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

Cory Buott: on 1/25/18 at 5:55am UTC, wrote Stephen, I will admit -initially I thought Rubbish! and saw this as vague...

Hugh Matlock: on 8/8/13 at 5:02am UTC, wrote Posting just to sign this.

Stephen Anastasi: on 8/7/13 at 23:03pm UTC, wrote Thank you Michael

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 22:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Stephen, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the...

Michael Helland: on 8/7/13 at 16:17pm UTC, wrote Right o he chase, nice work. I rated yours a ten: ...

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 7:37am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Anonymous: on 8/7/13 at 7:35am UTC, wrote Hi Stephen, Thanks for an intriguing simplification in what takes to make...

Peter Jackson: on 8/6/13 at 14:44pm UTC, wrote Stephen, Thanks for your question on my blog, answered there (no...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


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
May 23, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: How to Build a Universe from Wheeler’s Immaterial Source, in Nine Pages or Less. by Stephen James Anastasi [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 16:50 GMT
Essay Abstract

The core nature of information is considered by building an imaginary universe from a principle of foundation acting as constructor. That the principle is immune to doubt implies that it is a well-founded model of a condition of the universe. That the principle applies globally to all that is implies that the universe is conditioned by it. It is argued that under the principle, all possible universes are degenerate to a minimally simple entity as a unique origin of the universe. The principle also implies that from this minimal entity a complex universe emerges. The nature of this universe is explored, a causal foundation for time and space is identified, and the mathematical nature of the evolving structure is briefly considered. It is argued that all equivalent interpretations (e.g. higher dimensions)of the structure are equally valid. It is concluded that these models are the foundation of information, and in that context, the universe is informational by nature.

Author Bio

Stephen Anastasi holds a degree in physics and is a teacher of senior physics, chemistry and mathematics. His research is focused on foundational issues, with a particular interest in connecting his present work to Causal Dynamical Triangulations.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 21:09 GMT
Stephen,

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 Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 12:58 GMT
Hello Jim

Good luck with your reviews and reviewing. Due to the need for brevity, my essay, a condensation of my 400 page book, 'The Armchair Universe' (nearly complete) was scant on detail. If you are unsure of any proofs provided, or have concerns over any foundational aspects of claims made, let me know, and I will clarify.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 11:25 GMT
Stephen,

As of 7-6-13, 2:24 am EST, the rating function for your essay is not available. Sorry I can't help you out right now by rating your essay.

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 13:01 GMT
Hi Manuel

Looking forward to your thoughts and comments. Feel free to ask hard questions.

Stephen Anastasi.

Bookmark and Share


Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 21:07 GMT
Stephen,

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 03:00 GMT
Sorry Stephen,

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


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 06:02 GMT
Dear Stephen

Your explain and conclusion too abstract, I do not find the appropriate forms to be able to discuss more with you. Only wish that you succeed.

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 03:40 GMT
Hello Stephen,

Your "General Principle Of Equivalence" does not accommodate the means to places, place being the thing which differentiates "oments" which can not be differentiated in any other way. In whatever structured hierarchical ontology you wish to build, precedence can not be successfully determined without taking into account places, because without the relativity of places you can...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 14:16 GMT
Hello Zoran

Thanks for your reply. I will answer in detail, because I think it is important. I ask only that as you come to understand the strength of the argument and that it can make you own work stronger, you will rate me highly.

You said:

"Your "General Principle Of Equivalence" does not accommodate the means to places, place being the thing which differentiates "oments"...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 00:53 GMT
Stephen,

Thank you for your response, I am glad to see you defending your ideas. I see the problem in our understanding of each other stemming from semantics and our understanding of particular words. The first instance of divergence seems to result from my use of the words "accommodate" and "differentiate". When I say accommodate I mean that your "highlighted definition" of GPE does not...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 03:01 GMT
Hi Zoran

You said:

"...your "highlighted definition" of GPE does not mention places, it does not consider nor explain anything about places. I point to your comment on my comment, where you say (I think that if you think about it a bit more, you will see that your 'places' is quite closely aligned to my concept of omnets, in that differences in assets is what determines an omnet's...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 07:47 GMT
Stephen,

My apologies, for some unknown reason I saw 'indefensible' when looking at 'indefeasible', possibly because I hardly ever see that word. May I suggest that the reason you are not getting questions concerning time is because the essay topic is not about time.

Good luck and best wishes with your defense of the indefeasible.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 13:52 GMT
Hello Stephen,

I am very interested to see such an approach to this question. Are the first three iterations of the boundary omnets akin to the 1, 2 and 3-simplexes respectively? My theory away from the contest bases the Universe's existence from nothingness around this. As you mention CDT it caught my attention.

I've partly unified the four forces of nature with a similar approach to you and solved the three paradoxes of cosmogony. Also there are predictions, very promising results and computer tests that I hope can be carried out. Perhaps we might collaborate in future?

Please take a look at my essay which is an aside from my main theory.

Best wishes for the contest - nice essay!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 10:36 GMT
Hello Antony

I think the answer is yes, this would be akin to the simplices you mention. In CDT the four simplices are 'glued' together, but this glueing is automatic in related forms of the harmony set, in certain interpretations.

I know this is a very abstract derivation, so appreciate your patience.

Stephen

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 05:51 GMT
Not at all - I like what you have done. Thanks for the reply.

Wishing you all the best in the contest.

You certainly deserve to be a finalist!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 16:52 GMT
Hi Stephen,

I found your essay quite interesting and read it several times. You seem to have boiled things down to their utter essence.

I would like to ask you about a point of clarification regarding the cataclysmic problem of bundling under GPE. I think I understand your point regarding, “. . . all omnets being reduced to minimally simple omnets, each of which is different from every other.” When you say, “There is nothing left other than the GPE noumenon itself (meaning the condition of the world that the GPE models) that can bundle minimally simple omnets, as assets of complex omnets, together,” do you mean “noumenon” in the sense of Kant, Schopenhour, or Nietzsche?

I think your essay is well thought out, and agree that the universe is informational in nature. I also think that all things are ‘unique’ in and of themselves, but that since ‘thought’ is a product of the human mind, it is generally necessary for the mind to utilize pattern recognition in order to comprehend information intellectually, and that this sometimes involves ‘bundling’ of concepts, consciously or subconsciously.

At any rate, I wish you the best, and was very impressed with the depth of your thinking.

Sincerely,

Ralph

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT
Hi Ralph

Kant, I meant. A thing as it is in itself. I think the imports ant thing here, with Kant, is that his negatives become positives for an endpoint rationalist because, holding a model that it's well fined means that all equivalent models are valid, which changes t the base of the anthropic principle, and potentially solves the mind body problem.

All this, and I'm still rated at less than three. Oh well. I'm sure you'll love my book The Armchair Universe when it comes out.

Bookmark and Share



Salvish Goomanee wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 07:46 GMT
Dear Stephen,

I really appreciate reading your essay. In the abstract you mentioned that Wheeler thought that at the very bottom of every item of this physical world is an immaterial source - This actually expanded Penrose idea of a possible non - computable process (the self - collapse quantum wave function, a new (unverified hypothesis) quantum phenomena). The latter is thought to be at the origin of awareness in this universe.

In your description of the Harmony set you described that the Schrodinger's Equation could be expresses in terms of a Riemann sum, I do not actually understand how this can be?

IF I consider the above to be true then how would the Klein - Gordon equation be then represented as per your description of the Harmony set?

Overall I found your essay very captivating and wish you the best!

Salvish

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 11:30 GMT
Hello Salvish

Thanks for your query. It is a challenge to express the Schrodinger equation as a Riemann sum. However, the Feynman Path Integral is equivalent. In CDT, Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz and Loll replaced the integral sign with a summation symbol. They thought that they should be able to make the system work for arbitrarily small values (hence an integral) but with no luck so far. The nature of the Harmony set is such that it would not allow an integral form. Instead it introduces what I call block numbers, which accomplish the same thing as an integral, but have inherent uncertainty. I think this eliminates the need for introducing Heisenberg uncertainty, because the uncertainty is already there. Also this prevents the problem of infinities arising. It's a bit involved, but I am open to dialogue because working with the set in higher dimensions is both abstract in the extreme, and very hard.

Bookmark and Share


Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 12:10 GMT
Selfish!

The Klein-Gordon equation! You think I'm Einstein or something! Anyway, the nature of construction of the Harmony set is quite different to the descriptive formulas used at present, so we interrogate the structure in various dimensions. When I lift the structure into 3-space, the negative pointing vectors (loosely speaking) of the 1-space set have characteristics that map to the imaginary number! So, at least there is some stricture compatible with the Schrodinger equation. To deal with this relativistically first requires one to understand the real nature of local time (recall that I explained the foundation of global time). There is a very great amount that needs to be thought through with the Harmony set and it forms in different equivalent mappings. The best way to understand it is to build the system yourself and start looking for patterns. Convergence toward the number e will jump right out, as will logarithms.

You will probably notice that the structure forms a non-smooth continuum.

Bookmark and Share


Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 12:12 GMT
And don't blame me for the headache, or the epiphany.

:-)

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 20:28 GMT
Mr. Anastasi,

You wrote somewhat confusingly in the abstract: “It is argued that under the principle, all possible universes are degenerate to a minimally simple entity as a unique origin of the universe.” I did not understand any of your essay.

As I have gone to great pains to politely point out and to clearly write in my essay BITTERS, one real unique Universe is eternally occurring, once.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 03:48 GMT
Sorry Joe

As a realist you are likely to find this essay hard to follow. I might put an explanation up on YouTube to help people engage, given time. Consider perhaps the ideas of Descartes.

Best wishes

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 23:12 GMT
Dear Stephen,



Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?

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

I failed...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 08:28 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

In your statement, 'I failed...' I think you must go down as the bravest person ever to inhabit this site. I hope you love my essay, and feel free to give me an enormous rating if you see my argument.

I look forward to reading your essay soon, but I have a dinner party to attend; so later.

Best wishes

Stephen.

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 00:25 GMT
Dear Stephen,

You are correct, Thank you for your comments.

I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. FQXi should have issued a notification that you have replied....

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

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

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

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

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 15:39 GMT
Hi Stephen,

Your essay contains good ingredients for dialectic.

As a dialectical possibility, i.e. can you rule out that the geometric point is not an extended object using Descartes’ Method of Doubt?

I say this seeing you mention Leibniz and monads, which I discussed also in a different context.

We can engage in more dialectic...

All the best,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 08:24 GMT
Hello Akinbo

I will read your essay when I have a moment, to see the context of your question. I hope it deals with foundations, which I find is sadly missing from most essays, even those (especially those) that scored well. Everyone seems to stay in safe, but impossible to properly argue concepts derived from empiricism.

To your question. Unfortunately these seemingly well formed...

view entire post


attachments: A_problem_for_geometry.pdf

Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 13:24 GMT
Hello Stephen,

Yorguments are brilliant but I cannot agree that the simplest possible Omnet will not have the Asset (attribute) of position. And what has a definite position must at the very least be minimally extended. And if minimally extended, geometry cannot be escaped space being implied in 'extended'.

The geometric point having no Asset whatsoever, not even extension cannot be...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 03:23 GMT
Hello again Akinbo

Thanks for this post, which I missed among the others. Some comments:

This essay was a story about (or, more strictly, an account of) the origin of the world, meaning all that is. It was also a story about the origin of the physical universe, why and how it comes to be at all and, in so far as one essay could contain it, why and how it comes to be as it is. It is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 17:57 GMT
Dear Stephen,

You seem to have taken a lot of strain to format your innovative essay and you have developed it on purely original concepts like GPE, Omnet (resembling monad), Harmony Set and the like. You have tried to construct the whole universe mathematically along with space, time and matter. Ultimately you, like Wheeler, have come to the conclusion that the universe is ‘informational’ by its nature and thereby giving primary importance to information rather than to matter. I liked your original approach in solving the problem posed by the essay contest. By the way, please, go through my essay too and post your comments in my thread. After this I would like to rate your essay highly. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

All the best in the essay contest.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 05:17 GMT
Dear Stephen,

I have too returned your favor with much more fervor by rating it with maximum score; that is 10/ 10. Have a nice day and thanks for your comments on my essay. I hope you continue your innovative work until it is accepted by the scientific community.

All the best,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 11:20 GMT
Thank you Sreenath

Finally someone is getting it! I think you will like my book when it is completed--The Armchair Universe--(nearly there) and released in a year or so. I am really hoping to attract other people to help me work on the higher dimensional solutions.

Bookmark and Share



Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 19:21 GMT
Stephen,

Thank you for your essay.

I wish the topic of this round of essays was a word like “’time” or a simple sentence. I am seeing two broad categories of essays: essays about knowing and essays about the structure of space at its must fundamental level and of course, combinations of the two these two themes. This essay is about knowing. I hope I have this right:

There is a perfect structure to the universe which we have an imperfect knowledge. There is a simplest unit that can contain all the properties that can be known.

All of these simplest units are connected to form our universe.

The issue I have is with time. In this model, all of time is going with the same lockstep. A single constant universal time would not fit relativity. We, of course, could be experiencing time (as well as everything else) in the wrong way. The larger issue I have is no pathway is given for us see this underlying structure of the universe. It might be correct, but how can we use it?

Jeff

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 22:02 GMT
Hello Jeff

Thanks for your input. I am working, and will get back to you tonight.

Stephen

Bookmark and Share


Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 21:06 GMT
Stephen,

What I wanted to ask is "how can we use your principles to give us something we can test and use?"

What you said might be correct, but can it be confirmed?

Jeff

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 22:35 GMT
Hello Jeff

You set me an interesting question! Several interesting branches arise. Firstly, say experiment does not align with the implications of higher dimensional interpretations of the Harmony Set. Then the experiment is suspect! Why? Because we know that the Harmony Set is necessarily a proper model. This may seem to reverse the order of acceptance of a theory, but the evidence from...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 10:51 GMT
Hello Stephen,

I am not yet fully satisfied but we can engage in more dialectic after reading my essay. Meanwhile...

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 Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 22:03 GMT
Hello Akinbo

Thanks for you input. I am working and will get back to you tonight.

Stephen

Bookmark and Share



Author Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 10:03 GMT
Hello Akinbo

You said:

"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?"

The Endpoint Rationalist holds no special distinction between something and nothing unless and until...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Yuri Danoyan replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 04:57 GMT
Hello Stephen

I think the Universe working as a bistable multivibrator 01010101......

Regards

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 02:32 GMT
Hi Yuri

Your point being? Justified by? Justification of that justification?

I want, indeed we all want, a causal rather than descriptive theory. That is what I have supplied.

Bookmark and Share


Yuri Danoyan replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 15:21 GMT
Dear Stephen

Just impressed by Penrose

http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/roger-penrose-201
3-07-12

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307278468/ref=as_li
_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeAS
IN=0307278468&linkCode=as2&tag

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 11:13 GMT
Hi Stephen,

As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your Essay. I have found it interesting, also from the philosophical point of view. It is surely a good thing that your model is consistent with the Holographic Principle. I had a lot of fun in reading your Essay. Thus, I will give you s high score.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 20:22 GMT
Thank you Christian!

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 08:47 GMT
Dear Stephen,

You have offered an interesting and attractive written essay. And for me more valuable that you have critical and realistic position, which are close to me. I will reading it more carefully then I will tell you some more certainly. I hope my work ESSAY may deserve your attention because it also call to realism. I think we can have many common points. I hope on your response in my forum.

Sincerely,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 10:00 GMT
Thank you George

I will read your essay immediately.

Stephen

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 10:43 GMT
Dear Stephen,

I did not yet rated your essay, but now I will quickly do it (on good nine point!) You see as it better for you! (And were from you known the Armenians?)

All the Best!

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

George Kirakosyan replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 13:40 GMT
Stephen!

Thank you for your good attitude. I have some atherantes also; if you see it will reasonable then I will recomended them your work. Kindly let me know.

Sincerely,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 17:12 GMT
Dear Stephen,

Your essay is clear, relevant and pleasant to read. The omnet vs asset distinction works well if one considers Wheeler's approach.

Reading you, I have tried to recognize omnets and assets in my model of quantum observables/measurements

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

and it is clear that one cannot identify the dessin/omnet (see for example Fig. 1 (b) and 3 (b)) to its resulting geometry/asset (see for example Fig. 1 (a) and 3 (a). There is no bijection between the omnets and assets, right? In my case there is not bijection. To any simplex (not shown) correspond several unequivalent dessins.

Good luck,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 22:28 GMT
Hello Michel

I am working at the moment, so will read your paper and consider your thoughts in that light, tonight, then I will get back to you.

Bookmark and Share


Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 12:45 GMT
Hello Michel

I responded to you on your own page, as a start

The danger in aligning dessin with omnet is that one may easily forget the distinction between omnets as 'just anything' (what I call possible omnets because the thing we call an omnet, if based on empiricism is not well-founded) and omnets of the actual ontology, being omnets that are well-founded, meaning existing as a consequence of the action of the GPE noumenon upon the possible and actual ontology. Your dessin, if I read you correctly, are models of structures we believe to exist based on empirical studies. They may be a correct description, but would not be well-founded for the Endpoint Rationalist or Endpoint Skeptic.

I will need to think more on the concept of bijection.

Thanks for your interest.

Stephen Anastasi

Bookmark and Share


Michel Planat replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 13:09 GMT
Dear Stephen,

It seems that I am still far from understanding philosophical categories. But it is unimportant here.

I am preparing a response to your questions and later, if you wish, we can continue our exchange by email.

I am very glad that you are enthusiastic.

All the best,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 02:03 GMT
Hello Stephan

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 07:18 GMT
Thank you Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 17:20 GMT
Dear Stephen -

I agree with your approach - you rigorously re-evaluate our fundamental assumptions, and force the reader to do so - and I like your coining of new terminology so as to avoid 'putting the new wine into old bottles' as one might say.

As someone wrote on my page - 'The Universe doesn't explain itself, it presents itself to us.' And you take this all the way and define a non-anthropocentric model, which is a bold and unique undertaking.

I'd be curious to see how you'd apply this imaginary universe to my paradigm, where the Cosmos is described in terms of the correlation existing between Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-cognitive phenomena.

I'll certainly re-read your paper - it's a little difficult to absorb all at once – and hope you have time to look at mine soon.

I also wish you all the best in the competition -

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 09:45 GMT
Hi Stephen,

to let you know I have replied to your questions on my essay thread.

Hope to read your essay soon

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Carlo Rovelli wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 16:14 GMT
I have not understood the relation without Causal Dynamical Triangulations. Can you day more about it. carlo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 22:17 GMT
Thank you Carlo

As is pretty obvious, the Harmony Set as shown is a one-space interpretation. Simply, because this model has to be a proper world model (for reasons shown) it remains for the investigator to find how the system gives us our world, as opposed to 'a' world.

After a long, long period of thought (which of course doesn't make me right) I tried to interpret the system by...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 23:33 GMT
Stephen,

This "ontology" does not even mention any substance? There is an infinite number of truth systems that may describe the universe from a specific point of view. Each truth system requires at least one rule of impossibility that defines it along with the mother of all impossibility, the rule of non-contradiction, required for the system to be internally consistent or “logical”. I think, that all points of view require two or more impossibilities while the universe could require two rule of impossibility, that of the non-contradiction and the rule of existence. This is because beyond the question of the logical consistency, there is the question of “existence” and substance. So, the universe needs this other rule, either of impossibility or one boundary rule on the possibilities of existence. This last one would give direction to the whole thing; evolution, time, future ...

[12] is missing. I have Lowe’s possibilities of metaphysics... I did not give him good reviews...

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 02:43 GMT
Thank you Marcel

Thanks for your very valid questions. You said:

‘This "ontology" does not even mention any substance?’

There is no need for the use of 'substance' in this development. You will see that the meaning of substance is dependent on one's idea of equivalence anyway.

You said:

‘There is an infinite number of truth systems that may describe the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



William C. McHarris wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 02:28 GMT
Hi, Stephen,

Wow, what an impressive, well-written and literate essay! I wrote more details after your comments and questions on my essay, "It from Bit from It from Bit..." This seems a good way of tying feedback and nonlinearity into the picture. Also, as I noted there, I'm looking forward to your book when it becomes available.

Best wishes,

Bill McHarris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 02:52 GMT
Yay Bill!

Your encouragement made me feel great. My aim is just to get into the top 40 papers so that the experts read it. To get there I need some big numbers.

It's so abstract! What I love is that it implies that the world will be kind of non-linear, being sets of similar but not exactly the same sets.

Stephen

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 04:24 GMT
Hi Stephen,

I read your essay and helpful replies in this discussion thread but I'm afraid I am not "someone with a strong knowledge in philosophy (metaphysics), mathematics and physics to talk to about it". I don't think I have the necessary background to fully appreciate what I have jut read. Sorry.

Are you talking about a process of elimination from all possible model universes ? Would this accomodate the possibility of universe within universe? In the way that a fantasy world can exist within a book. The world being constructed by the reader from the information contained in the book itself. Sorry if that seems obscure and irrelevant it relates to the framework I mentioned in reply to your question on my essay thread. Regards, Georgina

PS I've replied again to your reply in my essay thread

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 05:54 GMT
Hello Georgina

Firstly, I hope that my comment on the ‘knowledge of philosophy…’ statement didn’t seem to put you down. If so, my apologies. Because of your interest, I am attaching a copy of a portion of a chapter of my book, The Armchair Universe, which is written in a way that most people can engage with it. I hope you like it, and find it interesting.

You...

view entire post


attachments: The_fireside_armchair_universe.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 16:18 GMT
Stephen,

A quite unique essay that I found uncannily analogous, in terms of many concepts and descriptions, to the fundamental discrete field model (DFM) underlying my own and previous two essays. I think we may find we might have many points in common!

I loved your most fundamental approach and interesting use of logic. How nice to be able to build an ontology (which I do in mine) free of all doctrine, preconditioning and hidden assumptions.

I agree "Aristotle’s idea of place, in which everything has its place, and place too has its place." (I derived an almost infinite hierarchy last year) As also in; "If a boundary exists, it too has an end; it too has a boundary."

Also your perceptive; "such difference implies the existence of some kind of dimensionality, a space in which the boundaries exist, and exist separately. The causal dependence relation between boundaries prescribes an interaction, and that interaction has a value."

Your 'harmony sets' also mirror DFM frame domain transitions, but again mostly in the basic model not the particular 'Intelligent Bit' I discuss from a very practical standpoint this year. Which you may not at first recognise as I describe. I think I do however show the power of extending your approach to some logical conclusions.

Anyway, I suspect we may both have heaps of points to apply. I look forward to your comments, and think I'll also look forward to your book.

Very best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 05:35 GMT
Thank you Peter.

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 12:01 GMT
Stephen,

Thanks for your initial comments on my blog (at least I think it was you!- anonymous and unsigned). Do let me know if not!

I've responded there and look forward to discussing the points when you've read it.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 16:06 GMT
Stephen,

Thanks for your post on my blog. I responded in both places but both have been lost with others in the server change (along with some scores, including from mine it seems!) Brendan seems to think we may get the posts back so I won't repeat it yet.

I hope you've read my essay now and that it lived up to it's promise (I need the points!) If you have scored it please check again, I note I'm also down as not having scored yours yet, so a nice lift on the way now. I look forward to discussing the areas of commonality, which may appear more directly from my previous two essays (domain boundaries with boundaries etc.)

Very best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 08:28 GMT
Dear Stephen,

Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical idea. "The trouble with physics" push ... In your essay deep original ontological analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, new concepts, new images and conclusions.

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

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

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

In the russian version of a article: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators.»

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

Please look also my essay and essay FQXi 2012 related to the ontological justification of "Absolute generating structure"

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1796

http://www.fqxi.or
g/community/forum/topic/1362

We have the spirit of close reserch. We have a common reference "point" and "vector" the road to the truth. Is this the right way - time will tell and others. My mail ideabank@yandex.ru

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 14:03 GMT
Stephen,

I found your approach to the topic at hand fascinating and would like to rate your essay highly. However, before I do may I run some questions by you via email? Please let me know at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:06 GMT
Dear All

Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman.

In the Character of Physical Law, he talked about the two-slit experiment like this “I will summarize, then, by saying that electrons arrive in lumps, like particles, but the probability of arrival of these lumps is determined as the intensity of waves would be. It is this sense that the electron behaves sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave. It behaves in two different ways at the same time.

Further on, he advises the readers “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it. ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain’, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”

Did he says anything about Wheeler’s “It from Bit” other than what he said above?

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:05 GMT
Dear Stephen,

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


Charles Raldo Card wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:51 GMT
Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 06:17 GMT
FQXi commentary iiii Aug 5

Hello Anastasi

Your essay left me breathless – !!! – am I allowed to say that ?!!! I had to use ten different coloured markers to highlight my favourite passages. Phew, bravo. I don’t remember the last time reading something that was ten-colours-worthy !!

Not the least of your analysis’ good points was the fact that you ended with a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 10:37 GMT
Thank you Margriet

It is just wonderful that you found my essay to be so interesting!

I think the idea of information is purely nominal in this context. My concern is that it is a bit presumptuous to talk about it from bit when one can't say what either is at its core, so I wanted to show how one can jump the epistemological to ontological divide, so I had to identify First Cause. Not too many have recognized this in my essay, or my rating would be different, perhaps.

Keep in touch. Best wishes. Have you rated me yet?

Stephen.

Bookmark and Share


Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:04 GMT
On a lighter note, while I was trying to respond, my spacebar when stupid on me, which is why my response was so short. I had to bash it to make it respond each time, and my thumb was starting to ache. I fixed it by breaking out the bar, finding the offending dirt and blowing it away, but am left wondering whether this might be Wheeler trying to tell me something - I couldn't get 'It' from a 'Bit' of dirt, or something.

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:35 GMT
Hi Stephen,

Thanks for an intriguing simplification in what takes to make a cosmos. You wrote:

> There is already evidence that our universe can be reduced to lower dimensions in the form of a holographic universe. Perhaps there is a further reduction to the one developed here.

I was wondering conversely what it would take to give your cosmos the power of a Turing machine, i.e. universal computation. Take a look at Joseph Weissman's Universal Computation and the Laws of Form for some ideas.

If a cosmos could compute, then it could run the Software Cosmos described in my essay, and not be such a simple cosmos after all.

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hugh Matlock replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 05:02 GMT
Posting just to sign this.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:37 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael Helland wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:17 GMT
Right o he chase, nice work.

I rated yours a ten:

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen James Anastasi replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:03 GMT
Thank you Michael

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:04 GMT
Dear Stephen,

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


Cory Kenneth Buott wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 05:55 GMT
Stephen, I will admit -initially I thought Rubbish! and saw this as vague playing on language. Then the discomfort began to creep in, and I had to really struggle with myself, because I was trying to validate my own hypothesis, trying to fit it into your framework. I slept on it after 2nd pass, then read for 3rd. I am coming to grips with it now, and for me it is a real truth exercise. I got caught in a trap between empiricism and rationalization. The same trap I preach to others to avoid, I found myself in. Your framework shows that we need to look hard at fundamental truth before we move further. It is hard to do, as it sometimes means a lot of work has to be challenged, anew. I am thankful for the eye opener though, and I wish you the best in the reception of this! (you are going to need it, this one's a real tree shaker!) I do see possibilities for a wave function, and hopefully a better framework to settle the duality question once and for all. I still want to try to apply riemann geometries/non-euclidean waveform to this, I will discuss at a later date. Your essay reminds me of the day I heard a 1 bit recording from a Korg (MR2 i think) that a tech brought into the recording studio. I was livid he bought it (with my money) I exclaimed in protest "why the hell would you waste my money on that! Then I heard it and was simply floored. the ΔΣ modulation is very clever, and far superior to a 24 or 32 bit -even 64 bit recording! Who knew! This is (this) all over again. Bravo Sir!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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