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

Sergio Miguel: on 8/4/13 at 21:45pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, thanks for your words I am going to read ur essay. In advance,...

Peter Jackson: on 8/3/13 at 17:55pm UTC, wrote Sergio, A very important essay. My detailed post didn't survive the...

john selye: on 8/2/13 at 1:46am UTC, wrote Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to...

Peter Jackson: on 8/1/13 at 11:45am UTC, wrote Sergio, A great concept and clearly written description, breaking...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 7/30/13 at 5:46am UTC, wrote Dear Sergio, I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the...

Sergio Miguel: on 7/29/13 at 14:27pm UTC, wrote DDear Michel, Quantum information is not a new epistemic scheme in my...

Michel Planat: on 7/29/13 at 7:03am UTC, wrote Dear Sergio, On July 25, I gave you the rate 6 to promote your well...

Sergio Miguel: on 7/27/13 at 10:57am UTC, wrote Thanks for your support!! Sergio


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: Nature from the bit and beyond by Sergio Miguel [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Sergio Miguel wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 12:40 GMT
Essay Abstract

Information and computation are two concepts that are being applied every day more and more in science. However, these concepts are sometimes misunderstood about what they imply by several physicists and several computer scientists. Information and computation are not mathematical concepts as computer scientists usually think and also they are deeper physical concepts than what physicists usually assume. For this reason, this essay is dedicated to explain why information and computation are physical concepts and why they are deeper concepts. Until now, computation and information are concepts derived in the epistemic scheme of energy but they could be taken as fundamental concepts allowing us to understand nature from a new perspective.

Author Bio

Bachelor in Computer engineer, Master in Computer Science, Master in Intelligent Systems, Master in Neurosciece, phd. student in informatics and automatics

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Michael Helland wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 17:03 GMT
You say that at as to the nature of the bit you have not any idea, and I can happily admit to being in he same boat.

I think it is keen to employ bits for the purporse of explaining "its", ie physical matter, and not so important to explainng bits themselves

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:20 GMT
Thanks for reading it. Sorry if the English was not good in the article because I was terribly busy in my company and I did it for the night almost no sleeping. Yes, you are right; I think the same; time has come to use the concepts of information and computation to explain nature because as I say in the article we are living in a special moment to jump to a new epistemic paradigm. The issue is that many people identify information and computation with discreteness, but one could formulate theories with concepts of continuous information and computation without any problem. Information and computation can be as fundamental as the concepts of force and energy in his respective epistemic schemes. Energy is quantified due to experiments and if information and computation could be discrete or continuous. For me, the key is that we must think about a new epistemic scheme, or epistemic paradigm. Information and computation are not mathematical concepts but physical concepts, and we must not define information or computation inside the epistemic scheme of energy if we want to go further using the concepts. Let me ask you, what do you think about my idea of look time as a channel of communication?

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 20:15 GMT
Sergio,

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


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 13:31 GMT
Dear Sergio,

Thank you for a good essay on information and computing. You have given out good concepts. Why do you think they both are not mathematical but they are physical concepts, they are in the minds of human only............

meanwhile,

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 15:23 GMT
Dear SNP Gupta,

I have read it your article and now I understand why you make me that question.

I agree that all is created by our mind so I agree with your conclusion of it from bit from taht point of view, but you can not stop there. I have evolutive arguments to think that what our brain creates it is because something exist also outside and we need to know about it(although there are many things about what we do not know of course). But if we accept that the universe is real let's go to your question. Many people take historical roots of information and computation to label the concepts but information and computation are no mathematical. For example, if hypercomputation is possible the limit of computation is different that if it is not possible. It is similar to states of matter, it is not the same if superposition is possible or not. However, transfinite numbers are mathematical concepts they are independent of the universe where we are living. Information and computation depend on the universe where we are living as the mass of quarks.

I am very impress about you are fighting with the problem of where all come from. I have not enough knowledge to say if you are right or wrong about the CMB but finally the only method to fight against the main stream are predictions and experiments. If I can give you an advice it is that you must do predictions and experiments to see the difference between your proposal and the main stream.

Sincerely,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 05:46 GMT
Dear Sergio,

I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies.

It was my proposition, it was not an inference to your essay. What I mean is that we should be more close experimental results for our propositions.

I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. 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


Jacek Safuta wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 17:15 GMT
Hi Sergio,

I have read your essay carefully and I think that it fits more to the FXQi 2011 contest “Is Reality Digital or Analog?” and it is rather a philosophical essay (as the epistemology itself). Or maybe I do not comprehend your concept?

However I would try to paraphrase your statement about the simplest model of communication:

- Source: a wavepacket (deformed spacetime)

- Sink: a wavepacket (deformed spacetime)

- Channel of communication: the spacetime itself

In the quest for the simplicity.

Best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 18:45 GMT
Thanks for reading me. In my opinion if reality is analog or digital is not a discussion but an issue which must be resolved with experiments. The essay is not philosophical although yes epistemological about information and computation. Many people argue against the concepts of information and computation that the universe is continuous or analogical. When I read these arguments, I see that they...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 18:51 GMT
Hello Sergio,

I am pleased to read your essay and especially liked the conclusions. Totally agree: «The epistemic scheme of information it is no only a hope to go further in physics but also and epistemic scheme to achieve one of the biggest challenges of the humans, the unification of science.» See my essay, maybe you'll agree that the central core of the new "epistemic scheme" will be the idea of "ontological (structural) memory"? Tell me, please, your e-mail. Good luck and regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 00:17 GMT
Thanks for your words. is your idea of the "ontological memory" similar to the idea of cell automata? I need more information about that concept to give an opinion. For me the core of the new epistemic scheme is that information is the cause of all phenomena, as energy is the cause of all phenomena in the actual epistemic scheme of physics. The definition of information must be the first target of every theory.

You are right about foundations of mathematics but I do know how information and computation could help to it. Information and computation are physical concepts no mathematical concepts. Category theory was the last attempt to give foundations to mathematics but although I like it because it is very powerful I see some problems. You are right people avoid that subject in mathematics.

There is a link between computation and logic but in my opinion no all computational notions can be interpreted as physical process. So I would need to see the rules of the Delta-logic to give an opinion. Delta-logic is a kind of dynamic epistemic logic?

My e-mail is sergiom (at) usal.es

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 07:23 GMT
Hello Sergio,

The idea of "ontological (structural) memory" and «Delta-Logit» born of the search and the nature of the information previously constructed by constructing the fundamental ontological structure of existence - "Absolute generating structures." For more details about it in my previous essay in 2012: «Paradigm of the Part Vs. Paradigm of the Whole ... The Absolute Generative Structure» http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

Was used in constructing the idea of N.Bourbaki - "generating structures" (mother). Their Bourbaki - three. But it was not the main and only structure that Umberto Eco described as "missing." On the basis of dialectical logic, ontology and dialectic "coincidence of opposites" I built, as you well named, the initial "epistemic scheme" that represent the simplest mathematical symbol generating fundamental structure - a "structure-mother." So that the very piece of information «Delta-Logit», reflects the dialectics of generating new structures of nature, it is based - the dialectical logic. In principle, it can be called a «dynamic epistemic logic». The main thing - to grab the first generating structure, "missing" today in basic science. This is the solution to the problem of the essential justifying knowledge, especially basic sign systems, mathematics and physics. Solving the problem of justification of knowledge solves the problem of the nature of the information. Regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 12:12 GMT
I mean, dynamic epistemic logic is a well developed logic which is used in Artificial Intelligence in multiagent systems. Have you worked with this logic? Let me know because I have a good background in logics and I can give you mathemathical advices if you need it.

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


anna freinschlag wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 20:10 GMT
Dear Sergio,

thank you for your contribution, i enjoyed reading the essay a lot. You are bravely opening a controverse field of discussion. I consider your arguments as interesting, but I agree with snp gupda on the fact that it is lacking experimental practice. Would be curious about the epistemic scheme of information, but still not sure about the unification of science.

all the best for your work,

AF

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 13:55 GMT
Dear Anna,

Thanks for reading me and your words. I have to tell the idea of epistemic scheme or epistemic paradigm is not a issue of experimental practice upon the following. A epistemic scheme, or a epistemic paradigm, is a framework where develop theories. The theories must do predictions which must be true in the experiments, but the framework does not do predictions. One needs a framework where build a theory. The epistemic scheme (the framework) gives the fundamental concepts which will be used in the theories but the theory is the element which specify values and relations for the fundamental concepts. Of course it will be a problem for a epistemic scheme if none achieve a theory which does not do new predictions or right predictions; but as I cited in the article there are at least some theories proposed that belong to the epistemic scheme of information.

Unification of science is the gold dream of scientists. Of course I am not sure about it is possible but actually the notion of information and computation are fundamental in cognitive science, artificial intelligence. At this moment, biology can not be understood with out the concepts of information in the genetic code and the send of signals among cells. In sociology the nets of communication among individuals are a key concept to understand complex behaviors. Nature, without doubt, must be described with a hierarchy of languages, my opinion is while energy or force doesn’t work as concepts in all the levels of the hierarchy, only in the level of physics, information and computation could be used in all the levels because already is being used in many of them.

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 02:12 GMT
Dear Sergio

I also found that : information and computation are two completely different concepts - That is of course as that - maybe you ought to give a bold idea to answer certain questions of the contest,such will a lot more enjoyable.

And to change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 00:30 GMT
Dear Hoang cao Hai

You are right; computation and information are different concepts but they are complementary. Information is the state of nature and computation evolves the information. However I was long time worried about theory of information speaks about transmission of symbols and theory of computation speaks about operations of modification on symbols, and they did not seem related. It changed when I understood that a process of computation is a channel of communication, being the message transmitted all the state of the computational system. So, as I have stated in my paper: the theory of computation and the theory of information are sides of the same coin.

Let me tell you I have a problem with your claim that the relative is created by us. Einstein showed that the position and the time of an event are relative to the observer but it is not because we created but due to the system of reference of the observer. It means it is relative to the position and the time of the observer, so space and time is intrinsically relative. We know that a combination of space and time let create a quantity which can be conserved letting create and order between cause and effect. However for events which are not related there is not way to establish and absolute notion of where and when it happens, all depends of the observer. So, we can see that it is in contradiction with your claim of all the things are absolute. Sorry, but special relativity is very well established and checked. Also, out of physics I don’t see absolute around us; the same fact can be happy for you and sad for me. Eg. If you win the contest then I lost so it is happy for you and sad for me. You need specify relative to who is the event to give and answer. Yin and Yang. There is only one answer but when you specify relative to who you give the answer. I consider relativism a feature of nature.

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


adel sadeq wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 03:50 GMT
Hi Sergio,

I agree with your basic premise(I have rated you good). Moreover, I show in my essay what you wonder about. Also because you are a programmer my system is very well suited to your ideas.

Please if you have the time run The programs which are at my website

http://www.qsa.netne.net

please make sure you unzip the file properly, the code is in JavaScript, the programs are very simple. also see the posts in my thread for some more info.

you can find my essay at this link

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

see the amazing formulas in section 6, like this one

alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

P.S. you mentioned Khwarizmi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%E1%B8%A5ammad_ibn_M
%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB

he lived one hour flight from my ancestral home in Iran.

Adel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 21:41 GMT
Hello Adel,

thanks for your rate. I am looking your paper. I am trying to see how your programs work. These days I am Little bussy but I will write for the weekend some question in your profile.

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 03:06 GMT
Many thanks for your comments , Sergio .

Perhaps the wording by the English language of me did to you do not understand for problem that i want to address.

The difference between my absolute theory and the relativity theory as well as with other theories are : The Absolute nature of everything is not dependent on the observation or assessment of any body - or any position - that is the result of my research before deciding to build the Absolute Theory .

For example: if I win and you lose in this contest, I'm glad and you are sad. Absolute nature of this events is: I win and you lose - regardless of how many witnesses or all of people thinking of how - with the sad or happy of each individual will be to have absolute nature its own , because it is a separate phenomenon occurs with each individual, and it also does not depend on the assessment or perception of anyone, regardless of right or wrong conception of any methods of reasoning.

Hope so to be more discussion with you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 23:47 GMT
I am hapy that you want to discuss about it. You are right, the result is you are happy and I am sad but that is not what I am trying to show you. The issue is if I ask u for : is the event of you win the contest a happy or sad event? You can only answer my issue if we fix relative to who, because the answer is going to be different if it is relative to me or relative to you. Even in logic one has to fix an interpretation for some formulas because the value of true is different if one change the interpretation. I have seen no absolute notions in mathematical-logic, in physics and in feelings. I find relativeness in everywhere.

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 10:18 GMT
Dear Sergio,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 22:00 GMT
Dear Screenath,

I am a little busy but I am looking your essay. I will try to give you some comments for the weekend.

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share



David Levan wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 21:31 GMT
Hi Sergio,

well done, the first brick in the wall

David

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 21:46 GMT
Hi David,

It was really hard for me to write the essay because I am very busy so your words are really wellcome.

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share



Author Sergio Miguel wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 22:11 GMT
Hi David,

It was really hard for me to write the essay because I am very busy so your words are really wellcome.

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share



WANG Xiong wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 08:59 GMT
Hi Sergio, ,

Thanks for your nice essay, well done

I enjoy reading it and gave it high rate

Nice to see idea from you computer scientists

and from another approach, more physic and math sence, my essay may interest you Bit: from Breaking symmetry of it

Hope you enjoy it

Regards,

Xiong

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 22:28 GMT
Thanks for your words.

I am reading it and I write you in your area.

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 10:34 GMT
Dear Sergio,

You have written your essay in a highly interesting style and you have said whatever you wanted to say in a clear and elegant manner and this is the plus point of this essay. You have clearly shown why information is both continuous and discontinuous. You have explained the development of the ideas of information and computation with historical back ground. Later you have argued why they are fundamental concepts in science, especially, physics and stressed the need to develop a ‘unified theory’ of epistemic scheme of information. This is really an original way of not only developing a unified theory but also unification of the concepts behind various fields of science. I hope, in future, you will succeed in your effort to develop the theory of epistemic scheme of information by overcoming the hurdle existing between the theory of computation and the theory of information and that should be your future aim.

Congratulations to you and all the best in the essay contest, but your impressive essay is currently under rated and I would like to give it a very high rating after you go through my essay and post your comments on it in my thread. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 22:50 GMT
Dear Screenath,

Thanks for your words. I am happy you read my article and you understood it very well. I look your article not doubt :).

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 12:54 GMT
Dear Sergio,

You are right that information and computation should be taken close to each other well in the spirit of Wheeler's 'it from bit'. As I hav ebeen involved in quantum computation I understand your point.

Best wishes,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 00:00 GMT
Dear Michel,

thanks for your time I hope you enjoyed the essay.

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share


Michel Planat replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 07:03 GMT
Dear Sergio,

On July 25, I gave you the rate 6 to promote your well written and enjoyable essay.

Best wishes,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 15:46 GMT
Sergio,

I enjoyed reading your essay even though I am an unschooled realist. May I please make a comment about it without offending you?

You wrote: “The main goal of science well be (to) achieve a unification of the different natural sciences. All natural phenomena should be explained in the same framework.

The problem with that as I have thoughtfully pointed out in my essay BITTERS, is that nature is unique, once. The simplest construct one real Universe can adopt.

When we Wheeler your essay, you will be better able to see my point.

Is real Nature simple? Yes.

Are deeper concepts of physics and computers simple? No.

Good luck in the contest,

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 00:11 GMT
Thanks for your words Joe.

I am monist, physicalist, and reductionist.

I will look your essay but explain me more the problem about the main goal of science .

Not offendind not at all.

Also explain me, why real Nature is simple? I see the nature very complex, and why information and computation are no simple? I see them amazingly simple.

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 02:33 GMT
Dear Sergio,

Thanks for your nice comments and a few queries on my essay and I am glad to answer them convincingly.

I will go through the article "Causation as Folk Science of John D. Norton" as suggested by you and I want to know how you have grasped my views on causality.

You have asked a very good question to clarify the meaning of the hypothesis that I have framed at the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 02:37 GMT
Dear Sergio,

I have rated your well written essay with maximum points possible.

Best of luck,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 10:57 GMT
Thanks for your support!!

Sergio

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 13:44 GMT
Hello Sergio,

You said you wrote essay in a hurry but I find it very good. New way of thinking. Also you mention a number of historical people who have contributed to science. In my essay, I also mention people like Plato, Aristotle and Newton, just like you. I think you will like it. Also let me know more about your PEIP principle.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 09:29 GMT
Dear Sergio,

I red your essay another time and now have a question. You don't seem to consider the quantum bit concept (qubit) as a new epistemic scheme, this is surprising in view of the 'quantum information breakthrough'. Myself I have been fascinated by this ongoing progress and I have a lot of papers on the topic as

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0803.1911

Also in my essay

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

bits are inherent, although the precise nature of information/computation content is not yet made explicit. You may have ideas how to do that.

I just gave you a high rate for a very relevant and well written essay.

Best regards,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 14:27 GMT
DDear Michel,

Quantum information is not a new epistemic scheme in my sense. I use epistemic scheme to denote a set the concepts but no the features of the concept. It is a new theory about physical information inside of an epistemic scheme of information. e.g. Quantum energy is not a new epistemic scheme but a new theory about the energy which say it has different features of the features which the classical theory of energy assign to it. Superposition is a key element to understand physical information and computation of nature. I am not sure about you sentence "Bit are inherent, although the precise nature of information/computation content is not yet made explicit” are you talking about superposition or about probabilistic interpretation ?

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 03:33 GMT
Hello Sergio

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


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 05:30 GMT
Dear Sergio,

I have read your essay that seems to me as good review/analytical work, and I appreciate your methodological offer as interesting, deserving to serious study.

Meantime I will tell you honestly that methodologic questions are not the main theme for me (despite I have started my work with these questions!)

Most important thing for me that you has clearly dividing ,,bit,, and ,,it,, as a totally different kinds of categories (that shows the contentless of topic!) I think any healthy brain must quickly to comprehend that talks is about physical reality (it) and encoded information (bit), (which is human' creation only!)

Thus, I am going rate your essay as fair & professional on ,,high,, core. Hope you will visit my forum! Es link text

Sincerely,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 11:45 GMT
Sergio,

A great concept and clearly written description, breaking important new ground towards the unification of physics. I particularly agree with the key concepts of continuous information and the fundamental primacy of the physical approach.

You also seem aware that new ground doesn't yet reach to a complete solution and unification. A new candidate paradigm, sure, but we're not short of those, just short of that 'simplest of ideas' which completes the deal, if it exists.

Well, shockingly, I propose it does, and, less shockingly, hiding before our eyes in the area you're exploring. Let me take up issue with your PEIP. Very good, though it need re-writing in better English, but I suggest it also needs some stardust or an additional 'dimension' to bring it to life. Please consider this proposal of an addition dimension to 'complete' it;

There may be source, channel and sink with no 'computation'; (i.e. light to a barrier or lens with no processor). But the lens may also then become a source via a channel to another sink WITH a processor. However. There are than two variables between original source, and processor; any relative motion of the sink (lens) wrt the channel (air), and refractive index change of the channel (air to cable or optic nerve). These are then changes to 'wavelength'. The processor must then 'know' both conditions to find original source state.

I discuss this mechanism in my own essay along with it's implications, which I hope you'll read before responding. My ontology provides a solid foundation,(see previous 2 essays; discrete field model -DFM- ) but your "fundamental... continuous information and computation" provides an excellent consistent rationale for the information theoretic and quantum computing aspect.

Very well done, thank you, and best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sergio Miguel replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 21:45 GMT
Dear Peter,

thanks for your words I am going to read ur essay. In advance, there is no source, channel and sink without computation, remember that also identity function is a kind of computation.

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 01:46 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


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 17:55 GMT
Sergio,

A very important essay. My detailed post didn't survive the information channel between servers it seems, but Brendan thinks it physically exists so may re-appear! If not I'll re-write it from my notes with a question I posed.

We have much in common, distinguishing the physical from cardinalisations, so reclaiming continuity. I also have a resolution for the recursive category view.

Your essay is undervalued and I hope my top score will help. I also consider your points very valuable! I hope you'll also like the ontology constructed in my essay, physically analysing and testing the power of continuity.

Please don't let the dense abstract put you off but check the blog, which incudes responses such as; "groundbreaking", "clearly significant", "astonishing", "fantastic job", "wonderful", "remarkable!", "deeply impressed", etc.

Very best wishes

Peter

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.