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

Héctor Gianni: on 8/10/13 at 20:03pm UTC, wrote Dear Brian L. Ji: I am an old physician and I...

Jayakar Joseph: on 8/9/13 at 3:42am UTC, wrote Dear Brian, The realm of Participatory Universe in particle scenario is...

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 20:22pm UTC, wrote Dear Brian, I enjoyed very much your essay. It contains a very lucid...

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

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/5/13 at 23:35pm UTC, wrote Dear Brian, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Brian Ji: on 8/5/13 at 20:38pm UTC, wrote Paul, Thanks for the reference. I also took a quick look of your essay. ...

Antony Ryan: on 8/5/13 at 14:05pm UTC, wrote Brian, Thanks for the link over on my thread - I look forward to further ...

Paul Borrill: on 8/4/13 at 23:29pm UTC, wrote Brian - you might enjoy the paper by Lucien Hardy [1] on circuit design in...


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: Participatory Universe, Austerity and Circuit Design by Brian L Ji [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Brian L Ji wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 17:30 GMT
Essay Abstract

As early as 1981, John Archibald Wheeler presented a series of lectures at University of Science and Technology of China and discussed much of the idea later known as “it from bit”. I will review some of the highlights of his lectures. From a physics student listening to him then to a computer circuit designer now, I am also wondering about a more practical question, how to build such a machine or “universe” that its laws will be decided or contributed later by its participants? The ultimate challenges for computer designers today should not be limited to building machines to approach human intelligence, but also to pursue the deeper knowledge of what a computer really means. New breakthroughs are likely to happen at the boundaries between universality in information processing and its physical representation in universe and life.

Author Bio

Brian L. Ji is a staff engineer at College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, University at Albany. He received his Ph.D. degree in physics from Harvard University in 1991. He worked at IBM from 1995 to 2009 as a designer of integrated circuit products and as a research staff member in the area of semiconductor devices and exploratory circuits.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Chidi Idika wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 02:17 GMT
Dear Brian,

I found your essay to be central to the question at hand because Physics presently is trying to develop at last a working model of the "participatory universe"

I have just two responses to your essay:

(1.)To Wheeler’s anticipation that: “Every law in physics could come from no laws, in a sense similar to the second law of thermodynamics.” I answer that the very term “observer” is in fact such a "law". My essay What a Wavefunction ismakes the claim that the term "observer" is a Markov property, better known as “superposition” in QM. For me this is simply the participant observer as also the very ontology we know as "uncertainty"(and known by Godel as the "incompleteness")

2.)to your concluding question: “what will be the role of circuit design in foundational physics?” I answer that circuit design will be same in fact as genetic engineering (call it “life” or “mind” engineering). But man being the archetype participant-observer must be the most efficient “computer” (algorithm) there can be i.e. the "matter wave" (wavefunction; superposition) proper.

It is like the Carnot cycle is the most efficient heat engine and Newton's "inertia" is the most enduring state of motion while Planck's "quantum" must be the most variable state of motion (namely the "momentum"). Same too as the Pythagorean "fundamental" is the source of all harmonics and Peano's "constant" is the source of the naturals and Noether's "conserved current" is the generator of symmetries.

Didn't mean to write long but please find the time to read my essay. And I expect "hard" questions.

Wishing you the stars.

Chidi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Brian L Ji replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 15:13 GMT
Dear Chidi,

Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that the stochastic nature should be characteristic of the observers as well as the laws. I’m not sure about and would like to find out how the stochastic variables could impact different architectural levels of computers and future computational machines. I’m looking forward to reading and understanding your work.

Best wishes,

Brian

Bookmark and Share



Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 03:42 GMT
Hello Brian,

I presume your question "what will be the role of circuit design in foundational physics?" is not rhetorical, and so I offer you my observations. My understanding of fundamental circuit design is that one must establish relationships (connections) between entities which respond to stimulation in a particular way, that is, for a given input you can anticipate a particular...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Brian L Ji replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 15:17 GMT
Thanks, Zoran.



Circuit = Connectivity, Topology and Function of Information Network. Circuit design might be the link between BIT and IT.

I am particularly interested in those circuits that their internal connections are switchable due to thermal fluctuations and/or the inputs/outputs are bidirectional. There are also those circuits where the set of possible circuit solutions may be magically influenced by its topology. I found some flavors of such circuits in the book “Connectivity and Superconductivity” edited by J. Berger and J. Rubinstein.

The motto in the semiconductor and computer hardware industry has been “from physics to functions”. In the past, computers are built from devices up and depended on better transistors with lithographic scaling advancement. It looks like device scaling is finally slowing down as we approach atomic limit. So we have to look for more innovation in the “function” part and be more creative ideas in circuit architecture and designs. I would suggest “from functions to physics” will be the new motto. I hope this incoming difficult period for the computer hardware industry will stimulate more interdisciplinary collaboration between fundamental physics and computer engineering.

Best wishes,

Brian

Bookmark and Share



Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 05:10 GMT
Hello Brian

Thanks for an interesting exploration. I have rated your essay, and found it nice to connect with someone who has lived part of the experience of computer development, during its pioneer period.

In so far as Rolf Landauer showed an equivalence relation between information as bits and thermodynamics, this would imply that the essentially informational structure of my Harmony Set implies an increase in energy in the evolving world modeled by it. If you have a chance I would appreciate your looking over my essay in that context, and passing an opinion.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Brian L Ji replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 15:26 GMT
Hi Stephen,

Thanks for your comments. As you have noticed, in the pioneering period of computers and the information industry, we had many great scientists. The list of the names is long, Szilard, von Neumann, Shannon, Schrödinger, Brillouin, Feymann, Landaurer, and many others. I hope physicists will come back to the computer industry as it now moves beyond the era of silicon CMOS scaling.

Best wishes,

Brian

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 08:57 GMT
Dear Brian

You towards a very specific purpose, your question is very interesting, perhaps "the role of circuit design in foundational physics" also like the role of bit in the information ?

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Brian L Ji replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 00:27 GMT
Dear Hoang,

Thanks for your comments. As you implied, the role circuit design is similar to free thinking, although the circuit itself has to be built in physical world.

Best wishes,

Brian

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 11:44 GMT
Hi Brian,

I like your essay but I don’t share the idea that it is the observer who is making the laws and the laws were not always there.

However, as a computer designer, I would want you to evaluate the possibility that discrete units of space and their emergence from nothing and annihilation to nothing can serve as Nature's bits for software programs. I attempted an amateur program for digital motion which you can look at in my essay.

I don't also know if your "access time inequality" may be relevant to signal transmission and coding across empty space, especially as you ask a very relevant question: what will be the role of circuit design in foundational physics?



I believe if what I conjecture is correct, circuit design will play a major role.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Brian L Ji replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 00:49 GMT
Hello Akinbo,

Thank you for your comments. Let me have a clarification. I think Wheeler’s thesis “it from bit” is about a possibility in the future since observers will collectively play an ever-increasing role. My professional interest is actually on “bit from it”, i.e., how to make bit more efficiently from it. The two directions are kind of orthogonal, not totally opposite. I can see Wheeler’s point in the recent trend in computer industry. The industry has become more service-science oriented and the best computers in the future may be designed by “participants”.

I’m looking forward to reading your essay. It seems to be a very interesting.

Best wishes,

Brian

Bookmark and Share



KoGuan Leo wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 03:01 GMT
Dear Brian, I read and rank your essay with great interest especially on Wheeler's visit to China so early. He is a real great man, I am disappointed that he did not get his Nobel Prize especially on his delayed choice experiment and others. I like your idea to try to develop " participatory chip. That would be great. By the way, if I may say my KQID theory does express that this participatory chip is possible. Please make comment and rank my essay.

Best wishes, Leo KoGuan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Brian L Ji replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 04:25 GMT
Dear KoGuan,

Thanks for your comments. The computer industry is getting more service-science oriented (cloud computing as an example). Someday in the not far distant future, the finest and highly inter-connected network of machines may indeed have its laws designed by the end users or “participants”.

I have made comment on your essay with great interest and ranked it. Your essay is a classic with a style almost like John Wheeler that I used to be enlightened. Congratulations and I hope more people will have a chance to read your essay.

Best wishes,

Brian

Bookmark and Share



james r. akerlund wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 04:08 GMT
Hi Brian,

I just read your submission and I must say that you gave a very innovative approach to the subject question. The simplified circuit structures you had in your submission made me wonder, if the universe was really a computer simulation, what kind of circuit structure would that employ, afterall, we are all P's in that universe computer simulation. Anyway, thanks for entering the contest for your very different and enlightning view points, and good luck.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Brian L Ji replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 02:04 GMT
Hi Jim,

Thank you for the kind words. Like the second law of thermodynamics, I would imagine that the universe circuit structure allows the maximum freedom for all participants, including the possibility to change the circuit structure, yet it still follows the principle of equality and fairness. I am looking forward to reading and providing feedbacks to your essay.

Best wishes,

Brian

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 22:47 GMT
Dear Brian

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

Author Brian L Ji replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 01:26 GMT
Hi SNP,

Thank you for your comments. I think Wheeler’s “it from bit” is a fundamental thesis about an evolutional path in the future as observers collectively will play an ever-increasing role in our world. My professional focus is about “bit from it”, i.e., how to make information processing more efficient from its physical representations. The two directions are kind of orthogonal, not totally opposite. However, I am surprised to see Wheeler’s impact appearing in the latest trends in computer industry. The industry is getting to be more service-science oriented (for example, cloud computing) and perhaps the best computers in the not far distant future will be mostly designed by end users as “participants”.

Best wishes,

Brian

Bookmark and Share



Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 05:39 GMT
Hi Brian,

I enjoyed your article and appreciate your remark that a hierarchical architecture has design advantages. I have suggested such an architecture (which I term "fractal") in my essay Software Cosmos.

My focus has been on the software level rather than the hardware, but I think once we have a plausible software design for the cosmos we would be able to suggest the hardware requirements and have something a circuit designer might love to create!

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Brian L Ji replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 02:11 GMT
Hi Hugh,

I have downloaded your essay and will read it carefully. I am very interested to find out the viewpoints from thinkers like you on the software side. I believe there are a lot of opportunities to collaborate. IT and BIT are treated currently by theorists at a rather primitive level. I think there are a lot of missing meanings and representative middle structures between the low levels and the real complex world.

Best wishes,

Brian

Bookmark and Share


Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 07:02 GMT
Hi Brian,

You wrote:

> I think there are a lot of missing meanings and representative middle structures between the low levels and the real complex world.

I absolutely agree with you on that. As you will see in the essay, geometric algebra provides a common language to link the theoretical side to a computational approach. Software libraries are available, but having an efficient way to perform those calculations would be very useful. There was an attempt made by Christian Perwass about a decade ago to do an FPGA implementation, but the results were mostly disappointing. I think we could do a lot better today.

Failing that, probably the most useful low level primitives would involve handling quaternion algebra. The unit quaternions are isomorphic to the three dimensional hypersphere which has uses as an index structure, so a discrete approximation would also be very handy.

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 20:44 GMT
Hi Brian,

Unfortunately it looks like the direct link I gave to Google Books for the FPGA Implementation paper does not work. You will have to google for "Christian Perwass" and his article "Implementation of a Clifford algebra co-processor design on a field programmable gate array" and then click on the PDF link in the results to get to it.

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 11:46 GMT
Brian,

In the context of your interesting essay on Circuit and Computer Design and the fundamentals of information, you and your readers might be interested in some of the recent developments in superconducting circuits (my own area of research) for quantum computing, see, e.g., the Wikipedia entry on Superconducting Quantum Computing. A lossless superconducting circuit is a macroscopic quantum system which can be interfaced using conventional I/O lines.

In terms of your recollections of Prof. Wheeler, I knew Prof. Wheeler when I was an undergraduate at Princeton 40 years ago, and he was a superb lecturer. But I disagree with his assertion that information is more fundamental than matter. See my essay ( "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotations and Relative Time" ), where I present a simple realistic picture of the microscopic world that avoids most of the conventional paradoxes, and also leads naturally to a form of general relativity.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Brian L Ji replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 03:08 GMT
Alan,

I looked for your research at Google Scholar and got a big surprise. Wow, I found an older brother! I followed your path to study superconductivity with Prof. Tinkham at Harvard. I also did a postdoc to Stony Brook.

I read your essay once and it is very interesting. I will rank and leave feedback on your board. Your New Quantum Paradigm is a brave attempt for achieving physical intuition and consistency for all of modern physics. I have to read it a few more times to have a better understanding of what seems to be a major effort on your part.

Making theories simple used to be a trademark of Prof. Tinkham’s teaching. Your essay is surely consistent with his teaching, although the scope of your study cannot be broader.

It’s my great pleasure to see you here.

Best wishes,

Brian

Bookmark and Share


Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 12:24 GMT
Brian,

I'm sorry I did not recognize your name. I am familiar with some of your earlier work, and we probably met many years ago. Thank you for your comments, including those about Prof. Tinkham and simplicity. I realize that what I am proposing is viewed as heretical, but thus far no one has been willing to point out where it is incorrect. I am hopeful that my essay will cross the threshold to be reviewed by the panel of judges, but it needs a few more good ratings before the end of July for that to be the case. Let's continue this discussion via regular email - my email address is on my essay.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 10:13 GMT
Hello Brian,

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 I have not rated already..

"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 Brian L Ji replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 21:35 GMT
Hello Akinbo,

1) Yes. You get a copy of information by doing a measurement.

2) Yes. You can get the information by the measurement performed by the other participant.

3) No, in most cases.

4) Yes. However, ternary mode is also widely used in artificial intelligence for computational efficiency.

Best wishes,

Brian

Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 10:58 GMT
Hi Brian,

This is a reply to your two comments above. Thanks for replying those 4 questions.

Yes, Wheeler's dream can play a big role in the future. Your professional interest that "bit from it" would certainly give you a part to play in this. To maximize that role most efficiently you have to find out: what is 'it'? is there a smallest possible 'it'? What kind of 'bit' can we get from that 'it' and how can this be manipulated?

Have you read and rated my essay?

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 00:39 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


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:23 GMT
Dear Brian,

I read your essay with great interest, It is written in the spirit of Rene Descartes: "loud and clear" very good language with illustrations. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions: «New breakthroughs are likely to happen at the boundaries between universality in information processing and its physical representation in the universe and life.»

«Today, there appears to be greater opportunities for physicists and designers to work together to explore the complex world.». «I think these laws will be discovered when we try to build prototype machines behaving like Wheeler's "participatory universe". »

Such a universe philosopher and mathematician Basil Nalimov called "self-aware Universe."

And a very good question in conclusion: My question is: what will be the role of circuit design in foundational physics?

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

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

And I have for you a second question: How should the physics go to physical picture of the world was as rich in meaning as the picture of the world lyricists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

Maybe matter physicists should see the soul and memory?

I put the rating of your essay "nine". Please look at my essay and fair vote.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Brian L Ji replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 21:22 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your remarks and ranking. I agree absolutely with Alexander Zenkin. We should be able to explain any well-developed mathematical concepts in simply and clearly ways, such that they are understandable to any high school students. This is particularly true in the era that "the cognitive computer visualization of mathematical abstractions promises a revolution in scientific cognition". We should ask top mathematicians to teach college freshman classes every few years; writing educational books at the high school level is even better.

I love to hear Nikolai Noskov in your YouTube link, even I don’t understand Russia. I have downloaded and read your essay several times so I understand it now. In contrast, it's easy to understand the messages in the songs you sent.

Brian

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear Brian,

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


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 05:08 GMT
Brian

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


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 00:58 GMT
Hi Brian,

I found your essay intriguing and insightful in your approach to the topic. Your analogy and comparisons of computer circuitry and quantum information, I found to be original. Although you have a different approach to the topic than I do, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit.

Best of luck to you in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 14:13 GMT
Hello Brian,

Flat and hierarchical architecture was a very logical idea to present - well done. I like that you looked at the Universe/computer from the point of view that participants may play an increasing role collectively in the future.

Indeed it made me think more about the fact that there are many observers but seemingly one Universe. The slightest of difference I can see for each observer is that they have their own unique observable universe where they are at the "centre". But really great thoughts here. I rate your essay very highly. Please take a look at my essay if you get time. It's based around observation and the Fibonacci sequence.

Well done & best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Brian L Ji replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 21:45 GMT
Antony,

Thank you. I have read your article about Fibonacci bit and will post there.

Brian

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 14:05 GMT
Brian,

Thanks for the link over on my thread - I look forward to further discussion!

Best wishes and well done,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 16:57 GMT
Brian,

Thank you for your very interesting and informative essay which deserves a higher score, it's one of the very few I was entirely fascinated with and disappointed at reaching the end.

But really I write as I would like your view on my own proposal of a fundamental way to 'decode' background noise using additional dimensions.

In terms of your mapping it may use the hierarchical architecture of modal logic, but with hierarchically scaled 'spaces within spaces within spaces', "thought of as bounded" to use and extend Einstein's 1952 conception (my previous two essays are background and precursors). We then have the same hierarchical structure as propositions in truth function logic, which also applies to matter based inertial systems with (stochastic average) assignable rest frames.

That may sound like gobledygook until you read the descriptions and follow the ontological constriction. But be prepared to think outside the bigger box which the boxes came in!

Well done and thank you for yours. Hold tight for a bit of a hike up^

Best wishes,

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:04 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 @ 19:05 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


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 23:29 GMT
Brian - you might enjoy the paper by Lucien Hardy [1] on circuit design in quantum theory.

[1] Hardy, Lucien. “Reformulating and Reconstructing Quantum Theory.” 1104.2066 (April 11, 2011). http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2066.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Brian L Ji replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 20:38 GMT
Paul,

Thanks for the reference. I also took a quick look of your essay. It seems to be very interesting and I have downloaded it to read it soon, just moved and no internet at home yet.

Brian

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:35 GMT
Dear Brian,

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


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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:22 GMT
Dear Brian,

I enjoyed very much your essay. It contains a very lucid exposition of some of Wheeler's ideas heared directly from his lectures delivered in China. Most important, it contains interesting insights from the viewpoint of a circuit designer. I liked the analysis of the problem of participant's freedom, the parallel with economy. Nice and optimistic closure!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Brian,

The realm of Participatory Universe in particle scenario is limited with the observational universe, whereas in string-matter continuum scenario of CSU paradigm, it is limited with the holarchy, the observer belongs.

This implies that the discrete sub-time differs on both scenarios. In particle scenario the reference time for the synchronisation of real-time observations is not finite as it is from linear time flow that is infinite; whereas in string-matter continuum the referential time is finite as it is from cyclic-times in holarchy, in that each cycle is finite. Thus the precision of synchronisation is plausible with this scenario.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 20:03 GMT
Dear Brian L. Ji:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”.

I am sending you a practical...

view entire post


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.