. As all life can only continue to exists providing it consumes and regurgitates differing parts of itself, all life forms are now adulterated and life will soon turn toxic.

Man will be well informed about it though.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 21:01 GMT
Dear Marina,

World contests FQXi - it contests new fundamental ideas, new deep meanings and new concepts. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions.

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution 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

I have only one question: why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

I wish you success,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 13:06 GMT
Uvazhaemaya Marina! Esly Vy eche ne ozenili moe esse, napishite mne- pochta v moem esse. S uvazheniem, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
Dear Marina

Just to let you know that I have read your insightful essay. As before I found it well written and structured. You did a great job analyzing the back and forth of information. I'd like to make a couple of brief comments about your work.

You: it presupposes an a priori knowledge about both the universe at large and every specific

thing in it

Indeed, it seems that the "it" cannot be separated from the "bit" or viceversa, so, perhaps it's just a matter of convention.

You: The only way to know It is through bits captured by our sensors...

This discussion of whether "it from bit" or "bit from it" appears to me as a modern version of the old problems between "reason" or "experience" and "subject" or "object". I think we are discussing a similar situation: Is reason that generates the knowledge of the outside world or experience? How can we know the object without a subject? What would the subject know if there were no object to be known? Objective reality is always SUBJECTED to the appreciation of the subject... This looks like a vicious circle.

I wish you good luck in the contest!

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 01:11 GMT
Thank you Israel for your perfunctory comments on my essay :) I read yours as soon as I saw it and was disappointed too. As I understand your position, you consider the topic of this year contest largely superfluous. This must be because you believe that our knowledge of.. 'things' amounts to 'things themselves' (here 'things' also include 'events' etc). Or, as you say above, '"it" cannot be separated from the "bit".

I beg to differ and I find your position particularly surprising in the context of your on-going debate with 'realists' about the relevance of the absolute reference frame. This is because imho _information_ about things, and not things themselves, lies at the crux of this debate. I will return to this later in a separate post. In the meantime I want to address the end of your post, where you bring up '"reason" or "experience" and "subject" or "object"'. These are concepts pertaining awareness, consciousness and philosophy, which I too consider superfluous in physics today.

I am not fond of Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle and I am not alone: out of all the essays I managed to read thus far (50+), only one took it seriously. I make it very clear in my essay that every 'thing' in existence 'traps' and generates information and so participates equality in making a snapshot of reality. I also stress that information exists regardless of whether there are 'subjects' privy to it. Because of this I think you read my essay 2 weeks ago and by now forgot what it was about lol. Hey, I understand :)

IMHO, 'objects' and 'subjects' is not a right way of approaching 'information'. I very much liked the indisputable truth pointed out by Conrad Johnson in his essay and that is "There's no such thing as information without a context that actually defines it." IMHO the best way of appreciating information in physics is in relativity. I will address this in the following post.

Bookmark and Share


Israel Perez replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 21:32 GMT
Hi Marina

I'm aware that you like to discuss these topics and perhaps you were expecting to have a far-reaching discussion. May be you got me wrong in some aspects. As I said, I found your work interesting and I think you did a nice job analyzing the topic. I agree with most of what you typed. Because of this, I think I have nothing much to comment, as some people say, "it is boring...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 20:08 GMT
Israel,

sorry if my post annoyed you. I was just poking fun at you :) And sorry for taking so long to reply. There is a lot of going on in the woods, shroomies and berries, water and sun. Hope your summer is fun too.

So, the information and relativity.

..Well, this seems so obvious to me now that I had a hard time finding the best way of stating it. It's basically comes down...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 15:42 GMT
Marina - I enjoyed your essay, and I like your approach very much. As I did also in my essay, you're starting from the question of how information-processes actually work in the physical world, rather than from an abstract notion of information in itself. We know a tremendous amount about how information gets observed and communicated, physically - but the inherent complexity of all such processes is daunting. Despite the evidence of quantum theory, it's hard for many to believe this kind of process could be in any way fundamental.

In contrast, you make a very serious attempt to analyze what's going on in observing and communicating physical information. This idea in particular is just what I think we need to focus on - that "Every single thing in existence participates, i.e. it receives information, processes it and outputs in turn." As you also put it - "reality is a local phenomenon, perpetually generated anew, emerging as the result of exchange of information between all participants."

Your 8-point breakdown of the process is very good. The one thing missing is the interactive context in which any particular piece of information gets defined, whether as input or output. I can hardly blame you for that, though, since the point of my essay is just how difficult it is to conceptualize "context" adequately. The notion is foreign to our intellectual tradition, which tends to jump back and forth between the individual viewpoint and the universal, leaving out everything between. Only in biology does local context get much attention - and I suspect it may only be in the framework of an evolutionary theory that we can really grapple with this concept.

Thanks for a very interesting piece of work - it's very encouraging to me that there are other explorers in this particular wilderness.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 00:08 GMT
Thank you Conrad for your encouraging comments :)

Regarding the context, in which "any particular piece of information gets defined", in my scheme, it is the milieu. It got lost in the middle of my 8-point breakdown, but actually the milieu is present throughout the process. I could have started with it, and thus emphasized it more, but it was the loop that I stressed.

And regarding the 'definition' of a "particular piece of information", I don't even go into this. I examine 'participation' on a simple example; and imho it does not matter what sort of information that is; the underlying loop is the same.

I used 'milieu' for the context instead of 'background' or 'environment', for the reason best shown in the following: Suppose there is a field of some sort within many other fields in the same environment, and there is a group of 'participants' that can 'trap' the bits of this field. And suppose there is a group of participants in the same environment who remain oblivious of this field. This field is the milieu for the members of the first group but not for the second. Unless there is another filed/milieu shared by both groups, the two will remain oblivious of each other, despite existing side by side. In other words, one knows of existence of only those processes with which one interacts within the same shared milieu. I did not go into these details because I saw this as self-evident ;)

Thanks again for you feedback and please do check the essay by Prof. McHarris, if you have not done it already. You will love it.

-Marina

Bookmark and Share



sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 01:15 GMT
Dear All,

It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

iSeries always yields two sub semi...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


William Amos Carine wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 20:14 GMT
Hey Marina,

Nice loop occurrence idea! The use of both the macro and micro in your examples really brought the whole issue into perspective. I'm personally in the boat that before one goes to the math of an item to be described, one should understand it conceptually, and hence borrow from mathematicians after some thinking about physical significance is done. Still, without the math basis, perhaps the ideas about which a physicist pursues would not be out there in the first place! So the use of animals and plants gave concrete images to get the idea of interchange of it and bit into play. It had a flow and structure in language used.

Another point I thought significant was your mention that information and its reactions with other means of measuring or storing info constitutes the only evidence we have for matter. That this is the same type of thinking that went along with individuals interested in showing the atom to be a real piece of matter is reassuring to the future role of information in science.

Also, I agree that the bottom up view is the most appropriate way when confronting new phenomenon or areas of thought in physics. This is where philosophy helps out the physicist, and the now present and governing philosophy must not be taken as is without question. This same type of questioning fuels debate and curiosity, both essential for the simply said grinding out of problems in current ways of thinking.

So over all your essay is pragmatic in outlook, and offers a splendid merger of artistic vocab and searching for form in science. This is what's important to me in an essay. You mentioned light as the old medium, is curved spacetime now what must be worked with? I must ask why you stress a boundary condition though in that fractal wave-front visual. It arises without much grounds and shortly put feels different then that of the vein of writing that encompassed the rest of the piece.

Cheers,

Amos.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 11:56 GMT
A very nice essay you got here Marina! I should have read it long ago.

Like you I believe information lies at the core of `reality’ studied by physics. And as you said towards the end, "...reality is generated in the interplay of information with space. We know what Bit is. This suggests that IT IS SPACE". This is a conclusion with far-reaching consequences. Since It is countable, is space countable also in someway?

You describe many beautiful and natural ways of obtaining information. But the issue is, must It give out the information or can absence of It not also be information? Take bats and dolphins use of echolocation for example. They emit sound and reflection by an 'it' make them obtain information that there is an obstacle. However, in the absence of an 'it', the bat and dolphin equally capture information that they can move in that direction without collision with an object. Therefore while, "… we know of It only through bits our senses can deliver ", absence of It does not mean absence of information.

So when you also say,"… source of information (i.e. something that emits energy or reflects it)", from the example above source of information may not emit or reflect energy.

You may get alternative ideas from my essay that may help us find answer to: Can a yes-or-no question get us the coveted answer?

Best Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 15:17 GMT
Akinbo

thank you for your kind remarks on my essay :) I'm planning to read yours as soon as I get other projects out of the way (I had the ambitious goal of 're-writing' relativity in terms of information in two paragraphs or less lol ever since Paul Reed's post way above, and just recently brought up again by Israel Perez -- I keep getting distracted).

You ask: "Since It is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 03:17 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva

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


basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:03 GMT
Dear Madam,

This is our letter to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 20:40 GMT
Dear Marina,

I want to express my best congratulations for your very well written essay, which I rated very high.

Needles to say that I share your position that "information lies not only in the heart of Life but also is at core of `reality' studied by physics''. What I'd like to remark is that it is crucial that such information be quantum. Hence: It from Qubit. Space-time would never emerge from classical bits: it needs quantum bits! The classical information is the one available to the observer, what we call the "event"-the experimental outcome-everything that we consider objective. Or else, using the cryptographic paradigm: classical information is openly known, quantum Information is secret. Regarding Wheeler's "participatory universe", I'm not sure I share this. The boundary that generates new information as mentioned in your essay is the boundary between the coherent quantum evolution and the observer, where the secret is disclosed to the yes-no question.

And to get to your finale: information is never stored. It always flows. Storing information is a temporary loop made with interaction with ancillary systems.

At least, this is my own re-reading of your essay.

Compliments again, Marina.

My best wishes

Mauro

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


William C. McHarris wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Marina,

What a lovely, lyrical essay! I enjoyed it thoroughly, for it combines common sense with scientific discipline. And I think you are skirting around the idea of nonlinear dynamics, even chaos theory, with your recursive loops. I expound on this idea a little more in my reply to your comments on my essay, "It from Bit from It from Bit..."

Again, thanks for your comments — and especially for your insight and lovely writing style.

Best wishes,

Bill McHarris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:46 GMT
Dear Professor McHarris,

thank you so much for your warm comments and your favorable evaluation of my essay. I cannot express how much it means to me, coming from a distinguished professor like you. I left a lengthy reply in your blog yesterday, but it is gone now. Perhaps it will reappear on Monday? (there was a move to a new server in the last few days). If not, I'll try and repost it (but it will not be as spontaneous and fresh as the original, alas).

Thank you again,

-Marina

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 04:51 GMT
Marina,

A straightforward approach where defining the components makes your perspective more accessible to the reader.

I like to see the discussion of macro and micro denoting the difference in object behavior and attributes. Many essay don’t do that. In “It’s Good to be the King,” I am critical of this tendency, especially making the suggestion that the macro and micro world are interchangeable in terms of behavior and obfuscating the differences.

Your comment, “the anthropic principle, in the context of which Wheeler presented the idea, implies that a high level of consciousness, as exhibited by human, is required..” mentions this important attribute of the Wheeler concept, and the Anthropic Principle in general. I too discuss consciousness, especially in terms of it not being possible at the BB and only 1 billion years after, unless imposing supernatural or metaphysical elements, like consciousness embedded in space.

I would like to see your thoughts on my essay.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 01:56 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


Member Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 21:44 GMT
Deat Marina,

I noticed your last lovely message yesterday, and today it disappeared! By the way, I noticed also another message from you few weeks ago that disappeared (it was written before the one that is answered in my post). I read it in bed during the night, and the day after I thought that I had just dreamt it. Now I know that it was there. Two messages from you have been lost. Do you know what happened? Can you replace them?

I just arrived to Chicago from Italy yesterday. I will answer in my blog tomorrow.

My best regards

Mauro

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:42 GMT
Caro bellissimo professore :)

there was a move to a new server and, according to the FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster, there was "a temporary hole in spacetime" while they did that. Brendan wrote in his blog that he believed the data was "just passing behind the black hole but not fallen into it", but it seems that some messages did get lost. Maybe they will reappear on Monday? The new server seems quicker.

Awaiting your answers in your blog :)

Thank you,

-Marina

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 19:17 GMT
Vasilyeva,

The importance you have given to It over Bit is reflected in your statement “It is more fundamental than Bit, the latter being just the reflection of the former”. Thus you have given more importance to objectivity of reality (It) than to the subjectivity of information (Bit). Similar sort of conclusion is reached by me in my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827), where I have said ‘Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit”. Thanks for writing such an elegantly argued article with many bright points. So this essay deserves excellent rating.

Best of luck,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 19:38 GMT
Thank you Sreenath for your kind comments on my essay. I have read and rated your essay a while ago and am planning to leave my feedback in your blog now.

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 23:35 GMT
Marina,

It is a thoughtful and well reasoned entry. I would like to push for what has become my particular point of focus in the course of this contest, that the concepts of energy and information form a dichotomy.

By energy, I simply describe it as dynamic and conserved, while information is the very essence of definition. Being definition, it must be static, for if it was dynamic, it would be constantly changing and so not definitive. These two concepts exist as a dichotomy because there cannot be one without the other. Any existence energy has, must express some form, action, or interaction, thus expressing information. While information cannot exist without the interactive momentum of energy, or there would be no connections, effects or activities. Without this action, the resulting stasis would amount to a void, a thermal state of absolute zero.

So while I agree with your defense of information as a necessary reflection of an underlaying reality, I think the particular focus of this contest on the concept of information alone, requires us to both isolate that concept as best as possible, then equally clarify what is overlooked. To me that would be this medium of energy, to the message of information.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 01:10 GMT
Thank you John for reading my essay and for your kind comments!

I read your essay a while ago and only wished it was longer :)

I agree with you that energy and information are closely linked. Without information, energy is just dynamics. Information is what gives it direction, 'purpose' and form . And yes, by exchanging information, living things exchange energy, among themselves and with their environment. The same applies, in simpler form, to everything in existence. Energy and information are 2 integral aspects of being. That's what I think, anyway :)

Best regards,

-Marina

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 10:58 GMT
Marina,

The problem with agreement is it concludes the points of discussion. If you want a few more of my thoughts on physics, here are the last two contest entries:

We Look at Time Backwards

Comparing Apples to Inches

One of the main reasons I made this so short is because it is quite difficult to really get into so many different concepts, that really giving any of these papers their full due is next to impossible. Generally many of the participants take a very broad and deep view that has developed from years of thought, distilled it down into the seven page (or is it nine?) limit and then get frustrated when others don't see what is obvious to them, when usually the others are at best able only to connect to what relates to their points of view and at worst, are only shamelessly plugging their entry. So I tried to focus on one particular point, that information is message to the medium of energy. If I had extended it, it would be to develop how I see the right brain as a form of thermostat and the left as a form of clock, but thought that might distract from the main point. I think I do go into that in one of those other papers though.

Regards,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hugh Matlock wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 11:38 GMT
Hi Marina,

Thank you for a delightful and insightful essay. You wrote:

> This brings us to the provocative idea espoused by J. A. Wheeler in his celebrated thesis on quantum theory where he compares the workings of the universe with a computer... At first glance the idea strikes me as both limiting and impractical.

But is it possible?

> I find it comforting that this view is also in line with the ancient Buddhist definition of reality that states, The world emerges in the play of mind in emptiness.

The Mind might be a lower layer in a computational cosmos, in which the physical world emerges at the top.

> The recursive loop of the 'participatory scheme' suggests that information is continuously generated by the events, large and small, near and far; and that each event, or process, sees its own thread of causality; and together these threads weave the beads of events into the intricate tapestry of reality

These threads of causality (could you call them observers?) each have their own "explicate" view of an "implicate" order in my essay Software Cosmos. I describe in detail how our physical world might be possible to simulate. I then conduct a test to determine whether we are in such a simulation.

I think it may be close to the vision you describe. I hope you have a chance to take a look and let me know what you think.

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 18:08 GMT
Hugh

thank you for reading and commenting on my essay! I am reading yours and will comment in your blog shortly.

You ask in the context of Wheeler comparing the workings of the universe with a computer (which struck me as limiting and impractical): "But is it possible?"

Short answer: yes, but! Longer answer: I do see the universe as a computer, but I did not like Wheeler's...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 04:04 GMT
Hi Marina,

> In this regard, have you read the beautiful essay by Prof. D'Ariano? What is your opinion on it?

I liked it a lot, and I see several parallels with my picture. I need to study it more, but I hope I might be able to combine his low level approach with my more high-level one.

> That's a good analogy/graphical representation of spacetime on quantum level. no? :)

I like the tapestry image. Have you read Kevin Knuth's essay? He has what seems a similar idea.

> Definitely, yours is a very interesting, stimulating and deserving a high rank essay.

Thank you so much!

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 12:50 GMT
Dear Dr Vasilyeva,

I like your idea that information is repeatedly re-absorbed by reality. It's a very logical argument and immediately made me think of fractals. So glad to see these mentioned.

Original and one of my favourite essays so far!

My essay based partly around the Fibonacci sequence will hopefully be of interest to you.

Excellent work - well done! Top rating from me on 5th July! Please take a look at my essay if you have time.

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Patrick Tonin replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 16:35 GMT
Hi Marina,

I can confirm that there are quite a few guys around playing a game that you don't approve (and nor do I).

There is even one guy that told me that if I gave his essay a 10 then him and two of his friends would give me a 10 ! very nice ...

Cheers,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 21:23 GMT
Patrick

Brendan Foster asked today in his blog to report such incidents to him directly, via his email: foster at fqxi dot org.

Brednan's blog : http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1589

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:49 GMT
Apologies,

I posted on 5th. You are indeed correct. There was no ill intention. I nearly saw my previous comment was that date and thought the recent bug had caused a lost comment to you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:57 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva,

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


Kimmo Rouvari wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 07:19 GMT
Very refreshing essay I must say. You are obviously very smart and open minded individual. I hope you find some time in a future and read my paper behind my essay (ToEbi[\link]).

I'm more than sure you'll find it the most interesting. Feel free to contact and tell me what do think about it.

report post as inappropriate

Kimmo Rouvari replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 07:20 GMT
LOL! Nice work with the link tag! My bad :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 12:11 GMT
Yes, Marina - I'm - we're - so late !!!!! Partly because being new to this whole 'thing' I just couldn't believe that we could discuss our entries with one another - I was literally in a state of denial. Well better late than never !!

You queried my position on the geometry of space - well, my short answer is no - I do not believe that space possesses any properties including geometrical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 13:19 GMT
Wow Margriet :)

you packed in one post what you should have been discussing during the past 5 weeks! I am intrigued by your view.

You say: " I do not believe that space possesses any properties including geometrical curving or warping in response to gravity. I have come to believe that light gets curved or lensed around large bodies for the same reason it bends in water. "

But what is water? It's 'matter', right? Composed of atoms, which are, ultimately, as we know today, mostly space. Right? So why could not we imagine space possessing properties of.. well, stuff akin to water (it's an old idea actually). And speaking of a 'medium', water does not only refract light but also is the medium for waves. And any medium, including the definition of a 'medium' for transmission or storage of information, which you apparently imply -- all of them are material.

In this regard, you may be interested in reading the essay by Carolyn Devereux topic 1893 where she discusses just how 'matter' may emerge from the harmonic oscillations in primordial substrate, which she defines in one of the posts in her blog as 'space-time-energy continuum'.

The other essay you may like is very short, also by a woman (I counted only 7 of us here) is by Maria Carrillo-Ruiz topic 1892, where in the context of ontological monism she brings up the idea that everything, ultimately, is made of 'space stuff'.

I wonder if these 2 essays could lead you to adjust your position on this matter of space :) afterward?

Glad to see you here,

-Marina

Bookmark and Share



Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 17:11 GMT
Marina,

I really wish I had read your essay sooner. As a non-physicist (I'm an attorney, but deeply interested in the subjects of physics, information, and reality), I found my head 'spinning' with some of the more technical essays that were beyond my comprehension. However, I was struck by the clarity of logic and your exceptionally smooth writing style. I was also very impressed with you open-minded thinking and willingness to stretch the boundaries of 'traditional' thought in the field of physics (which, I believe is the foundation upon which FQXI is built, and one of the stated purposes of the contest!)

I was very impressed with your essay and have rated it accordingly. Marina, even if you don't get an opportunity to read and evaluate my essay in the next couple of days, I would ask that you do so later on. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to correspond with some of the more open-minded individuals who have a background in physics in the future.

Best to you in the future, and if you are so inclined, let's keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Ralph

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 04:01 GMT
Ralph

Thank you so much for your kind comments, especially about my writing style. English is not my native language; and my long-standing ambition was to learn to effectively communicate in it. So your compliments in this regard are very dear to me :)

I'm looking forward to reading your essay now. Yes, I would love to stay in touch and my understanding is that this forum will be opened until the final announcements, which is in the end of the year.

-Marina

Bookmark and Share
post approved

Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:41 GMT
Dear Marina,

After reading some of your comments on the main FQXI blog just now, I feel it is necessary to add a few comments to yesterday’s post I made regarding your essay.

First, I want you to know that I stand by everything I wrote yesterday. I do wish I had read your essay sooner, I was and still am very impressed with your essay, and I did rate it accordingly, and I am...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:43 GMT
Ralph

thank you for your positive feedback!

And don't worry. I read your essay but because its content lied outside my current main interest (that mainly consists of weird ideas concerning some aspects of 4D topology and up) I was fishing for input for these ideas in other blogs, while people who could help me with them were still here. From my past experience, most people vanish the very next day after the finals. So, selfishly perhaps, I was following my own interests. It should have had no bearing on you.

I'll be glad to discuss your essay later,

-Marina

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:44 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Kevin H Knuth wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Marina

Before I answered your questions on my essay, I wanted to read yours before the deadline...

And what a beautiful essay it is!

Acknowledging that plants smell the air and hear sounds! Few people know this.

And I LOVE the statement:

"Why, even a jagged rock rising from the surface of a lifeless planet absorbs sun's energy during the day, stores it, and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:52 GMT
Wow..

Dear Professor Knuth,

I can't relate how much I appreciate your positive feedback! Humbled, now I wish I began writing it much earlier and did a better job. Your encouragement set me up to aim for higher standards. Next time!

It's true, not many people know about plants, how they 'perceive' the world around them. I did not have time to include the reference to 'What a Plant Knows' by the renown biologist Daniel Chamovitz. But I think many people here may be familiar with it, since it has been promoted by Scientific American. A wonderful book.

And you are right, a rock does not process information but only contributes to its pool by generating it by the virtue of its participation. What is information is much clearer to me now, having read so many essays in the last weeks.

You have robots in your lab? What did you program them to feel and want out of their robotic life? lol

I'm relieved that you did not mind me poking fun at the Copenhagen interpretation and quantum measurement problem and actually found it funny. I was worried that people in academia may be put off by the very unacademic style with which my intended criticism was presented. Phew! It's good to know that physics professors have a good sense of humor :)

Thank you again for your review (I will cherish it!) and for answering my question about the difference between your research and CA. I wish you good luck in your science career. You have very interesting ideas and unusual take on things.

-Marina

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:13 GMT
Marina,

I was just a little disappointed to have no reply to my above post, or comment on my blog. Georgina and others did point out the abstract was dense and offputting, but that the essay was very readable. Embarrasingly flattering blog comments include such as; groundbreaking", "significant", "astonishing", "fantastic", "wonderful", "remarkable!", "superb", etc.

I hope they may temp you to bypass the abstract as I'd be interested in your opinions. I recall that your 'recursive loops' sounded like a beautiful description of my own very similar derivation, which I hope shows hope.

I do find comments after the scoring deadline equally valuable to those before so please don't feel under any pressure at all for now.

I do hope your essay survives the final 'shuffle torture'.

Very best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:15 GMT
Peter

sorry I took so long to reply. There is so much going on, so many essays to read and discuss.. Naturally, I was mostly drawn to ones where I could find input for the ideas dear to my heart, and that is my 4D universe, which, we both know, you find out of touch with 'reality'. But reality is what we perceive, not necessarily what is -- that it vs bit thingy again :)

But I read...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 12:05 GMT
Marina,

I'm really glad you made it in. I agree entirely your 4D view with subjective observed 'realities' indeed our last two essays are exceptionally consistent. I only had one point each year, disliking "branes" last year and suggesting 'refraction' as another boundary this.

I was criticising my own abstract not yours, so citing the blog posts to try to tempt you beyond it! Of course you too got an "excellent" (July 8, me). I'm sorry if you still found it too dense, I had to build a solid ontological construction for a valid test of the discrete field model against QM and Bell.

Did you know the peculiar 'orbital' anomalies in the EPR experiment the model predicts have now actually been found in the 99.9% of Aspect's data discarded as there was no theoretical explanation for it!! (then).

I'm still not sure most have yet rationalised the full implications for unification the model seems to offer, (including yourself), but it does increase steadily each year, even if it's only glimpses. Nobody has a suitable 'pattern' in the cortex to hang it to. I'd really like to just pass it all over and go sail my yacht (I'm racing it all next week yippee!). But the real test is now of the judges, and how firmly they're wedded to old doctrine. Having been passed over twice from top ten places I have no confidence they'll pass! My original estimate of 2020 may still be close.

Thanks for your kind comments. I don't know how your reading went but I only just managed the same as last year. Even if we had longer it's too much time, but a rich experience none the less.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:38 GMT
Dear Marina,

I enjoyed reading your essay. You made a profound analysis of information, a compelling case for why "it" is more fundamental than "bit". A beautiful journey through Wheeler's "it from bit", participatory universe and "whence the quantum", pointed by original and interesting ideas.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:48 GMT
Thank you Cristi for your positive review! I also enjoyed your essya and have replied in your bog :)

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:36 GMT
Dear Marina,

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


Daryl Janzen wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 06:06 GMT
Dear Marina,

I am truly sorry, and ashamed to say that I haven't yet read either of your essays in the two contests I've been involved in. I just read through a good chunk of the comments here, and tomorrow I'm going to read this essay and send feedback. Anticipating that I'm going to like it a lot, I'm disappointed in myself for not getting to it earlier.

Best regards,

Daryl

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 08:38 GMT
Thanks Daryl

not a big deal, it could have been better. It was an experiment. And I read your essay and all your comments on Ken Wharton's blog. I thought you were right.

Now that ratings are over you can give me your sincere feedback, ah? I like sincere feedback :)

Take care!

Bookmark and Share


Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 23:36 GMT
Dear Marina,

Sorry I didn't get back to you right away. Before I comment on your essay, I just want to say thanks for your support in the debate I had with Ken. I was flattered when I saw you mention that in your discussion with Israel above, and even moreso by your response to me here. It means a lot that you read through all of that, and even more that you agreed with me. I'm not sure...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 12, 2013 @ 03:12 GMT
Dear Darryl,

thanks for your thoughts. Re Wheeler, my appreciation of his legacy changed as a result of this essay competition. Before the contest, I had not been much of is fan and absolutely, always, abhorred the anthropic principle. When I hear people talk about his participatory AP in all seriousness (and in a learned manner lol) I suffer the most profound cognitive dissonance. Frankly,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
post approved


Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 08:54 GMT
Dear Marina,

I'm glad the ratings are over too. As my reply above states, I found that a lot of comments I'd posted around the end of July to beginning of August had vanished. I panicked and wanted to let all the recent authors I'd commented on that I'd rated them with nice words, as I'd put a LOT of hard work in. So I typed a quick message or copy pasted from mine, hence the repeat "Dr" mistake! ;)

I genuinely made a mistake from my notes as to when I rated you!

Your response is understandable on your part, but upset me a little because this isn't in my nature. I have copied others by telling people that I've rated them highly, as I thought that was the general thing to do. I will not do this in future, as I agree we shouldn't talk about scores on here. As for group collaboration away from the site - that sounds pretty worrying and I agree that needs to stop. Perhaps future contests they should not show positions or ratings?

Anyway, no hard feelings on my part, as I said I'm not like that. Also, I must disagree with your closing comment. I think both your essay and mine do deserve to be high up. After all our initial comments to each other are full of praise.

I look forward to continuing to read and comment on essays in a more relaxing pace over the coming weeks.

Very best wishes and kindest regards,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 01:15 GMT
Hello Marina,

I wish you luck in the finals. Your placement is well-deserved. Since there were so many clamoring for attention, I am only now getting to read your excellent essay, which certainly deserves kudos, and makes several points that resonate with me. I will want to read for detail before I comment further, but now there is no time limit - because you are already in the finals (as am I). The fractal time wave idea is especially compelling, though, and deserves immediate mention. I am a great fan of fractals myself.

After seeing your comments on his page, I wanted to mention that Craig Hogan already did write an article about his experiment for Scientific American, which prompted me to correspond with him a few years ago. When I wrote more recently to inquire about answering some of the questions on his forum, or expounding about progress to date, he replied he was 'expounded out for now' but offered "The experiment is coming together well, it is fair to say that it's in the commissioning phase and we are crossing our fingers that we'll get to its design Planck sensitivity goal."

I hope this helps. And again, best of luck.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 03:12 GMT
Thank you Jonathan!

I just returned to Prof. Hogan's blog and left another post there. I'm sorry I missed that SA article. Now I will try to find it online. His is a fascinating line of research. I guess this is as close to the matters of space as one can get, no?

Thank you for your kind comments on my essay. Fractal time -- someone told me recently that this was Terence McKenna's idea but so far can find no reference. Did you think it was original?

Congratulations on making the finals. I'm thinking of relinquishing my place to a more interesting entry.

-Marina

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.