Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/9/13 at 19:42pm UTC, wrote Thanks greatly Willard, Seeing your high quality of work has only improved...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/9/13 at 19:32pm UTC, wrote Thanks Don, I guess you should be told Penrose didn't make it to FFP11...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/9/13 at 19:28pm UTC, wrote Thanks Sreenath, We will all hope for the best. Good Luck! Jonathan

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/9/13 at 19:27pm UTC, wrote Thank you gracious Sir Torsten, Your work is top level. It is a pleasure...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/9/13 at 19:24pm UTC, wrote Thanks to you my friend Akinbo, We shall have more happy exchanges of...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/9/13 at 19:21pm UTC, wrote Thanks greatly Vladimir, I am glad to meet you here too! Wishing for the...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/9/13 at 19:19pm UTC, wrote Thanks Lawrence, I replied on your blog. Jonathan

Lawrence Crowell: on 8/9/13 at 13:19pm UTC, wrote Jonathan, I copied this from my essay blog site. My essay was basically a...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Agnew: "So time emerges from the outcomes of a clock and time does not exist..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Georgina Woodward: "Re,"A clock is as material device that generates events with regular..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

anna john: "It's a very good article. I appreciate the intelligence and writing skill..." in Santa Barbara Gravity...

Steve Dufourny: "I guess that sphères are the foundamental objects.That said we can..." in YouTube Video Lectures:...

ken koi: "Thank you for posting such a great article! I found your website..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello, Space does not seem to exist. If we have a kind of superfluid in..." in YouTube Video Lectures:...

Anonymous: "The idea that brains are somehow involved in limb regeneration is not the..." in Constructing a Theory of...

bell cord: "It is nice to see the post here. You explained in a nice way.Thanks for..." in Multiversal Journeys: The...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
June 27, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Knowing One from the Other by Jonathan J. Dickau [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 16:31 GMT
Essay Abstract

The question may be more subtle than "It from Bit, or Bit from It?" as determining whether information creates form or form creates information is sometimes a matter of knowing which entity is playing which role, or seeing what part a given component of reality is playing at any moment. Indeed; a single entity can play the role of "It" with respect to what came before, and "Bit" with respect to what comes after, or the reverse. Determining unambiguously whether a system is creating information or is created by information is thus virtually impossible - as the two modes are so deeply intertwined. The creative flow moves from possibilities to actualities, but the objects and conditions present then give rise to new possibilities. When observation leads to exploration, however, any action taken to explore and measure reality also has a creative role in helping to determine the state of things, or the outcome of events - thus changing how they appear. In this sense; the real challenge is to understand what plays the role of object, and what takes on the role of information, at a given point in the process. Ergo; this paper is devoted to sorting this matter out.

Author Bio

Jonathan has had an interest in Physics from an early age, and has actively sought to understand the cosmos and the laws of nature for most of his life. With a number of academic and editorial publications, he has lectured extensively on a wide variety of topics. His research has resulted in face to face conversations and correspondence with several of the top names in Physics and other areas of Science. The last several years; that work has been focused on how playful exploration leads to advances in Science, as featured in his FQXi essays.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 21:18 GMT
Jonathan,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 22:44 GMT
Hello to All,

I would like to welcome all visitors to this page, and to express my gratitude for seeing so many of my FQXi community friends and other familiar names among the essay authors. I would also like to thank FQXi, Scientific American, the Templeton Foundation, and any other promoters and sponsors of this contest. It is my privilege to be among the entrants again this year.

I would hope my essay 'doth not forfend' by the metaphor I employed in the introduction, but I assure readers that the rest of my essay is considerably more 'down to Earth.' My offering this go around is almost completely non-technical, being more an essay about Physics, and less a Physics paper. It was written as it came, with little pre-planning or imposed structure - so what is presented is my thought process, as it came together in the moment.

I invite all questions and comments. I shall try to read as many of the other essays as possible, but I will return to this page often and give as much time as I can to deal with reader remarks posted here.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 00:14 GMT
Jonathan,

As always, you frame the physics in metaphysics, which is as appropriate for this specific topic as any we have seen. You also relate childhood learning to the topics (I believe you're the only one to do this.) I agree that the relevant perceptions occur before verbalization skills are acquired. You note that it is necessary to put aside preconceptions and see again with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 01:30 GMT
Thanks so much Ed,

I appreciate that you grasp some of the subtleties I was trying to highlight, and can redact salient details so skillfully. I did see one other author mention the idea that a concept of 'It' is deeply embedded in our conditioning, but indeed he made no mention of when those perceptions were formed. So the fact that object constancy is something we learn at a very early age, well before the age of 2, was imagined to be significant to understanding our conditioned view of 'It.'

I love the work of Alan Watts, though I have not read very many of his books. He is great at re-casting Eastern thought in a way that is accessible to Westerners. Regarding human awareness; I guess part of Chalmers' assertion that the subjective experience of consciousness is the hard problem of understanding consciousness. But I certainly could have said more about how consciousness is a vehicle for information, or vice versa.

More later,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 01:21 GMT
Jonathan

Congratulations for this well reasoned, sensitively expressed essay. Everything you said rings true - I admire your stamina in examining all the possibilities that the essay question invites and as it were answering them simultaneously with a koan-like wisdom.

As Edwin also stressed, you mention the focused and scientific way small children try to understand things. As we grow older we lose a lot of subtlety as our minds cling to one overriding theory or another. This is an important period for physics and an open-minded 'philosophy' of knowledge such as yours is very important if long held theories that do not quite work well are to be replaced by better ones.

Your thinking seems to be influenced by "The Tao of Physics" a marvelous book. Having lived in Japan for the past 42 years I can testify that religion and the language it is expressed in has a great influence on how we think, about science among many other things. This is a broad off-topic subject but it came to mind. You yourself quoted the Native American myth so I think you agree.

I expected but did not find a reference to a Yang-It-Yin-Bit!

With best wishes

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 02:09 GMT
Gracious thanks to you Vladimir..

Understanding the need for childlike openness is key. An image comes to mind 'lantern vs searchlight' is the metaphor; I think it was on Alison Gopnik's website, but I'd have to check. When experimental researchers and theorists have the freedom to playfully explore, great things are discovered. I've heard that story from Nobel laureates and top Physics researchers. So it works for adults too! But being forced to be too focused on specific results can kill progress.

I did read Tao of Physics, Dancing Wu Li Masters, and other related volumes. Yes I see the relationship to the Tao, and I am a student of those teachings, so it might have made it in - especially via the Yang-It/Yin-Bit reference - but I had to draw the line somewhere. The great thing about the way I approached things is that the topic is expandable. Perhaps the Yin/Yang Tao symbol will be one of my slides, if I present this work as a lecture. But for now, thanks for your kind remarks.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 11:45 GMT
Jonathan,

As of 7-6-13, 7:44 am EST, the rating function for your essay is not available. Sorry I can't help you out right now by rating your essay. NOTE: I have logged in using a PC and a MAC and different browsers but it appears to be a site function issue.

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 16:39 GMT
Thanks anyway Manuel,

Hopefully that will be fixed soon.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 21:14 GMT
Jonathan,

I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.

My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online competition which assures me that the competition will be back up and running soon. Ironically, the inability of not being able to rate the essays correlates with the TD experimental findings, as presented in my essay, which show how the acts of selection are fundamental to our physical existence.

Anyway, I hope that all entrants will be allocated the same opportunity to have their essay rated when they are posted, and if not possible due to technical difficulties, will have their opportunity adjusted accordingly. Best wishes to you with your entry.

Manuel

PS I will be reviewing and rating your entry after this function has been turned back on.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 03:20 GMT
Jonathan,

I have received word that although it was unfortunate that there was a delay in conducting the ratings, no extensions to the final deadline will be made. I will keep this in mind when I get a chance to review your essay later this week.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Philip Gibbs wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 13:48 GMT
Jonathan, It's good to see you make it in. This is a well reasoned essay and I like the analogy of the actors and dancers.

I think from a philosophical point of view thw best case to make is that IFB and BFI are both valid. My starting point is more pragmatic in that I want an idea that will lead to a theory. I think the IFB idea is better from that point of view. Of course information on its own is meaningless as you and others have rightfully argued. You need to add at least some structure such as an ordering of nits in a sequence. I prefer to add structure by adding the role of quantum uncertainty.

Hope they fix the rating system soon, the contest has gone into limbo at the most exciting moment!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 16:42 GMT
Thanks greatly Phil,

Your comments and insight are appreciated. Hopefully the glitch will be fixed soon.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 02:15 GMT
Dear Jonathan

Slightly cumbersome, but still focused on the main question. if you think that: "It from Bit and then Bit from it" So: where they came from?

And to change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition along with 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 Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Thank you for your insights Hai Caohoàng

Much of what you say in your comment makes sense, but I imagine I will better understand your intent by reading your essay. This I will attempt to do. Indeed; I do favor 'It from Bit' and then 'Bit from It' - because I feel that the relationship between the two defines each outlook, rather than giving either one supremacy.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 16:09 GMT
Jonathan,

This is a well thought out exposition of the relationship of knowledge and information, but if I may, I would like to tug on a particular thread and see where it leads. Consider:

"Does life descend to play in or with form, bestowing consciousness and creativity? Or does form rise and evolve to acquire these attributes, so it may play in the heavens?"

The logical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 16:19 GMT
Jonathan,

If I may, I would like to post a small portion of my own entry, explaining why knowledge is inherently fragmentary:

" Bias is fundamental to the construct of knowledge, so it needs to be factored into the

model. Whether it is a particular perspective, or a generic model or pattern inductively

distilled from circumstance, knowledge is a focused distillation...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 01:41 GMT
A lot to think about John...

The designation of base or apex is a matter of perspective. It's the same structure, really, only inverted or reversed. Is the upright cone of more value; or is it the inverted cone greater - because its emptiness will hold a fluid like water? Actually; the cone extends to encompass both upright and inverted sections, though we normally see one or the other depicted. Was the cone always there, in the realm of possibilities, and does that constitute a Platonic archetype or ideal?

My object of contemplation was, for a number of years, the Mandelbrot Set. And I played endless tricks with the algorithm and rendering, to reveal faces of that figure most people have never seen. It was more than 25 years ago now, that I had a few phone conversations with Professor M, to discuss the relevance of the mapping of form at the periphery to the cosmological epochs. I was slated to give a talk about this at FFP12, but unfortunately I didn't make it to Udine. However; this topic got me to wondering about how something mathematical might exist apart from our derivation or discovery of it - for obvious reasons.

Slides for FFP12 talk

More later,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 01:55 GMT
Hello again John,

I just wanted to say that in my view, the archetypal and emergent existence of ideal forms are identical. This comes about because of the dual nature of determination in constructivism. That is to say; the process of learning about or creating anything are two sides of the same coin. But in some measure; the role of theoretical Physics is to correctly intuit what some of the ideal forms are, that emergent forms in nature are approaching.

Using iterated function systems, a wide variety of fern-like forms can be created, and the Math is simplicity itself. The collage theorem of Barnsley is basically a 'copy and paste' formula, where an image can be stretched or rotated. If one notes where the self-similar forms within the fern shape reside, and creates a map of how fern maps to branch, which maps to frond, which maps to leaf, then this becomes your formula. Amazingly, the shape of the fern emerges from the copy and paste algorithm itself. And we are left to wonder if a fern has a mathematical ideal it is reaching toward.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 02:41 GMT
I'll pick up the thread here...

I want it to be clear that I don't think the Platonic view is the last word on everything in Physics. Instead; I feel that the idea of a mathematical universe is an essential piece of the puzzle to understand. It is fruitless to debate the notion of the pre-existence of the orderly form that appears in Math. The point is instead the unvarying nature of some aspects of mathematical reasoning, or persistent objects and principles within Math - which come out the same regardless of how you get there.

These patterns appear in nature, as well as in abstract studies like Mathematics. It is freely admitted that some attempts at a constructivist formulation for Math have been disappointing, but I see nothing wrong with the basic mechanics of that approach. My guess is that there is a constructive proof possible for any mathematical statement that is generally proved in other ways, but I could be wrong. The nice thing about constructive proofs is that they can be turned into computing algorithms with great ease.

But as many have pointed out; Physics is all about how natural law and the universe unfold whatever underlying principles exist into observable form. I think the underlying principles are identical however, and it's a matter of whether concrete or abstract information is desired. I may talk more about this idea in the page Zeeya Merali and FQXi have opened up for discussing Dimensional Reduction in the Sky, because of its relevance to the topic of that paper.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 02:56 GMT
To clarify further;

I think that following the emergence of natural principles which inspire Math, and assuming there are pre-existing mathematical archetypes which shape physical form, takes you to the same place, ultimately. The act of determination in a constructivist sense is both measurement and construction. That is; observation is creation, just as with Quantum Mechanics.

What I am proposing is that the way we learn about the universe is a model or simulation of how the universe gives rise to form - through a dynamic process of determination, which serves both to make things observable or measurable, but also makes them actual. I'll have more to say on this later.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 04:17 GMT
Jonathan,

I think we are probably in general agreement there. It unfolds according to principle, but the more complex, the more interactive and subjective. It is a fundamentally dynamic process, not static principles. They appear static "in principle" only because they repeat.

The only absolute is zero.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 05:13 GMT
Thanks for the thoughtful accommodation John,

I'll not belabor things here, but I'll take the time to read your essay instead, and take you to task on your own page - if I think you have gone too far afield this time. I generally enjoy your writing a lot, and I appreciate your perspective. Thank you for sharing here.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 04:29 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Very beautiful and well written essay. Indeed, there is much agreement between us, and also a complementarity in the approaches. You were able to present the interplay (dance) between it and bit also from psychological and evolutionary viewpoints, and also to analyze with an impartial eye the relation between them.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 05:09 GMT
Thanks so much Cristi!

I appreciate the high regard. As I recall, you and I did agree on a number of points, and I liked your essay a lot this time around. A compliment from you is esteemed highly.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 06:03 GMT
I liked the essay, but find these essays hard to rate. While this and others explore the area, they don't really seem to come to grips with the core aspects, in the same way that brought Hume to say 'Consign it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.'

This is a general comment, not specific to this essay. This was one of the better essays, I felt.

The connection between minds and worlds, under the GPE (see my essay) is that the Harmony Set may have several equivalent interpretations in the same way that a top hat functions can be replaced by a Fourier series, or redistributed values in higher dimensions. Which interpretation is the 'right' one? None. Which has priority, or is the foundational space? None. But these spaces are ontologically locked together. One might propose that one of these interpretations gives rise to mind.

Stephen Anastasi.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 06:18 GMT
Thank you Stephen,

I appreciate the thoughtful remarks. I agree that with a more philosophical entry it is harder to say 'it is right or wrong.' I'll have a go at your essay soon, and comment there.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 11:12 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

"certain regularities of Math have a life of their own, and influence or shape the laws of physics", I fully agree but the unknowable is that it works.

In my essay the Riemann sphere rigidified at three points is a very regular mathematical object, introduced by Grothendieck, that plays the role of measurement space for multiple qubits. To use your language the form is the 'dessin' on the rigidified sphere (or may be the stabilized geometry of observables) and the information is encoded at the extremities of its edges.



"The acquisition of object constancy, which takes place in early childhood...", may be you implicitely refer, and without knowing it, to Grothendieck's 'dessins d'enfants'.

Good luck,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 14:20 GMT
Thank you Michel,

Grothendieck was a master at discovering the roots of things, where others would spot only the flowers. And of course; his insight that it was children's play with forms that would reveal those roots is priceless. Too often, adults forget the intelligence of play, or the wisdom of the very young, in their hubris to believe adult understanding is better, but sometimes the drawings of children reveal things most adults cannot understand.

I shall examine some of the material I just found on the 'dessins d'enfants' and also take the time to read your essay Michel. I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Michel Planat replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 18:24 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your kind recommandation on Goodband's page. I rated your essay on July 9. Did you do the same because I have no track of you at me essay location?

Good luck,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 14:05 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Another excellent essay! Not only do I agree with your previous conclusion of analogue and digital, but that reality and information are also too intertwined to separate. My essay also concludes not to have either more fundamental. The child like thinking is a good reminder that we need to keep things simple and reach conclusions based on the simplest explanations.

Nice read too!

Very well done.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 14:41 GMT
Thank you Antony!

Your kind remarks and high regard are appreciated. Of course; some things are only apparent to a child like mind, and others can't grasp them because their understanding is too sophisticated or developed in a particular groove. Alison Gopnik suggests as a metaphor that children use a lantern to learn, while adults prefer a spotlight. There is a lot us older folks miss that way.

Your essay is still on my list of papers to read, but I hope to get there soon.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 11:21 GMT
My pleasure Jonathan,

As I said - thoroughly enjoyed it. Still working my way through the essays myself. Enjoyable, but hopefully there won't be many more new additions now or time won't permit.

All the very best for the contest - well deserved position you are in!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 15:02 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

I always appreciate that you don't dodge the biggest questions: "Does life descend to play in or with form, bestowing consciousness and creativity? Or does form rise and evolve to acquire these attributes, so it may play in the heavens?"

You allow that science takes the latter course. Things are changing, though -- in complex systems models of laterally integrated information, those upper and lower bounds of agent awareness and action are not so clear. What is becoming clear, through high tech data analysis of interacting systems, is that hubs of activity that control the system's output through negative feedback constantly shift position.* Most remarkably, the most drastic changes are on the shortest intervals of observation, while the system shows little change on the longer scale. Hence, your dance of creation.

"In considering the question 'It from Bit, or Bit from It?' one must always ask 'With respect to what?' The question is undecidable otherwise, as it is essential to understand that entities or systems can have a dual role, and can in fact be a blend of It/Bit flavors ..."

Nice. I am reminded of a recent U.S. president who assigned to himself the role of "decider," in vain. He should have taken a lesson from King Canute, standing in the surf and commanding the ocean waves to roll back. I expect the next chapter of human history will be one of cooperation, the only decision that really needs to be consciously made.

All best,

Tom

*See, e..g., Braha & Bar-Yam, "From Centrality to Temporary Fame: Dynamic Centrality in Complex Networks." Complexity vol 12, no 2, pp 59-63. [2006]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 16:36 GMT
Thanks greatly Tom,

Astute observations about the short scale vs long scale activity within a system. This appears to be more or less universal. As you say, the most drastic changes often happen on a short interval, and go unnoticed if one's observation considers only longer time scale phenomena.

Non-linear entropy is observed mostly when you take things that appear to happen instantaneously, and re-examine that behavior in terms of reciprocal exchanges. It's not instant at all, and involves a lot of back and forth activity, but it does happen very fast. Decoherence happens quicker still, but a closer examination shows us that is a dance as well.

However one would never know it is a complex phenomenon, without examining large excursions that happen in a short time more closely.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 18:14 GMT
I had a delightful excursion into your Mandelbrot slides. And then I surfed over to Joselle Kehoe's blog (my first exposure), where an archived article on Gregory Chaitin's new book (*Proving Darwin*) caught my eye. After noting Chaitin's wonderfully phrased philosophy: "Each time mathematics faces a significantly new challenge, it transforms itself." Joselle follows up with her view:

"The idea that life itself is creativity, and that our knowledge of it is always incomplete, is a view of things that I believe mathematics easily inspires. My own experience with mathematics has always led me in this direction, both within the confines of my very personal experience as well as when I explore ideas in science, philosophy and art. It's a provocative and optimistic view. Mathematics seems to be coming from us, yet it keeps giving us images of the larger thing of which we are a part, to the point of showing us that we can never fully know that larger thing. We are seeing something about us and the world."

I so agree. Some say the Mandelbrot set is the most complicated object in mathematics. Actually, my vote for that honor is Chaitin's Omega number. Both objects, though, inform us that everything we are certain about is history -- a history that continuously creates infinite bifurcating trajectories. Only the hidden patterns of self similarity gives us even a hint of the global reality.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 19:11 GMT
Wow! Thanks Tom..

I appreciate affirmation of value in the insights offered, and the hearty 'Hi Ho' that your comments indicate and inspire.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

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 Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 16:39 GMT
Thank you Sreenath,

I have downloaded all of the essays at this point. I look forward to reading your essay, and I will post a few comments on your page once I do so.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 16:46 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

In your enchanting essay you have clearly elucidated the relationship between It and Bit in as diverse fields as physics, mathematics, biology, sociology and human culture. This approach is somewhat similar to what I have done in my essay. Although you have given equal importance to both It and Bit as they are intertwined and hence need each other to survive by changing their roles often, you have also said that ‘there can be no It beyond the Planck density’ and ‘so information reigns supreme, in the universe before matter appears’, thereby giving primacy to Bit than to It. So in physics, in extreme cases, you are siding with the Bit and same is the case with mathematics as ‘the principles and objects of mathematics are discovered rather than invented’; there by giving objective existence to mathematics. It is good to see that you have considered solving the epistemological problem existing between It and Bit by analyzing the psychology of human mind. Comparison of the interplay between It and Bit, on one hand, and creation and destruction of the universe, on the other, to ‘Lila Rasa’ or ‘Cosmic Dance’ is simply revelation of the sort of relationship existing between It and Bit. In Hindu mythology, Lord Shiva’s ‘Thandava- Nruthya’ is called ‘Cosmic Dance’, which results in the destruction and creation of the universe.

Thanks for producing such an entertaining but thought provoking essay. Please go through my essay too and post your invaluable comments in my thread. I would like to rate your essay with a very high score.

All the best in the essay contest,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 17:15 GMT
Thanks greatly Sreenath..

Your comments here are warmly appreciated. I'll see what I can find out about Thandava-Nruthya, through a web search, now that I know what to call it. Your insights complement my own, so I'm thinking I'd better read your essay through - so I may learn what other gems you have to share.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 07:52 GMT
Hi again Jonathan,

I hope I find time to read your essay thoroughly. I only had time to browse through it today, but it was very interesting and refreshing. The first words to really catch my attention were "Does life descend to play in or with form, bestowing consciousness and creativity? Or does form rise and evolve to acquire

these attributes, so it may play in the heavens?" Therefore, it reminds me of William Shakespeare's lines -

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players.

They have their exits and their entrances;

And one man in his time plays many parts.

Today, life has you and I playing a part on FQXi's stage.

Best wishes,

Rodney

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 16:03 GMT
Thank you very much Rodney,

I like your comments greatly, and of course a tip of the hat to 'Old Will' is due, because indeed the universe is a stage - and we are the players. I was a bit worried, that I was pushing the edge with some comments, for an FQXi contest essay. I'm glad my choice of metaphor 'doth not forfend' but helps to lift readers like yourself into the heavens.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 11:03 GMT
Hello Jonathan,

A nice contribution. To distill some truths from your essay, I quote excerpts and follow with remarks.

RE: "it is reasonable to observe that an ongoing interplay between 'It from Bit' and 'Bit from It' is an essential part of the natural order, and that this exchange of modalities is more fundamental than either view is on its own"

Quite correct.

RE: "the notion of 'Bit' has been generalized to include a broader spectrum of information types, and I think this is wise – because information does not always fit into conveniently-sized packages"; "…if we allow a sufficiently broad definition for quantifiable information..."; "There is always an interplay between information becoming stuff, and stuff becoming information"; "While it is quite clear that information of some nature does give rise to the universe of form, thus fulfilling Wheeler’s vision of 'It from Bit',"

From all these, would you consider 'existence'/'non-existence' as a binary choice? Many have conceded to including this as information on this FQXi forum. Then given that what exists must have extension, no matter how minute and what does not exist would not occupy space, your ideas may coincide with mine here.

RE: "In relation to 'It from Bit' Physics, time and space are both the stage and the place for the audience to watch from"

Suppose space and time are not just the stage and place, but also the actors as well, contrary to what Gerard ’t Hooft told you? That is exactly what I too suggest in my essay so leave this option open till you read my essay.

A very nice essay to be well rated.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 16:11 GMT
You are gracious good Sir.

Your kind remarks are appreciated, and I will try to get to reading your essay soon. As to existence/non-existence being a binary condition, it certainly appears so, but I will have to think further. I imagine that is something you bring up in your offering, so I will probably take up the question on your essay page, but it is something interesting to contemplate. As Tom Ray says in his essay; you never hear about beginning a quantum experiment with a dead cat, so I guess on some level we are biased because we live in a universe where existence is possible - and it's hard to imagine that non-existence could be as real.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Rick Lockyer wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 18:49 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

I must say you do have a way with words, your essay is beautifully written. The words ‘it’ and ‘bit’ are sufficiently vague to allow bending things to actually have an argument on both sides, depending on how you define them and in what context they apply. I find this imprecision too often found in discussions between physicists and philosophers alike a major barrier to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 21:00 GMT
Wow. Thanks Rick!

It's good to have you commenting here. Sorry I haven't seen an essay from you, but not every topic is a winner for everybody. I really like what you had to say, as it manages to condense the content of my whole paper down to the single statement "The invariant portion of 'It from Bit' and 'Bit from It' is 'from'!" And of course, as you point out; any choice of from is a conscious act.

Indeed; the very act of invoking a 'from' mentality implies there is a sense of origin and product, that is in some ways artificial. It is certainly accurate to say that our society is too hung up on pinning down causes, where causation can be like tugs to the fabric that have a cumulative effect, rather than blows to the object itself that shatter it immediately.

When the vase ends up on the floor; it is equally shattered, even though no one tug moved the tablecloth much, nor did any one bump jiggle the table to a great degree. But to assume that the last nudge or vibration of the floor is the cause is erroneous, because every little tug on the fabric contributed to the vase's fall. One might just as well blame the fact the table was not level to begin with, but choosing any single cause is misleading.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



KoGuan Leo wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 22:40 GMT
Hi Johnathan,

I love your opening introduction below: "In an ancient tale (as once told to me); Spirit takes on the myriad forms to learn by becoming, and being, and doing, what it is to live in the world of form. Then after immersing itself in the universe of form and its living inhabitants, it begins the upward journey back to oneness, rising above the world of separate forms as it has...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 03:26 GMT
Thanks so much Leo!

I am appreciative of the time taken to read and comment. It is wonderful that this forum allows so many words that are educational and informative to be preserved, so they may later be digested. I am glad that your perspective is now a part of my landscape. I think perhaps the three-fold nature of your FAPAMA metaphor is reflected in my words, in a different form. But whether it is the eternal absolute or energy and forces - that fill the space between It and Bit - is open to discussion.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Ram Gopal Vishwakarma wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 18:28 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Your interesting philosophical essay reminds me of spirituality and the ancient Hindu wisdom that the universe is a cosmic play and the Observer and the Information are basically One! I agree with your view that the “It from Bit or …?” question depends on how it is perceived and interpreted.

I rated your essay high and wish you best of luck in the contest.

___Ram

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 00:56 GMT
Thank you Ram Gopal,

This year's essay is certainly more Philosophy than Science. Given the question posed; I was inclined to approach the subject that way. This time around; I just started writing, and kept going until I had enough content, but that bit of ancient Hindu wisdom was my seed or starting place. The rest just happened.

I also rated your excellent essay highly, a day or two ago.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 16:35 GMT
Mr. Dickau,

I wish to congratulate you for writing such a fine essay. I have no criticism, however, I do wish to emphasize a point that has been overlooked in all of the essays except my own essay BITTERS.

Only unique is real, once. As the only real form Spirit could ever take on would be unique, once, Spirit would never have to rise up to resume a state of oneness. Oneness is the only real natural state.

Wheeler ought to have asked:

Is the real Universe simple? Yes

Is the abstract universe simple? No

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 22:22 GMT
Then, Joe, what is the answer to:

Is the abstract universe contained within the real universe?

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 23:27 GMT
Thank you Joe,

I'm happy my essay does not warrant your criticism, or give you cause for complaint, and your suggestion is duly noted. And of course; even in a branching view of reality, each outcome is unique and non-repeatable. That is part of what makes life so precious. As we are entering the stream, it is already moving along, further downhill to find its way to other waters.

And of course Tom;

While the whole of the abstract may never find its expression in the universe, or even in a collection of universes, the seed of the abstract must reside in all things for them to exist at all. To an extent; Joe's statement above sets out the condition; the abstract admits the complex which gives rise to the possibility for form beyond oneness. The simple condition of 'oneness is' is not sufficient, of itself, to give rise to the universe.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 14:43 GMT
Respectfully Jonathan, and Tom

The real eternal unique Universe could not arise. The real unique Universe does not have an inside or an outside. Insides and outsides are not unique. The quality of physical rising and falling is not unique. There is no seed of abstraction anywhere in the real Universe. There is nothing but an ocean of abstraction into which modern man is presently drowning....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 14:46 GMT
The above comment was written by Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
Ah yes! But also...

You are absolutely correct, and definitive up to a point. But there is more to the story. Let me start my response by saying that people are biased to understand all things in terms of the behavior of fermionic matter, and this is endemic to living in a world made of protons, neutrons, and electrons - not just a matter of human perception. I'll accede that within that realm, your answer makes perfect sense.

But why only uniqueness and oneness? I understand there is a balance there, or something that is preserved, but there is more. The next level up from unique would be completeness; in Physics this is preserved by Electricity that only flows when the circuit goes all the way around, and in Geometry the simplest figure with this property is the circle. Of course; the circle contains space and thus represents the next property which one could call nothingness.

Taking this to logical conclusion; I'd make enoughness or sufficiency the next preserved quality, and then a property that could be called agreement or equality is needed - which bespeaks the connection of such a hierarchy with oneness, or the totality of being. I spell out some of this in Physics terms, in my essay from the FQXi contest on What is ultimately possible in Physics.

More later,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 16:43 GMT
"There is no seed of abstraction anywhere in the real Universe."

Then these word symbols communicate nothing, and anything we say is pointless.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 19:59 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

I liked your very readable essay. One of the best for staying on target and going right to information and form. As you show both do not mean much with taking into account that most slippery of all things "human context".

If my own work drives you a little crazy, please forgive me I was just doing my best to give the flavor of the Bhagavad Gita.

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 20:10 GMT
Gee whiz, oh scrupulous one..

The Bhagavad Gita? I should have known that, but didn't quite have the realization surface. I knew there was something eerily familiar about the tone of your essay. And of course; I had the sense that it was all Siri's writing, after all. But I enjoyed your paper Don, and I gave you an uplifting score.

Thank you for your appreciation. Have an enlightening day.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 15:46 GMT
Jonathen,

Your usual very intuitive and pertinent insights into learning, but I did notice why you felt the need comment on the unstructured approach. It would have been better for some organization. None the less that's the only and very small criticism as the content and prose were very valid and highly readable, which for me justified a good score. I particularly gelled with some very...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 22:02 GMT
Thank you Peter!

I appreciate your kind words and your high regard. And yes; I understand the seriousness of Bell's experiments and related results. I am certain there is resolution of the paradox for EPR, but I am not convinced there is a (singular) resolution which explains the results handily and thereby locks out all explanations. That is one of the things I disliked about McGucken's paper and forum responses; it is as though he expects you to drop all the old dogma and accept his new dogma instead. That does not suit me.

So I will re-read and comment, but I sense that you do not need my support, in order to get your point across effectively. And be aware; you may not ever win my agreement in toto, but that would not keep me from recommending your work to others.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 22:06 GMT
that should be; I'm not convinced a result that definitively explains EPR should be considered one that 'thereby locks out all other explanations.'

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:07 GMT
Jonathen,

Thanks for your comment on my blog. I'm not sure I fully understand your logic ref resolution of the EPR paradox. If a mechanism can be shown which produces a cosine curve ditribution at each detector, as von Neumann suggested must be the case if QM is to be consistent, then why would some entirely different solution still be required?

Sure I agree all science is provisional and we know less than "1,000th of 1%..." and all solutions are incomplete, so I that's what you mean I agree.

The asymmetric ('orbital') Aspect results the model (DFM) predicted were actually found and discarded!! That is some 99% OF HIS DATA!! That may have been fair while no theory existed to explain the anomalies, but he did rather hide them away in his French language paper!

I do think the construction project for the new paradigm will need a whole supply of octonions and someone who knows how to work them if you're interested. I think truths belongs to nature never one person.

Have fun on the final day roller coaster ride!

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Colin Walker wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 16:55 GMT
Hi Jonathan

The theme of your essay is quite in line with a point of view I hold which is that recycling between energy and matter is a general principle worthy of consideration, not only in terms of information. It is virtually a necessity for a static cosmology, which is at the extreme limit of the recycling premise and one of my current interests.

As for continuous information, I think that depends on whether energy is quantized. There is a natural quantum of energy, Hh, Hubble constant times Planck constant or about 10^-51 joule. This is the amount of energy that Hubble's law implies would be lost per cycle from all photons, no matter what their wavelength. The process of losing Hh in energy every cycle corresponds to exponential decay. That is about as close to a universal quantum as you are going to get. Hh is small enough that the difference bewteen discrete and continuous would be negligible.

Anyway that's my two bits. Best to you.

Colin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 22:17 GMT
Thank you Colin,

While I'm not sure I would call the universe static, I think the Big Bang/Inflationary scenario has some big problems and deficiencies. Just ask Steinhardt; he raked it through the coals in a lecture I attended and a Scientific American article. You may want to check out the FQXi Forum page for the paper "Dimensional reduction in the sky," which offers insight into (and my comments about) the theory of Rainbow Gravity, and a view of cosmology which decidedly DOES NOT favor Big Bang/Inflation, and may offer some useful insights.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Colin Walker replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 16:15 GMT
I found one of Steinhardt's lectures "Inflationary cosmology on trial" on youtube. Fortunately, he encouraged questions from the audience. Although the questions were inaudible, his answer to one presumably about the energy driving inflation in the big bang was revealing. He said (at 33:00-35:00) the source was [Newtonian] gravitational potential energy and that gravity is a unique form of energy which is bottomless. The notion that gravity is an infinite well of energy is dubious. I attempted to show how gravitational potential energy can be reformulated using special relativity in last year's essay. In its modernized form, the potential energy that is available through free-fall would be limited to the rest energy of the falling object. In other words the free-fall energy from a test mass, m, can be no greater than mc^2 no matter how strong the gravitational field. This reflects Mach's principle that rest energy of an object is potential energy due to its elevation from the rest of the matter in the universe, and kinetic energy can be no greater than potential energy.

In my opinion this gives an advantage to the cyclic hypothesis because the expansion mechanism is different. The upcoming experiments Steinhardt refers to ought to spark more interest.

Thanks for the leads. It is much appreciated.

Colin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 19:14 GMT
Dear Jonathan as you think further on whether existence/non-existence being a binary condition, see a short piece below:

As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there…

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 14:42 GMT
OK then Akinbo...

I shall attempt to answer your question with all due brevity, but an honest answer precludes that only yes/no replies are considered valid. This caveat is necessitated in part by the nature of your query and by essential information not provided (only some of which is commonly available), but it is also dictated by the fact that my circumstances are unusual or unique. ...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 15:41 GMT
As explained above;

The answer is 'yes' for 1) above IFF one left the money in one's pocket (in which case an exact accounting is lacking) or counted it and then returned it to pocket (assuming no further action was taken), so there would be a reasonable expectation to find something there.

The answer is 'no' for 1) above when one has removed the money from one's pocket, perhaps to count it, and subsequently acted to store the money elsewhere - leaving it out of one's pocket before going to work. An expectation more will magically appear does not justify being surprised by empty pockets, if one has deliberately set the money aside before work, though if a million appeared twice you would wonder.

There are some scenarios allowable by the problem description where only a partial answer is possible, the correct answer is somewhere between 'yes' and 'no', or the result is indeterminate, and so on. I'll say that aThe great majority of cases fall into one of the two categories above, but... A funny thing happened on the way to work... Anything can happen. Unless some details of the day's activities are known, an exact answer eludes us.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 18:11 GMT
Hello again Akinbo,

I will still attempt to get to specific replies for 2) 3) and 4), and I think my initial answer explains any variance.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 09:09 GMT
Dear Jonathan. 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 Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 18:45 GMT
Greetings My Friends,

This message was meant to be a reply to Akinbo (in his blog), but because it has more general relevance I am also posting it here.

While I acknowledge that sometimes life reduces choices down to either/or decisions, the tendency to assume this applies more generally is a harmful logical flaw prevalent in modern society, because it fails to ask "Is there a middle path?" In more detail; sometimes the middle is excluded erroneously, in other cases the fact there are multiple choices is not considered, and in some cases there is a virtually continuous range of choices - where sometimes our choice among these cases is determined by how we interact with the system. According to an article in August's Scientific American by Meinard Kuhlmann; that sometimes applies for the choice of 'particles vs vacuum' which begs the question "Is there a particle or no particle?"

I first read about the hierarchy of objects and spaces as a point made in passing by Alain Connes, in one of his papers about non-commutative geometry. Measurable is a subset of topological, which is a subset of smooth - in relating the categories of well-defined spaces. This point has more than passing importance, however, to people who study differential geometry and topology. In some cases; one can assert that the boundary between stable conditions or well-defined regions is a fractal. That is; there are interpenetrating regions of yes and no, or black and white, as in an M.C. Escher artwork. So while sometimes a simple yes or no will suffice; sometimes a more subtle answer is called for.

More to follow..

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 18:58 GMT
Here is the rest of the story.

There seems to be an erosion of our natural perceptual ability to distinguish shades of gray, as an effect on the human populace over time. I've written about this in editorials, but few scholars have speculated on its cause. I suspect migration of a large segment of the populace to cities might be a factor.

The studies begun at Tübingen, and run by the German Psychological Association for a number of years, showed a marked decline in perceptual acuity at discerning shades of gray and other colors, for people at the end of the study vs the beginning. Early on more than 200 shades were easily distinguished, and later participants could discern only half that - focusing mostly on bright colors. I would hate to imagine a world where everything must be reduced to yes or no, black or white.

So let's celebrate the world's colors and shades of gray, while we still can.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 11:00 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

You must really be fun to be with online. I enjoyed your replies on my blog as well as here. Those questions were meant to focus on the subject of the essay contest. I have received varied replies. Some felt the way I framed the post was rude so I stopped. It was just meant to tickle our brains on what Wheeler meant by saying information underlies everything. I have got replies that there can be superposition between existence/non-existence, some have said they don't know what 'elicit' means even when Wheeler used the term. Anyway, on second thought I think like you suggested I would stop going to work from that day henceforth and enjoy my million dollars!

Best regards,

Akinbo

Then regarding your essay which I am scoring 7 immediately after this,

1) What are those atoms of space that do the computing which Gerard’t Hooft told you to discountenance? You may have been misled from winning a Nobel prize, so think again :).

2) What can separate those atoms of space since space can no longer be what will separate itself into discreteness?

3) Can you call a dance a dance without dancers? I know only of music without dancers, not a dance without anybody dancing.

4) While your cat can be half-dead or half-alive, can it be half-existing and half-non existing? If it can kindly breed the kittens because I am ready to buy if you will sell!

All the best wishes coming your way

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 05:34 GMT
Your answers are:

4) - I don't have a cat.

3) - If you gaze at a fog you will see it is not just a diffuse mass, but is in fact engaged in a flickering, fluttering, dance at all times - that pulsates with the slightest vibration. The same might be seen to happen for pure energy devoid of substantial mass (i.e. - in the massless regime near Planck scale).

2) - Call it what you will; emptiness it is.

1) - There is a figure called the 0-brane. Following the construction in analogy to the spheres used by Greene in "Elegant Universe" the 0-brane is actually two points bracketing a location in space, but it is usually seen to be a point like object that holds an instant of time, the instanton. This is the minimal case.

To explain; even a point in space is assumed to have duration, but a point in spacetime is a pure fiction as it has no extent in either space or time, and thus does not actually exist. Only things possessing duration can exist within time, or said differently they must possess a parcel of time to exist at all.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 02:07 GMT
Hello Jonathan,

I enjoyed your essay, especially your development of the dance and dancer theme, moreover, I like your conclusions. You say:

"Perhaps instead of asking 'It from Bit or Bit from It?' we need to see reality as 'It from Bit and then Bit from It?,' which allows it to be a dance, an interplay, or a cyclical phenomena, rather than a simple relation.".

I agree completely, but then I come to the same conclusion via a different route, one where the nature of consciousness, thought and the cosmos are redefined in terms where the nature of information is related to the mechanics of observation; and where the mechanics of observation allow us to differentiate between indication and information.

Thank you for your most interesting essay, and good luck.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 03:19 GMT
Thank you greatly Zoran,

I appreciate your kind remarks, and that my treatment of the topic resonates with you. Your essay is already on my list, and I actually glanced at it just yesterday. It looks quite interesting, and it appears that my findings are largely compatible with yours. I wish you good luck also.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 15:20 GMT
Dear Jonathan -

First I'd like to congratulate you on your highly engaging prose. You've taken great care to express your views cogently, and this makes your far-reaching message very forceful and significant.

You state: 'In considering the question “It from Bit, or Bit from It?” one must always ask ‘With respect to what?’'

Indeed, Physics needs to revise all its...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 21:48 GMT
Thanks greatly John!

Your insights and praise are appreciated. I guess I'll have to take a look at your essay, and see what you have cooking. And I agree; the assumptions we need to change or challenge may not be the obvious ones, so we must call virtually all our assumptions into question. That is pretty much the approach I took in last year's essay. I really like your statement about the evolving observer, and that has links into some of my other work in progress. Are you familiar with The Reflexive Universe by Arthur M. Young? He elaborately explains why the evolution of consciousness and of the universe follow the same pattern.

I will have to look for more links between our work, when I read your essay.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Gene H Barbee wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 19:36 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

I replied to your post regarding my essay and hope you will visit it. I found your essay deep and thought provoking.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 19:46 GMT
Thank you very much Gene!

I do appreciate the kind remarks, and that my essay made you think. That was the desired effect. I shall look on your page to see how you replied shortly.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:01 GMT
Dear Jonathan and All,

You are right about the intertwined nature of the it and bit.

I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.

I give you all a 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...

view entire post


attachments: 2_iDNASeries.bmp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:10 GMT
Thank you greatly Sridattadev.

I find wisdom in your words, and I thank you for taking the time to read through my essay and comment. The idea that I is the nothing in everything, and it is therefore infinite, is quite profound. I shall comment further after taking some time to look through and work with your formula, to see what comes out.

Kind Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 00:32 GMT
Dear Jonathan

Thanks for the warm words.

I wish you good luck in the contest.

All the best.

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 02:55 GMT
Thanks for stopping by Yuri!

I appreciate the kind regard as well.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 01:45 GMT
Hello Jonathan

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

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 02:53 GMT
Thank You Than!

I will look at the Feynman article, and I appreciate your leaving that wonderful excerpt. I already had it in mind to write a comment to Akinbo, in response to his remark above, that when there are multiple theories or methods that give the same result; it is compelling evidence that people are on to something, and that the result has some significance. Mr. Feynman's comment expresses a similar sentiment eloquently, and explores a piece of the puzzle I hadn't considered. The insight that this is evidence of nature's simplicity is priceless!

You have my gratitude, for sharing that here. I shall look at your essay shortly.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 03:09 GMT
For those who would like a direct link to the Feynman lecture, here it is:

The Development of the Space-Time View of Quantum Electrodynamics

Thanks again Than for seeing the connection, and bringing this to my attention.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 03:15 GMT
For the delight of all..

I give you the whole paragraph from Feynman's lecture that Than excerpted above.

Jonathan

"I would like to interrupt here to make a remark. The fact that electrodynamics can be written in so many ways - the differential equations of Maxwell, various minimum principles with fields, minimum principles without fields, all different kinds of ways, was something I knew, but I have never understood. 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. An example of that is the Schrödinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why this 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. A thing like the inverse square law is just right to be represented by the solution of Poisson's equation, which, therefore, is a very different way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what it means, that nature chooses these curious forms, but maybe that is a way of defining simplicity. Perhaps a thing is simple if you can describe it fully in several different ways without immediately knowing that you are describing the same thing."

Enjoy!

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 09:31 GMT
Hello Jonathan,

Big thanks for the very valuable for me to comment and an invitation to read your essay. Yes, indeed, we are going to close on close paths in the same spirit in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt.

I note to myself seen me your important tetrad "points" of thinking about the way to the fundamental structure of reality and the phenomenon of information...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 09:47 GMT
Jonathan!

I start to read your site. Very interesting!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
Wow!

I am pleased and impressed that there are so many points of agreement in our work to enumerate. You embarrass me a little with your high praise Vladimir, and that I have not gotten to read your essay yet. So many people clamoring for attention on these forums! Given what you say above; I will likely give you a very high rating, once I have the chance to read your paper.

Thanks for the gratifying comments.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 07:14 GMT
I mention again here..

Descartes is actually one of the forefathers of the 'It from Bit' concept. His famous quote "Cogito Ergo Sum" is normally translated in the personal, which is "I Think therefore I Am." But if we translate in the impersonal, it is "Thinking therefore Being," which is essentially the same as "Bit creates It" or "It from Bit." So in imitation of Descartes; I coined the phrase.

It Computes therefore It Is!

and I will be assembling material with that theme, related to the subject of the contest on this web-site:

www.itcomputes.info

Enjoy,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Member Ian Durham wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 18:55 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Very interesting and fun essay. I think, were there not such a strict page limit, it would have been interesting to see a deeper study of material v. information from the standpoint of culture. I think that there may be some insights lurking there into how we reach conclusions, particularly in science.

Your points about mathematics are similar to those made by a colleague of mine. He always says that it is about as close to the Platonic ideal as one can get. I guess I just have always seen it in a reverse sort of way, but it doesn't necessarily mean I'm right. I tend to think, though, that while it is clear that some mathematics is clearly "discovered" (counting, arithmetic, apparently even simple algebra according to a recent study of babies), some is "invented" in the sense that a set of logical rules are set down and followed to their conclusion where the rules themselves may have been slightly arbitrary.

Ian

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 19:31 GMT
Thanks greatly Ian,

Your comments are warmly appreciated, and it is gracious of you to be accommodating. I guess that is a sign that I made my point, or made you think - which is better still! I skimmed but did not read your essay for detail yet, but I must say that you make your points eloquently - with compelling logic - so your praise honors me.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 22:55 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

really liked it. I think yours is the most 'focused on the question' essay I have read so far. Although there is a lot of different ideas in there from child development, to culture, language and fractal forms and platonic ideals the relevance to the question is clear throughout. So in reply, no I don't think it is noisy. You did a really good job of examining the question from many angles and the dance analogy works very well.I especially liked the way you assigned roles to different aspects of physics, not forgetting energy as director.

I did think when I got to concluding remarks I had nearly reached then end but it seems you still had much more to say and were maybe holding back the best till last.Wishing you the best luck, your essay deserves to do very well.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 00:36 GMT
Thank you very much Georgina!

You are an engaging writer yourself, and you have a lot to say. I think a subject like Physics demands an interdisciplinary approach, and you bring a lot to the table in that regard. In one lecture by Gerard 't Hooft I attended, he spoke to the need to some problems to be addressed through a broad range of disciplines - even subjects that don't appear closely related to the core topic under investigation.

Where the norm in the Physics is people who are expert in their field, but know very little about what gets studied just down the hall, you bring a refreshing new outlook - a breath of fresh air - to our contests. I appreciate your dropping by, and the kind treatment you gave my essay.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 09:26 GMT
Hi dear Jonathan,

I have just read your intriguing Essay as I promised you in my Essay page. I find that it is very well written and beautiful. I like your comparing the wave/particle duality with the it/bit duality. Your statement that there are very young children behaving like "little scientists" can be adapted to my little son David, who will be 3 years old on next September. I am always surprised about the number of questions that he currently asks to me and about is reasoning. Last week, my wife told him: "Hey David, look, an aeroplane is leaving!" Then David replied her: "Mum, aeroplane does not leave, aeroplane takes off!" I completely agree with your point of view that we must look upon the basic science issues with child-like eyes again. Science is a play for me, and this is the reason because it is also my job. Do you think that your statement "Determining unambiguously whether a system is creating information or is created by information is thus virtually impossible – as the two modes are so deeply intertwined" is compatible with my one "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"?. I find compatibility when you also claims that "It is presumed there can be no "It" beyond the Planck density, but clearly the primal basis of information can and must still be well-defined – even in the matter- free regime of the Planck era – for the universe to exist. So information reigns supreme, in the universe before matter appears." Does this imply a breakdown of the it/bit duality in the Primordial Era? In any case, this is an excellent Essay which gave me lots of fun. Therefore, I am going to give you a high score.

Cheers and have fun,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 16:39 GMT
Thank you greatly Christian..

Most certainly, children have a lot to teach us. And the playful researcher, with child-like eyes, stands a much better chance to discover something useful, helpful, or meaningful. I am happy my essay touched you in a good way, and to hear that you regard working in Physics as play.

As to your closing questions, it is more likely the It-Bit duality does not totally go away, even in the massless regime, but certainly the rules change. There can be no relations between objects with distinct centers, if there are no objects, so some of the statements of Relativity are meaningless. But perhaps more general rules hold sway, and discrete information fades.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 10:09 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Pardon my starting another thread as this matter is unrelated to your essay.

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

NOTE THAT in no other frame can circular motion between the bodies be described in this circumstance except in the 'observing' sub-atomic particle.

Regards,

Akinbo

*I will come back here for answer.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:18 GMT
I will come back soon to give one..

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 14:23 GMT
Hello Jonathan,

Thanks for the reference to Arthur Young - I am working out the details of the correlation between Mind and Cosmos at this time, and I will definitely read Young a little later. I think you'll find that I've cleared the ground for this next phase in my essay. I very much look forward to hearing your comments soon!

Best Regards,

John.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:43 GMT
Gracious thanks good Sir,

I have much more to share on "the correlation between Mind and Cosmos" but will wait until after the contest to pursue that. We will have to keep in touch. I shall be diligent to get to your essay soon.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Patrick Tonin wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 13:22 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

I enjoyed reading your essay, it is nicely written and well reasonned.

Also, thank you for posting the extract from Feynman's lecture above.

"I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature"

I can't agree more and I boldly propose that Time=(Length)2 and

Mass=(Length)2/Time=Dimensionless

and therefore Energy = 1/(Length)2.

Cheers,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:47 GMT
Thank you Patrick.

I am glad you enjoyed my essay, as I did yours. All roads lead to Physics unification, as they say. I thought your offering was particularly clever to have such a simple formulation with broad reaching results.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Antoine Acke wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 13:59 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Congratulations for your excellent essay. I enjoyed reading it.

Your statement on p. 9: "Physics should admit the possibility for unobserved realities that serve to generate what is observed" puts a link to my essay.

Indeed; I bypass the question "It from Bit or Bit from It?" by treating matter ("mass") and information ("g-information") as interrelated constituent elements of nature. I show how the introduction of the quantity "g-information" in physics can explain the gravito-electromagnetic description of gravitation.

I postulate that any material object manifests itself in space by emitting - at a rate proportional to its rest mass - "informatons": entities that run away with the speed of light carrying information about the position and the state of movement of the emitter. I identify the expanding cloud of informatons generated by a material object as its gravitational field, and I explain the gravitational force as a reaction of an object on the disturbance of the characteristic symmetry of its "own" field by the flux of informatons generated by other objects.

May I invite you to go through my essay?

I wish you all the best in the contest.

All the best,

Antoine.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:51 GMT
Thank you very much Antoine!

Your kind remarks are greatly appreciated, and I'm glad you enjoyed reading my paper. I recall your work to be generally excellent and I am most interested to read your essay as well. I will comment on your page as soon as I am able.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 17:07 GMT
Jonathan,

"While it is quite clear that information of some nature does give rise to the universe of form, thus fulfilling Wheeler’s vision of “It from Bit,” this does not prevent “Bit from It” modalities from unfolding at the same time. So indeed they are both true outlooks, but the meaning of the story can only be seen by considering the interplay of the two – a Cosmic Dance."

I think your essay is sort of a Cosmic Dance, perhaps a waltz that smoothly glides us through the mysterious question we encounter.

I deal with the same issues but with more of a two-step, for example, saying consciousness is not possible -- without religion, sorcery or metaphysics -- at the time of the BB and not until 1 billion years later, being without a body.

There is poetry to your ancient tale and meaning in your words. I hope that "It's Great to be the King" does as well in your eyes.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:39 GMT
Your kind remarks are appreciated James..

I am glad you found value in my effort. I have your excellent essay on my radar already (because I wondered what the tile was about and had to peek), though I only skimmed it. As I recall; you champion a Bayesian approach to QM, and that is both of special interest and highly compatible with my work. I wish you good luck in the contest, and in general.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:53 GMT
that should be..

I wondered what the title was about..

Carry on,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 04:38 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

I haven't heard from you regarding your comments on my essay in my thread. So, please, do the same and inform me in order to rate your elegantly written essay.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:21 GMT
Please be patient Sreenath,

I apologize for not responding sooner. I have been busy, but your essay is near the top of my list.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:27 GMT
and also..

Thank you greatly, for your kind comments.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 05:01 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

After reading your essay :

« As I stated in a previous essay;

I think that both discrete and continuous aspects of reality

must be simultaneously accepted as real,

to understand the universe as it is. » by Jonathan J. Dickau

You can take a look also to essay of JOSEPH E. BRENNER

« Finally,

a picture of the universe as fundamentally either continuous or discontinuous

may be usefully replaced by one in which

both continuity and discontinuity are jointly and dynamically instantiated. », by JOSEPH E. BRENNER

You'll be surprised one day to discover how your views are right.

Good Luck!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 03:24 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 03:55 GMT
That sounds very wise, Amazigh..

Yes; as my essay attests, I can appreciate the interplay of opposites. I am glad for the appreciation you have shown, and I will certainly make an effort to visit your essay soon.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 05:03 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

After reading your essay :

« As I stated in a previous essay;

I think that both discrete and continuous aspects of reality

must be simultaneously accepted as real,

to understand the universe as it is. » by Jonathan J. Dickau

You can take a look also to essay of JOSEPH E. BRENNER

« Finally,

a picture of the universe as fundamentally either continuous or discontinuous

may be usefully replaced by one in which

both continuity and discontinuity are jointly and dynamically instantiated. », by JOSEPH E. BRENNER

You'll be surprised one day to discover how your views are right.

Good Luck!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 04:06 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for a lovely essay. You wrote:

> Does life descend to play in or with form, bestowing consciousness and creativity? Or does form rise and evolve to acquire these attributes, so it may play in the heavens? Science favors the latter view, and relegates the former to Religion, but because "It from Bit" makes information more primal than form, this changes...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 04:40 GMT
This looks like a very thoughtful comment Hugh,

I'll thank you now and take time for a detailed reply after some sleep. Software Cosmos sounds very interesting; and I certainly appreciate the invitation to check it out.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Richard N. Shand wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 03:55 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your scintillating dance of ideas!

I very much agree with you that there is an "interplay between information becoming stuff, and stuff becoming information". It is possible frame your idea terms of quantum information theory. The stage and place for the audience arise from the conditional knowledge of the observer, the director is quantum potential and the material objects are the reciprocal action between the two. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 04:29 GMT
Thank you for your kind words Richard..

And I like your reframe of the dance. I shall check out your essay as soon as time allows.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 06:57 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

My best acknowledgements for the boost. I appreciate that the technicalities do not discourage you. I hope that the infection will propagate!

You are right that the octonions lurk around the examples I selected. Not all dessins are feature quantum contextuality. The simplest case given here is Mermin's square and can be seen as an archetype (in the language you use in your essay). The next case is Mermin's pentagram, there are 12096 of them with three qubits and 12096 is also the size of the automorphism group of G2(2) (related to the octonions as John Baez explains in his famous note). This is discussed in our recent papers on ArXiv.

My kind regards,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 16:20 GMT
Thanks very much Michel!

Your comments above are well appreciated, and I welcome the technical challenges to understand your work better. I have downloaded a sampler of interesting recent papers from arXiv, with yourself as author or collaborator. I will likely have many questions before long, and will desire to cite your work in my future papers. I think perhaps the infection is incurable, but that is no cause for alarm. Dr. Planat is in.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Michel Planat replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 08:35 GMT
Hopefully a joint work in perspective. You are familiar with so many concepts I still not met. I admire that you have interdisciplinary talents. In the past, I was a kind of artist in photography but lost my ability after I switched to knowledge.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 17:15 GMT
Thank you greatly Michel,

You appear to have a very deep understanding yourself. I would be honored to work with you, at some point.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 08:04 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

I much appreciate your dialectic attitude and your analogies as principles of general value.

Let me tell you what might be worth a scrutiny too:

Variations of temperature in data from Planck telescope are in good agreement with predicted ones for small values of angle but not for large ones. Didn't the spectrum of a black body also fit well to a formula (of Rayleigh and Jeans) for not too high frequencies? In case of Planck's law, I suspect the background in the non-equality of mathematical representation in terms of either an integral or an infinite sum.

Do you agree on that the relationship between Wheeler and Einstein resembles the relationship between Hilbert and G. Cantor? Didn't Hilbert's program possibly fail because of flaws in Cantor's aleph_2?

When I looked as a layman on CMBR I got aware on at least one cold spot. May this spot be the Lockman hole, a window that permits us to more realistically look outside the dust of our galaxy and beyond current models of universe?

Admittedly, I do not quite share your sometimes a bit exaggerated "Hegelei". Nonetheless, I will rate your essay 10 and hope that your higher scores can attract more attention.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 16:34 GMT
My dear Meister Eckard,

I am humbled by the grace of your response to my essay. Indeed; I tried to emphasize a dialectic view on the It-Bit subject, to the extent of asserting that there are many cases where the existence of a third option is implied, or where the possibility for a synthesis between purported opposites should be seriously explored - or not ruled out prematurely. If it was a bit exaggerated, this is mainly because I think people tend to frame things in black and white terms overmuch - in modern times - and I am trying to counterbalance the societal norm.

I shall have more to say, in answer to your queries, but a busy day still beckons.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 14:09 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

‘1’ from another ‘1’ is true when information is considered as physical transfer, while ‘0’ is non-physical. Whereas, information in particle scenario is the transfer of energy and it is the transfer of matter with energy in string-matter continuum scenario.

Thus this cause-effect cycle expressed in ‘Knowing One from the Other’, indicates that the universe is cyclic with nonzero conditions and thus the universe is non-inflationary in entirety; with Homeomorphic Segmental-fluctuations in Cyclic-time in that a top-to-bottom holarchical organisation of string-matter continuum is expressional. Whereas, the basic form is three-dimensional tetrahedral-brane that emerges on eigen-rotation of string-matter segment and transfer of such form is information, in that the realm of observable is the holarchical segment, the observer belongs.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 16:39 GMT
Excellent..

Your choice analogy is well-appreciated. I explored a simpler form of the tetrahedral model of the universe, in my very first FQXi essay, but I am interested in checking out what the 'string matter continuum' has to offer. Thanks for stopping by, Jayakar. I am hoping I can get to read your essay soon.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 08:29 GMT
Dear Jonathan (foolowing your comment ion my thread),

As far as dessins d'enfants are concerned, the members of the triple (0, 1, /infty) have well defined meaning. Sorry that I just copy my earlier post:

The Belyi theorem (see the step 3 in my Sec. 2 giving the definition of a child's drawing) and the property that the child's drawing D itself is the preimage of the segment [0,1], that is D=f^-1([0,1]), where the Belyi function f corresponding to D is a rational function. All black vertices of D are the roots of the equation f(x)=0, the multiplicity of each root being equal to the degree of the corresponding vertex. Similarly, all white vertices are the roots of the quation f(x)=1. Inside each face, there exits a single pole, that is a root of the equation f(x)=\infty. Besides 0, 1 and \infty, there are no other critical value of f.

In experiments you will have 0 or 1 as the result of the experiment (in the single or multiple qubit context) but the unobserved \infty is needed in the explanation. The way the black points (bit 0) and white points (bit 1) ly on the dessin (a graph on the oriented surface such as the sphere S2, or a Riemann surface with holes) is such that sigma(0)*sigma(1)*sigma(infty)=id, where

sigma (0) is the permutation group attached to the black points 0 (how the edges incident on the black points rotate) and sigma (1) is the permutation group attached to the white point 1 (how the edges incident on the white points rotate).

It is still binary logic but in a more clever way (may be this has to do with Grothendieck's topos, I have not thought about this aspect).

Thanks again for your interest.

I intend to write you again about the Hopf fibrations.

My kind regards.

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 03:31 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

I absolutely agree with your words "Determining unambiguously whether a system is creating information or is created by information is thus virtually impossible – as the two modes are so deeply intertwined".

I think that both "It" and "Bit" are basic reality to us and "information" is image of that reality to observers like us who are also part of those "It" and "Bit". So "It", "Bit", observer and obviously "information" are 'inseparable' in my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855) too.

Since all those are conceptually quantized/digitized,the observers like us unable to see the nature other than quantized/digital ways, that's our basic limit what has imposed by the nature to us. So we can only model our observable range of that nature and never define anything out of that part of it even if there anything. So, all the mystic things in our perceptions: spirit,ether,absolute vacuum in space, probabilities and so on are always stay out of our that observable sphere of reality.

I am a very slow reader and at this very end hours of this essay contest. But fortunately (or unfortunately) I'm seeing that we are almost at the same position of community rating scenario. I like to give you full rate for your good presentation. So can we think for some mutual rating? Because, I think, we are talking about something very nearer and even positioned there as well!

However I wishing good hope for you in the contest.

Regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 03:55 GMT
Thank you for your kind words and offer..

I will go now and read your essay Dipak.

I approve if you want to rate me highly, and I will likely do the same if our ideas are in agreement as you observe. One and equally the other.. Hmm, that does sound much like what I am saying. I will comment on your page.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 18:56 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

I've been looking for your essay for a couple of weeks now. I actually began reading it on my cell phone (something I had never done before, and probably won't try again for a while . . .) while waiting for a lunch appointment and wasn't able to finish it at the time and then promptly forgot to write down your name or the title of your essay. However, I did not forget what you wrote.

Jonathan, I have to say that your essay is one of the best I have read. The points you make, the issues you raise - I found myself nodding in agreement the entire time. I also found your writing style so enjoyable, engaging and absorbing. I was so interested in your perspective that I actually Googled your name and have started reading some of the other things you've written.

I know it's nearing the end of the community voting, but I just had to find your essay again and vote on it. I truly think you deserve the utmost consideration, and so I have given you the highest rating and wish you the very best.

Perhaps, if you are so inclined, we could keep in touch in the future.

Best to you, Jonathan.

Sincerely,

Ralph

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 05:10 GMT
Thanks very much Ralph,

I greatly appreciate your kind remarks. I've just gotten back after being away for two days, and I'm still catching up. I'll make it a point to read your essay, and to comment once I do.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:27 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

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 Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 00:44 GMT
Thank you again Amazigh,

I will try to get to your essay before midnight tonight.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:20 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

I am expecting reply from you.

cheers,

sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 01:59 GMT
I have replied on your forum Sreenath.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:39 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 13:41 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

very interesting and well-written essay. As Pauli wrote it in a letter to Heisenberg: only borrowing agreement.

Your continuous flow between information and form is very similar to my view. I idetified but you made a more complex view.

So, you got a very high rate from me.

All the besz

Torsten

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:27 GMT
Thank you Torsten,

I greatly appreciate the high regard from you, as I have extremely high regard for you and your work.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



James A Putnam wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:28 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Letting you know that I have read your essay. I gained an increased understanding of where you are coming from. Good luck in the finals.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:24 GMT
Thank you James!

Understanding is what it's all about.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:49 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

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

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:28 GMT
Thanks Paul,

I thank you for taking the time to stop by and comment. And of course; thanks for reading and rating my essay. Yours will get my attention tonight.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:24 GMT
Jonathan,

You are my final review of this competition. Your reasoning and analogies I found to very well grounded in the world of the observable as emphasized by your comment, "In my view, Physics should admit the possibility for unobserved realities that serve to generate what is observed, but must focus primarily on what is in the realm of the observable."

You touched upon how we come to know nature's 'cosmic dance' via the interplay of the two. I most certainly agree that nature is based on a dichotomy. All the more reason why you may want to review the findings of a 12 year experiment confirming your viewpoint.

You have my high support of your essay and I hope that my essay will warrant your support in kind.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:23 GMT
Thank you Manuel,

I reply on your thread.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 04:08 GMT
Thank you All!

I appreciate the support for my ideas and the high regard I was given by so many of you. I wish all the finalists the best of luck. But I also wish all good things, in their time, to everyone who participated in the contest. I shall continue to answer questions if asked, and to comment on other essays where there is more to say. I left some very short remarks at the end, and I need to expand on that a bit, or perhaps a qubit.

So far as I am concerned, everyone who was in this year's contest is a winner. Another joyful exchange comparing notes with all of you. You have my respect and I was honored to be among you this time around.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Willard Mittelman wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 04:21 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

I'm sorry to be so late in acknowledging the comments you made at my essay; but I do sincerely thank you for your kind words and generous thoughts, which helped lift my spirits.

Your essay is really excellent; best of luck!

-Willard Mittelman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 19:42 GMT
Thanks greatly Willard,

Seeing your high quality of work has only improved over time; I thought you should get some recognition for your efforts. I hope this contest has been a worthwhile opportunity to exchange ideas with other great minds.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 04:31 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Congratulations on another fine essay. Your presence has made all the essay contests a pleasure. A fantasy of mine is to join you in Paris for one of the FFP conferences. I am still grinning that on FFP11 I could not get them to take my name off the presenters list.

I was a little leery of this contest, the subject matter was just too .....philosophical. But once I started the muse made an appearance.

Wishing you much success in this contest and in life.

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 19:32 GMT
Thanks Don,

I guess you should be told Penrose didn't make it to FFP11 either. But his paper appears in the Proceedings anyhow. So who would know?

I'm glad you decided to give it a try. Once those muses take hold, they will have their way and my oh my - a fine essay from you Sir.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 08:13 GMT
Greetings Jonathan,

I wish you too good luck in the finals.

Regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 19:28 GMT
Thanks Sreenath,

We will all hope for the best.

Good Luck!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 09:03 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

thanks a lot for your words. Yes, finally I got it (with one of the last votes).

Congratulations for you rank.

Best

Torsten

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 19:27 GMT
Thank you gracious Sir Torsten,

Your work is top level. It is a pleasure to celebrate with you!

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 09:50 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

I almost missed the list but it is part of the game. Not all the finalists deserve to be there and not all who missed out deserve not to be in the final list. I look forward to more positive exchanges in future especially on the cosmic dance of Actualities coming from Possibilities and Possibilities coming from Actualities. I hinted at this on my blog, The Judgement on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT which you may also read.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 19:24 GMT
Thanks to you my friend Akinbo,

We shall have more happy exchanges of ideas, I am sure.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 10:32 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thank you very much for your kind words, appreciated my ideas and good wishes! I also really liked your essay and your ideas!

And I wish you every success in the final stage FQXi Essay Contest 2013!

I am very glad to have met you!

Thank FQXi!

Good summer holiday!

With great respect,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 19:21 GMT
Thanks greatly Vladimir,

I am glad to meet you here too!

Wishing for the best to you, this time around.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 13:19 GMT
Jonathan,

I copied this from my essay blog site.

My essay was basically a two week effort. I happened to be rereading David Wallace’s article that refutes the fatalism of Taylor when this idea leapt out at me. I was not planning on submitting an essay this cycle. So with a week of analysis and another week of writing I put this together.

There is a mathematical theory of unbounded but finite mathematics by Jan Mycielski, that I was recently made aware of. This is maybe useful for this work, for physics usually involves finite systems or involves finite numbers that are measured. I have been pondering whether some Godel numbering scheme that maps quantum numbers to integral solutions of Diophantine equations in this setting might lead to a finite and unbounded version of the Godel theorem. This might provide a more firm understanding of what my essay proposes.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 19:19 GMT
Thanks Lawrence,

I replied on your blog.

Jonathan

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.