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

Odessa Sabah: on 1/5/17 at 13:00pm UTC, wrote I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 18:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Albert, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 7:35am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Than Tin: on 8/3/13 at 19:04pm UTC, wrote Dear All Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman. In the Character...

john selye: on 8/1/13 at 22:05pm UTC, wrote Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to...

Antony Ryan: on 7/30/13 at 14:27pm UTC, wrote Sorry just re-read to see that those were my comments to you Peter. But...

Antony Ryan: on 7/30/13 at 14:24pm UTC, wrote Many thanks for the very kind words Peter! Albert, I like the comment -...

Peter Jackson: on 7/29/13 at 10:17am UTC, wrote Albert, Short and sweet becomes ever better! I agree with Einstein that...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: "The acrobats central to the rotation of a platform, share the same type of..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
August 24, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: No It without Bit by ALBERT KING [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author ALBERT KING wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 17:30 GMT
Essay Abstract

What is information? What is its relation to Reality? I think we can ask these questions in another order: what is reality? isn't reality just all the information we could get from it? According to Niels Bohr, "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature." So physics is all about "information", it's all about what we can say given some amount information (but never full amount information of reality). The philosophy is like duck test: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. So duck is from all those information.

Author Bio

Albert King is an independent researcher focus on the foundation of quantum and relativity theory.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Yutaka Shikano wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 22:58 GMT
Hi

You argued Jaynes work on the relationship between infrmation science and statisitical mechanics. In his work, what do you think about the evaluation of temperature? As far as I understand, the temperature does not come in from the physical assumption but is defined so that the free energy thereby

obtained coincides with the Helmholtz free energy.

Best,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 08:40 GMT
Dear Albert

I like your title, but I have a feeling: seems like you are judged on the form of reasoning?

Wishing you success and happiness always.

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


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 19:54 GMT
Mr King,

If you do not know what reality is, asking yourself what it is might not solve your problem. Why did you not Wheeler the question?

Is reality simple? Yes.

Is information simple? No.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 22:48 GMT
Dear King

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 mainly...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 13:37 GMT
Mr. King,

Your essay describes the debates between Bohr and Einstein about the nature of physics, and you seem to take the side of Bohr. In contrast, I take the side of Einstein; physics is about real objects moving in real space, and all information follows from these real objects, so Bit from It. In my essay ( "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotations and Relative Time" ), I present a simple realistic picture of quantum waves based on special relativity, and show how this leads naturally to a form of general relativity, with no additional assumptions. The famous paradoxes of indeterminism and entanglement disappear.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 07:13 GMT
Dear Albert,

You have offered shortest essay, but I think you have clear answer to topic. I am fully with you and thinking that just no need to break swords on the such questions. (Maybe on this we not getting ratings or we get too much units!)

I rate your essay as truly decision of the problem, let even it is written short!Check please my work, Essay I hope you will find some confirmation to your point.

Best wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 10:15 GMT
Hello Albert,

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


basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 03:06 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your essay is short, but sweet, because you have covered some vital aspects that need to be focused properly. You have rightly claimed that “physics is all about ‘information’ ”. Information is specific data reporting the state of something based on observation (measurements), organized and summarized for a purpose within a context that gives it meaning and relevance and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 14:12 GMT
Is your name Albert or Alert as stated on your essay?

Nonetheless, I truly enjoyed your insight and exploration of the Einstein/Bohr debate. Although you have a different approach than I do, I find your analytical findings inspiring and most worthy of merit. As such, I have rated your essay highly.

I wish you well in this competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 03:57 GMT
Hi Albert,

I enjoyed your essay.

What you wrote: "...if nothing is know about the it, then what we can claim should be anything possible given some common assumptions. For example, where is the apple? If there is no information about this apple, we can only say, the apple is somewhere in 3+1D space-time, or it's a uniform distribution throughout space-time..", I agree with you. That is our knowledge is practically limited up to our range of information about 'It" and beyond that limit (if there anything) might be a speculation.

In my essay I also thought in almost similar way.

I invite you to read my essay too.I will also going to rate you.

Thanks

Dipak

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 00:41 GMT
Dear All,

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

iSeries always yields two sub semi...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 21:27 GMT
Dear Alert Albert!,

If you're there? ..I'm away for a few days but I've printed off your 'No It without Bit' as it sounds fascinating, (quack!) with some others I hope to read, so will hopefully comment and score it when I get back. I do hope you might also manage read and score mine. To try to tempt you I include a few of the more flattering comments so far below.

Joe; I accept unequivocally your solution to the unique/identical problem.

Phil; you have made a valuable contribution to the essay contest. It is a pleasure to read.

Akinbo; Very thought provoking essay... ..Many thanks indeed,

Edwin; As always, you're impressive!

Anthony; This seems to be one of the more interesting approaches I've read … ...That's testament to your great writing ability - I think you've done a fantastic job.

James; one could make a career out of studying your piece.

Richard; Your essay has clarified the whole issue of no-go theorems.

Jeff; Peter and others interested in his wonderful essay,

John S; I think your work is clearly significant, and will resolve certain apparently 'metaphysical' aspects of reality to the 'physical' Cosmos.

Ralph; I am deeply impressed with your depth of knowledge. I am also struck the depth of your thinking, your graphics, and your willingness to 'put yourself on the line' intellectually.

Michel; Your essay is attractive and I read it with much interest.

Than; we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Helmut; Technically challenging and philosophically deep - very few papers meet both. This is one of them.

And; I hope this astonishing paper finds many many readers, especially among theoretical physicists: It is groundbreaking.

Thanks and look forward to any comments.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 14:24 GMT
Many thanks for the very kind words Peter!

Albert,

I like the comment - isn't reality just all the information we can get from it? Simple but logical. I like that you've touched on entropy, as I have in my essay, which I hope you take a look at.

Anyway well done on a nice essay.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 14:27 GMT
Sorry just re-read to see that those were my comments to you Peter. But very true, please read Peter's excellent work Albert!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 10:17 GMT
Albert,

Short and sweet becomes ever better! I agree with Einstein that we need to understand, but Bohr that we sure don't yet! If you're reading essays I hope mine helps improve comprehension, bringing the two back together.

Do comment.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:05 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:04 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


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:35 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:43 GMT
Dear Albert,

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


Odessa Qamar Sabah wrote on Jan. 5, 2017 @ 13:00 GMT
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 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1

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.