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

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 7:44am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Hugh Matlock: on 8/7/13 at 3:10am UTC, wrote Hi Richard, You wrote: > In my essay, the implicate order, as the...

Richard Shand: on 8/7/13 at 1:07am UTC, wrote John, You idea that the mind is correlated with the Cosmos is very much in...

Richard Shand: on 8/7/13 at 0:47am UTC, wrote Leo, Thank you for your kind comments. I am glad that you found my essay...

Richard Shand: on 8/7/13 at 0:32am UTC, wrote Amazigh, Thank you for reviewing and rating my essay. I will read yours...

Richard Shand: on 8/6/13 at 23:37pm UTC, wrote Hugh, I am glad you enjoyed my essay. I have read your informative essay ...

KoGuan Leo: on 8/6/13 at 10:48am UTC, wrote Dear Richard, Great work and fantastic essay. I wish I could have read it...

KoGuan Leo: on 8/6/13 at 10:43am UTC, wrote Dear Richard, Great work and fantastic essay. I wish I could have read it...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: A Complex Conjugate Bit and It by Richard N. Shand [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Richard N. Shand wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
Essay Abstract

We are perceptually contained in a virtual world projected by our brain. The problem is that a solely epistemological world invalidates all classical notions of reality as the basis of knowledge. If there is an ontological component underlying being, how can we determine whether or not it exists? I propose that the entropies from contracting and expanding space have to be considering on different terms. The "it" and "bit" are actually reciprocal entities that together generate the phenomenal universe.

Author Bio

I am a Vietnam veteran and retired software engineer with experience in digital electronics, programming, testing, marketing and web design. I have alway had an interest in ontology and epistemology so this essay is right up my alley.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 08:58 GMT
Dear Richard

Congratulations on writing (and nicely illustrating) an essay that seems to deal incisively with the It/Bit question. I say 'seems' because I am not in a position to judge it. My approach to physics is a bottom-up (and so far qualitative) approach starting with a posited lattice made up of qubits interacting locally, causally, linearly and absolutely in a timeless universe. Your holistic approach is through observer-related physics of a fundamentally probabilistic universe governed by the laws of thermodynamics.

The first figure of nested torii is almost identical to one Roger Penrose drew for his Twistor Theory - but again I cannot say how the two may differ in what they actually mean. Your using the figure to relate the proton to the entire Universe in the way you have done is neat and intriguing. But why the proton and not the electron which seems more basic?

You might be wondering what sort of physics I am advocating that does not deal with the observer or with probability. It is hinted at in this and last year's faqxi contest essays, but particularly in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory also found here.

I wish you all the best in the contest

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 04:41 GMT
Vladimir, thank you for your kind comments. I have previously read your "Beautiful Universe Theory", which very elegantly explains how the action of discrete nodes and analog effects generate the dynamics of spacetime. Near the beginning of your essay, you mentioned the rotating gear-like elements featured in Maxwell's diagram of a dielectric ether. The imagery immediately brought to mind hidden...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 14:02 GMT
Dear Richard,

Thank you for nice essay presented here. The starting sentence ''''We are perceptually contained in a virtual world projected by our brain.'''' is exactly correct. What our brain contains is the picture of the 'Matter' around perceived thro our senses, now you are concluding '''' The "it" and "bit" are actually reciprocal entities that together generate the phenomenal...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 06:23 GMT
Satyavarapu,

Thank you very much for reviewing my essay.

When the brain thinks, it generates (1) a representation of the world (maya) out of its best guesses and (2) our self as the observer. In truth, we, our brains and the world are all part of a greater holistic process arising from quantum potential. However, we see ourselves as separate (ontic) beings, not as epistemic creations. The entire process of us generating the world and the world generating us works by least action - that which is, is that which is most efficient.

To come to reality? First, I should say that I am not inventing any new physics. I just wanted to examine how a change in scale alters the nature of reality. Thus, my essay is not a new theory demanding new proofs or evidence, but a reconceptualization of how knowledge of the universe is generated. (You can check the references to see that my arguments are based on well-established theories and experiments.) I just put the pieces together in a different pattern. For me, the idea of a complex conjugate it and bit clarifies my whole understanding of physics. Plus, the idea resolves a number of knotty issues, such as the cosmological constant problem.

I look forward to reading your essay, which appears very interesting.

Best,

Richard

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 06:49 GMT
Dear Richard,

I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. FQXi also did not intimate about your reply

I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. Maya in other words We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.

Now in this context, can we create material from information...?

You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:58 GMT
Dear Richard

Your argument will be more persuasive if you apply the analysis to the real phenomenon to can be more easily in the demonstrated.

Vietnam

And 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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 21:36 GMT
Hai,

Xin Chào. Thank you for taking the time to review my essay. I enjoyed reading your essay.

You point that my essay would more persuasive if applied to real phenomenon. However, what we traditionally call "real" phenomenon - the classical universe of galaxies, stars, the earth and everything we perceive - occurs within an illusory model created by the brain. In this virtual reality (position/time space), we are AI characters who think we are independently existing beings (ontic) due to our ignorance of the underlying processes that stitch us together.

On the other hand, a hypothetical programmer (or algorithmic equivalent) has no knowledge about the outcome of the game until the program is run. And each time it is run, the game, the rules of the game and the outcome could be different. The universe thus is an interplay between the evolving characters and the quantum potential (momentum/energy space) that generates them.

To phrase my idea in terms of your theory, then, the conditional epistemic knowledge we humans have is relative, while the ontic potential that generates us is absolute.

Best wishes on your essay,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:15 GMT
Richard,

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


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
Dear Richard

To me, your work is very interesting.

In section 2 you are using without citing sources, values as I do in my work.

If crossed, your and my formulas and values would come to useful conclusions. At the end of section 2 You have calculated the lambda via the radius of the universe and Planck length (as it is a lapsus calami in the first exponent).

It would be good to have the same value for lambda, get through the first mentioned methods (Shannon's formula).

I wish you success in the contest.

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 04:14 GMT
Branko,

Thank you for your comments and support.

I think it is very interesting that the value for the cosmological constant (lambda), an area measure in Plank-size bits using the Shannon formula, is within a percentage point of the ratio of the volume of the proton to the volume of the universe, a measure using Euclidean space.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 16:03 GMT
Richard,

Excellent work. And thanks for the comment on my blog (I've replied on BKS, CJD, Haag etc). I can see now some fundamental commonality. Others such as Dr McHarris, Gordon Watson and Edwin K are also somewhat consistent.

I struggled a little as my skills and approach are conceptual and fundamentally ontological, originally falsifying a wider coherent construction. But the very fact that such consistencies emerge from such different aspects bodes well for the veracity our thesese.

I particularly liked; "Without context, and without a relative observer to provide such context, notions such as space and time collapse into incoherence." and; "Coordinates and momenta (x, p) can only be dfined consistently in a classical topological background."

Now it seems all we need to do is find someone capable of hypnotising most of mankind and conducting a belief extraction operation and processor upgrade and all physics is sorted! Is there any other way? I recommend you stop languishing around down here and get noticed. Hold tight for a kick up the list..

Well done. And best wishes for the results.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 04:22 GMT
Peter,

Your support is very much appreciated. I think the extraction operation and processor upgrade is on the way. Read Accelerando by Charles Stross, if you have not already done so.

Also thanks for the boost. My ratings have gone up.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 21:26 GMT
Richard,

Thanks I'll look it out.

Very best wishes for the run in.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 06:58 GMT
Richard,

Thanks for commenting on my essay. Since you have read it, I'll relate some of our ideas. You have written a most complex essay, spanning much of physics and you tie it together well [as well as possible in nine pages].

We agree that information is contextual, and that our perceptions yield an internal representation of reality. You ask how can we, based on illusory...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 00:00 GMT
Edwin,

I am very pleased that you got a lot our of my essay. I certainly found your essay stimulating.

The brain, due to its limited processing power, does not so much distort reality as provide an imperfect simulacrum of it. The result is our perceptual spacetime bubble, with all its qualia and signifiers. We experience just a facet of the whole.

The "one real field", which I identify with quantum potential, becomes locally self-aware to the extent that global field information is erased. This corresponds to your idea that "we are made of the hierarchically 'in-formed' local structure 'condensed"" from the field. The scale-free connectedness kicks in when we tune out our "overlay of 'metric maps'" (our conditioned self) and reconnect with the possibilities inherent in quantum potential.

I don't mean to sound mystical, but real knowledge should be transformational not just an abstract exercise. Consequently, I try as much as possible to connect ideas with real life experiences. An example is the ant analogy. I got the idea from watching ants marching across my sun deck while I was writing the essay.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 14:35 GMT
Hello Richard,

I am pleased to read your essay. Great, deep work. Thank you for your kind comments on my forum. You dig down to the deepest meanings. It is very important that your analysis with drawings. In the words of Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics": "truth should be drawn and preyavlena unlimited number of viewers." We are close to you in the spirit of research. . Yes you are right, it is necessary to "dig" deeper into the ontology and epistemology, to get to the most remote sense of being. This is an extremely important task for physicists and poets. In the courtyard a new era - the information. And the physical picture of the world to be filled with new deep meanings.

Good luck and regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 00:37 GMT
Valdimir,

Thank you for your very supportive review. I find it very gratifying when someone is able to connect with the ideas in my essay.

The drawings were done the day before the deadline and the last section, "Down the Rabbit Hole", was added just a few hours before the deadline. Although I was very meticulous in developing my initial arguments, I didn't realize the implications until right near the end. So I left a warning for the reader, jammed in some radical concepts, and submitted my essay with just 1 1/2 hours to go.

Having given the "Down the Rabbit Hole" more thought, I certainly could have developed the ideas more fully (i.e., explaining the high energy limit for entanglement entropy), with drawings of course. However, I am very pleased about the feedback I have received and the opportunity to communicate with others like yourself, who are similar explorers of the great unknown.

A reconsideration of epistemological entropy vs ontological entropy clarifies how knowledge is generated and resolves issues such as the cosmological constant problem and the black hole firewall paradox without introducing new physics. Next year I will consider entering an essay that it a little less jam packed and more accessible to the general reader.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 09:18 GMT
Dear Richard,

Please look my essay! Your feedback and evaluation is very important for me.

Thank you very much!

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 19:22 GMT
Dear Richard,

I had a superficial look at your essay and it is of much interest to me. It seems that we are pursuing similar goals with closely related concept. In particular, Felix Klein can be considered a father of Belyi maps obtained through the stereographic projection. You can see these topics used in my essay

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

As I am away from my computer this week I will study your essay in more detail next week.

All the best,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 02:02 GMT
Dear Richard. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 05:22 GMT
Vladimir,

Thank you for rating my essay.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 22:38 GMT
Supporters to Uncle 10 points for the race "community".

And best wishes good luck .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 05:24 GMT
Dear Hai,

Thank you very much for your support.

Best wishes,

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 22:52 GMT
Richard,

Pretty heavy stuff. I would imagine your have done a lot of research and a lot of thinking about this subject.

"If there is an ontological component underlying being, how can we determine whether or not it exists? I propose that the entropies from contracting and expanding space have to be considering on different terms. The "it" and "bit" are actually reciprocal entities that together generate the phenomenal universe."

When you speak of atrophy, do you mean in the cosmological sense (relating to attaining state of maximum homogeneity) and data transmission and information theory sense (loss of info) as well?

The last sentence above -- speaking of information of physical reality being reciprocal? And are you seeing the mix of black holes and space expansion as your process, entering parallel universes in the mix?

It's hard to grasp all parts of your concept without more study and more guidance.

I'd be interested in seeing your views on my essay which is more basic.

Jim

...................................................
................................

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 07:03 GMT
Jim,

Thank you for reading my essay. I have to acknowledge that it does contain some heady stuff. I may have packed too much into 9 pages when perhaps an overview might have been more comprehensible.

When I speak of entropy, I mean the minimal amount of information needed to describe a state or system. In a cosmological sense, this would be how many bits can be encoded into the universe, which is maximally homogeneous for position/time space.

Later on, when I discuss the knowledge generation mechanism, I relate cosmological entropy to quantum information theory. Essentially, you have a universe full of possible paths of which only one is experienced by the observer, with a corresponding loss of quantum entanglement information.

The universe expands as knowledge is generated (i.e., paths selected) from an underlying quantum wholeness. Black holes are compactifications of position/time space with reciprocal increase in entanglement entropy. At minimum scale and at maximum entanglement entropy, all paths are equally probable and each corresponds to a parallel universe.

You might say that the universe we know has grown from the pruning and discarding of alternate branches (paths).

I look forward to reading and reviewing your essay.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 14:44 GMT
Hi Richard,

Your essay is very nice and well illustrated. There are areas that appear speculative and so need to be verified in future. However, it is worth a rating of 6.

You expressed the general desire to comprehend the basic nature of reality. But what fundamental 'it' are 'its' made of? We cannot fully discern the 'bit' from the 'it' without fully knowing this. In my essaymy essay I make a couple of suggestions in this direction. You may take a look.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 06:04 GMT
Akinbo,

Thank you for support. The basic argument, that epistemic entropy differs from and is reciprocal to ontic entropy, has (I believe) strong support in conventional, non speculative physics (i.e., unitary QM, Relativity theory and quantum information theory).

I placed a warning about the last section of my essay becoming increasingly speculative. However, the idea that expanding scale can be equated to time and contracting scale to gravity, with equilibrium at the scale of an elementary particle, flows naturally from my initial argument.

I look forward to reading your essay.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 16:53 GMT
Mr Shand,

I thought that your essay was exceptionally well written, unfortunately, the graphics ruined your whole abstract argument.

I am a decrepit old realist and in my essay BITTERS, I have emphasized that one real Universe is uniquely occurring, once. Each real snowflake of the trillions that have fallen or that will ever fall anywhere in the future is unique, once. Uniqueness, once applies to everything real and imagined in the real Universe. Let us re-examine your computer enhanced graphics and let us take notice of the perfect circles and ovals and straight lines and arrows, with the implication that those perfect shapes will last forever. It is pretty to look at, but like all graphic illustration, it is unusual, unrealistic and unnecessary.

Wheeler should have only asked one question to elicit correct information about the real Universe:

Is the real Universe simple? Yes is the only answer.

Subsequent theoretical physicists might then have asked:

Is the abstract universe simple? No

I would add:

Is unique, once simple? Yes

Is quantum theory simple? No.

I hope you do well in the contest,

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Richard N. Shand wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 03:51 GMT
Joe,

I am sorry that the graphics ruined the argument for you. It is possible that the graphics are unnecessary but (IMHO) they do a better job of conveying meaning than a dozen sentences. Think of the graphics as semantic shortcuts rather than Platonic idealizations.

The graphics and the words of this essay represent a unique instance, like a snowflake, that will be perceived in the mind of the reader, then melt away.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 05:22 GMT
Dear Richard,

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


Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 09:43 GMT
Dear Richard,

As promised, below are my comments.

I like the wide range of your essay, the arguments are not in the academic style but I don't worry. I think we have similar views about the meaning of knowledge and the pertinent mathematical tools.

"Information is contextual" as I also justify in my essay

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

As I already coined, Klein anticipates Grothendieck and creates/uses the stereographic projection for deriving the invariants of platonic solids.

In Sec.6, you feature three-qubit entanglement. We (I an coauthors) spent a lot of energy for understanding these structures (a hint is in Sec. 3.3 of my essay).

Congratulations and good luck dor the contest,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 23:20 GMT
Hi Richard

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 relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Good Luck,

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 20:25 GMT
Than,

I enjoyed reading your essay. We are certainly in agreement on the dual nature of quantum reasoning and classical reasoning, with the Planck constant as the Mother of All Dualities. It is easy then to extend the schema from the Planck constant to a generalized action principle incorporating both freedom and determinism.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 03:29 GMT
Dear Richard,

I appreciate your kind comments and I am going to post my comments on your essay shortly in your thread.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Richard,

You have nicely summed up the whole of physics from micro (quantum) to macro (classical) in a concise and elegant manner. The figures clarify what you want to say in a clear way. Your coverage of micro physics is highly convincing and you have made general relativity look simple and its cosmological implications easy to grasp. Your viewing of a black hole and a micro particle from its size look fantastic. The role played by brain in acquiring knowledge by cognizing the processes taking place in both quantum world and the classical world is exemplary. Information plays primary role in the world, siding with Wheeler, compared to matter; i.e. Bit is prior to It. You have clearly defined both information and consciousness and also the connections between them. Your knowledge of mathematical and geometrical skills in deducing all important equations in both micro macro worlds is commendable. Your final views as you have given in your abstract can be summarized as “We are perceptually contained in a virtual world projected by our brain and the It and Bit are actually reciprocal entities that together generate the phenomenal universe”, thus agreeing with my conclusion reached by me in my essay.

I am really glad for your appreciation of my idea of comparing a mathematician to a sculptor and would have been still gladder had you included the photograph of that statue carved by Michelangelo.

Thank you very much for producing such a nice article and I would like to rate it very high (above 8) after hearing your response to my comments in my thread.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 05:48 GMT
Dear Richard,

As said I have rated your nicely written essay with high a score.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 18:59 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for your support.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 21:22 GMT
Richard - some excellent summaries in here, and (mostly) well connected with coherent insights. Nice job.

I did read all the way down the rabbit hole ...

Your comment that “To a hypothetical massless passenger, a photon is instantaneously everywhere” is not quite correct. The proper time depends on Lorentz frame of reference. For example, if our hypothetical massless passenger...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 19:45 GMT
Paul,

Thank you for your kind comments. I am glad that you found my essay to useful and that you went down the rabbit hole!

In my comment about the "hypothetical massless passenger', I was referring to travelling along with the photon. I should have made this point more clear. You are correct, of course, that the proper time depends on Lorentz frame of reference. You may be interested decoherence due to gravitational time dilation in Zych, Costa, Pikovski, and Brukner, "Quantum interferometric visibility as a witness of general relativistic proper time", http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4531.

I look forward to reading your paper very soon.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 11:59 GMT
Dear Richard,

Well written and illustrated essay, with many intriguing ideas. I find it very on topic, by using the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory and Cramer's transactional interpretation (which, I agree with you, complement the view presented in my essay). Congratulations, and good luck with the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 20:06 GMT
Cristi,

Thank you very much for your considerate and supportive comments. I certainly enjoyed your essay!

There is common ground in our ideas, which is best represented in the Tao.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 01:53 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 Richard N. Shand replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 01:07 GMT
John,

You idea that the mind is correlated with the Cosmos is very much in accord with quantum information theory, in which classical reality arises from the conditional entropy of the observer.

I look forward to reading your essay.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



Hugh Matlock wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 02:39 GMT
Hi Richard,

Thank you for an interesting and detailed picture of what might really be going on. It certainly reminds us not to take what we see at "face value".

I think you might like my Software Cosmos essay in which I describe a computational model for the cosmos under the simulation paradigm.

Following Bohm, my picture includes and explicate order that we can measure as well as an implicate order that we cannot: this may correspond to the holographic projection you describe. It also includes a fractal structural aspect that is perhaps reminiscent of Cramer's transactional interpretation that you mention.

If you get a chance to look at it, I would be curious if you see the application of the entropic principles you lay out to my cosmological picture.

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 23:37 GMT
Hugh,

I am glad you enjoyed my essay. I have read your informative essay (which I have rated) and certainly there are correspondences between our views.

I had the good fortune to meet David Bohm and I asked him if his concept of an implicate order was based on the Aharonov-Bohm effect. He replied that it was. In my essay, the implicate order, as the quantum wholeness underlying spacetime, provides the global absolute probabilities needed for Cramer's transactional interpretation to work.

Bohm, in Wholeness and the Implicate Order, describes "a harmoniously organized totality of order and measures, which is both hierarchic (i.e., built on many levels) and extensive (i.e., 'spreading out' on each level)", which could be fractal in nature.

The contents of consciousness (explicate order) arise as the quantum entanglement information, which encodes this underlying implicate order, is selectively erased.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share


Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 03:10 GMT
Hi Richard,

You wrote:

> In my essay, the implicate order, as the quantum wholeness underlying spacetime, provides the global absolute probabilities needed for Cramer's transactional interpretation to work.

This sounds quite consistent with my picture.

> Bohm, in Wholeness and the Implicate Order, describes "a harmoniously organized totality of order and measures, which is both hierarchic (i.e., built on many levels) and extensive (i.e., 'spreading out' on each level)", which could be fractal in nature.

Right, I have the fractal structure in the implicate as well. I tend to think of it in wavelike terms... perhaps what he means by extensive.

> The contents of consciousness (explicate order) arise as the quantum entanglement information, which encodes this underlying implicate order, is selectively erased.

This is where I think our pictures (or perhaps just terminology) may differ. As I mentioned on my blog, I think of the "explicate" order as the physical environment of the observer, rather than the contents of their consciousness.

I regard consciousness as an architectural layer below the one that represents the physical world. It could quite possibly be directly related to quantum contextuality and entanglement effects, as you suggest. But in this dance between the quantum and the mind, which partner is leading?

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:13 GMT
Dear Richard,

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 Richard N. Shand replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 00:32 GMT
Amazigh,

Thank you for reviewing and rating my essay. I will read yours shortly.

I agree that information and energy (which you call eEnergy and eInfo) together create matter.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



KoGuan Leo wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 10:43 GMT
Dear Richard,

Great work and fantastic essay. I wish I could have read it earlier. We have similar view but we do talk in different languages and symbols. However the contents are about the same. If I may quote you that I like very much:

"Our conscious experience of the world is time-delayed, however. Impulses travelling down the optic nerve to the brain take several hundred...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard N. Shand replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 00:47 GMT
Leo,

Thank you for your kind comments. I am glad that you found my essay to be useful.

Your summary is rich in ideas and I will read your essay before the contest ends.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share



KoGuan Leo wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 10:48 GMT
Dear Richard,

Great work and fantastic essay. I wish I could have read it earlier. We have similar views but we do talk in different languages and symbols. However the contents are about the same. If I may quote you passages that I like very much:

"Our conscious experience of the world is time-delayed, however. Impulses travelling down the optic nerve to the brain take several...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.