CATEGORY:
Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011)
[back]
TOPIC:
Bit from It by Julian Barbour
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Julian Barbour wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 12:44 GMT
Essay AbstractWith his aphorism 'it from bit', Wheeler argued that anything physical, any 'it', ultimately derives its very existence entirely from discrete detector-elicited information-theoretic answers to yes or no quantum binary choices: 'bits'. In this spirit, many theorists now give ontological primacy to information. To test the idea, I identify three distinct kinds of information and find that things, not information, are primary. Examination of what Wheeler meant by 'it' and 'bit' then leads me to invert his aphorism: 'bit' derives from 'it'. I argue that this weakens but not necessarily destroys the argument that nature is fundamentally digital and continuity an illusion. There may also be implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics and the nature of time, causality and the world.
Author BioSince 1968, I have worked as an independent theoretical physicist. My main interest has been the nature of time and the origin of inertial motion. I have published more than 30 scientific papers, two books (The Discovery of Dynamics and The End of Time) and edited \emph{Mach's Principle: From Newton's Bucket to Quantum Gravity}. I have also appeared in several TV programmes, including Killing Time on YouTube. I am the recipient of two large FQXi research grants, the current one for ``The nature of time and the structure of space''. Since 2008, I have been a Visiting Professor in Physics at the University of Oxford.
Download Essay PDF File
BrundleFly wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 20:41 GMT
Very interesting article.
When the subject of primacy is brought to the front, wouldn't it be prudent to state that the most primary and fundamental feature of nature is change itself? Time itself is then fundamental as it is simply a synonym for change. It is our way to parameterize change and play the bookkeeper.
In this view, it is not laws that are static and immutable. It is the regularity in patterns of change that give rise to the perception of laws. We arbitrarily pick out those patterns that exhibit regularity, as they are of practical use. On the quantum level, patterns of change which exhibit random, stochastic behavior tend to get passed off as irregularities that are the offspring of 'spooky' laws.
Change vs immutable, fixed substance subject to laws. I wonder what Democritus and Heraclitus would have to say if they were around today.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 22:05 GMT
Dear Julian,
I think you have done a magnificent job in the essay. It is such an eloquent stand for realism.I was not just interested but thoroughly enjoyed your presentation. You speak with authority and clarity and such good sense. I do so agree that realism is necessary because otherwise we are left with just the abstraction that can neither nourish nor sustain us.
The question...
view entire post
Dear Julian,
I think you have done a magnificent job in the essay. It is such an eloquent stand for realism.I was not just interested but thoroughly enjoyed your presentation. You speak with authority and clarity and such good sense. I do so agree that realism is necessary because otherwise we are left with just the abstraction that can neither nourish nor sustain us.
The question of what is meant by information and consideration of its position in the hierarchy of reality is foundational. I have avoided using the term information because I am aware that there is debate surrounding it and its correct meaning.Your essay is a useful clarification.
I liked your mentioning of timeless configuration.I am convinced that it is the change of those configurations that generates the sequence earlier to later from which we get the passage of time. So time emerges from an entirely spatial phenomenon. But you express it so so well.The experience of time in my opinion is a little different due to the temporal distortion incorporated due to signal transmission and processing delay. Creating another level of reality that is the experienced and observed space-time.
I think you were brave to bring the subject of consciousness into your discussion. It is a bridge between physics and biology and psychology that is not yet firmly constructed and those that dare to cross need to be very cautious.I am not convinced that all information exists in external reality and is merely transmitted to the consciousness.That seems a physicists viewpoint that regards the organism merely as a passive receiver of information rather than co-creator.
Some information is internally generated. The apple in external reality is not red. Nor does it have a particular hue or shade. That is determined by the processing of combinations of pre amalgamated received information, not faithful digital conversion of individual it to bit. Other factors come into play such as the hues of other neighbouring objects in the environment. Their arrangement the gives areas of shadow and full light. There is interplay between information channeled through the brighness channel and those from the colour channels, that have amalgamated the colour balance information from different cone cells.
There is a great amount of literature about the visual process which has a bearing on this matter.From the interception of photons by the retina all the way up to the processing in the visual cortex.Selecting one such paper at random "Combination of subcortical color channels in human visual cortex". Erin Goddard, Damien J. Mannion,,J. Scott McDonald,,Samuel G. Solomon, Colin W. G. Clifford, 2010 Journal of vision.
So the organism fabricates the experienced reality as the mathematician fabricates the mathematical model and neither are the external reality itself. They are both in their own way mere insubstantial representations of reality, that mimic imperfectly the external ontological reality.
I suspect that as a previous winner of an FQXi prize your essay will get many interested readers. Congratulations, I think you will do well.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 22:07 GMT
That anonymous was me. Best regards Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
egal wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 00:34 GMT
With all due respect I wonder how people talk about the digital view and computation without even mentioning the seminal ideas of Turing, or the current developments of information theory beyond Shannon's theory developed in the 1930s. Only a couple of essays in the contest actually have some contributions considering the state of the art in the field.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 05:20 GMT
Julian,
Thank you for addressing a topic that apparently needs addressing. I have nothing but respect for Wheeler, but 'It from Bit' went way over the edge.
I have argued on these threads that information is descriptive, not physically real, and been amazed that it could be thought otherwise. I attribute this partly to the "information-in-Black Hole-->area-of-Black hole", wherein 'information' is discussed as if it were particles. (Exactly the same area relation can be derived in terms of energy impinging on the Black Hole with no mention of information at all.)
It is probably the extreme confusion that accompanies the interpretation of 'non-locality' associated with the so-called 'violations' of Bell's (incorrectly calculated) inequality that has led to so much confusion about information. If I believed in non-locality and non-realism, it's hard for me to say what I would be willing to believe to be 'real'.
You state "Wheeler's thesis mistakes abstraction for reality." Korzybski's central message in 'Science and Sanity' is that "the map is not the territory." There would not appear to be anything simpler to understand, yet evidence is found everywhere that maps are confused with the territory. There must be something about the way our brains are structured that leads to such confusion. Clearly it may sometimes be useful in a Darwinian fashion for a brain to use the model "as if" it were the reality, but who would suspect that so many brilliant physicists would fail to discern the difference?
So thanks again for stating the obvious in a way that I hope most will follow.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 00:11 GMT
" There must be something about the way our brains are structured that leads to such confusion. Clearly it may sometimes be useful in a Darwinian fashion for a brain to use the model "as if" it were the reality, but who would suspect that so many brilliant physicists would fail to discern the difference?"
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Eugene,
Glad to see you here in the contest. This is not "brilliant" the physicists need. It is the visceral courage to address concepts that are in violent contradiction with all the assumptions required for our reality to be. It is scary and disturbing, but we must overcome this in order to move forward. My essay tells you about it, without any warning.
Good luck,
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 02:11 GMT
Hi Marcel-Marie,
I can not agree. I know we are deceived by the limitations of out sensory capabilities and only imagine the experience to be objective reality itself. I do not accept that there is not a foundational level source of the input that is interpreted and also misinterpreted. Space-time is the appearance of reality that is observed but the sub atomic reality, that is unobserved, is in the most concrete sense of the word real. I have said this for a long time.
Mr Smith in his competition entry last year spoke of the timeless spatial configuration that Julian Barbour here names Onta. Which is a nice catchy term, relevant to what it -is- and is short and easy to say. The word is original (as far as I know) but the concept is not. There are a number of people, some have been conversing on FQXi blogs, who think this realism is necessary. Some have also entered the competition. Though perhaps it takes someone with Julian's reputaion and experience to say it for it to become an acceptable concept.
Without this kind of realism we are creating fantasies and making them real or believing that the magic of incomplete information is more real than solid objects that can not be observed. Quantum magic rabbits!
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 22:47 GMT
Georgina,
All I wanted was to understand the universe by allowing it to exist and evolve by itself. i.e. without us in the way. "Understanding" logically the universe requires that we remove the observer.
The Copenhagen school knew about the underlying reality and said: There is nothing there worth our attention" They did quit in our name, so close .... They got scared and physics has been in a "refuge" mode since. Loitering around exotic ideas when they knowvery well were to look for answers...
Maybe, we are not looking for the same thing...? Me, I found what I was looking for.
Good luck,
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 02:02 GMT
Yes I agree Marcel-Marie we do need to remove the observer but not entirely or the Universe vanishes entirely. No brain, no conception of an idea, no universe.
I do not seek answers in metaphysics or in magic. So we are looking in different realms. You have found what you were looking for and I have found what I was looking for in a kind of presentist realism. Newton considered his great work mere pebbles, found on the beach, near to the whole uncharted ocean. Shall we compare our little pebbles or just admit that we each prefer our own?I think the second choice is the most amicable solution.
Kind regards and Good luck to you too.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 09:09 GMT
The essay is beautiful and I agree with the conclusion "Bit from It", in a way I will try to make clear. But I disagree with the way the conclusion was reached - it seems to me that the central part of Wheeler's 'ontology' "It from Bit" was overlooked, and this makes it look naive, while it is in fact very profound.
In a classical world, Wheeler's "It from Bit" would be obviously silly....
view entire post
The essay is beautiful and I agree with the conclusion "Bit from It", in a way I will try to make clear. But I disagree with the way the conclusion was reached - it seems to me that the central part of Wheeler's 'ontology' "It from Bit" was overlooked, and this makes it look naive, while it is in fact very profound.
In a classical world, Wheeler's "It from Bit" would be obviously silly. When we measure something, we can write down the outcome as a string of digits, and by collecting all these digits we can determine the state. In such a world, "bit" would indeed originate from "it".
But Wheeler is discussing the quantum world. And for Wheeler, the quantum world is not just "classical world" plus "probability". Julian Barbour said: "Crucially, even if individual quantum outcomes are unpredictable, the probabilities for them are beautifully determined by a theory based on 'its'", but this is not the whole story. If this would be all, then he would indeed be right to say "I see nothing in Wheeler's arguments to suggest that we should reverse the mode of explanation that has so far served science so well". Julian Barbour tries to understand how Wheeler could do so trivial mistakes: "Wheeler's thesis mistakes abstraction for reality", and "A 'bit' has no meaning except in the context of the universe". Yet, there is no such a gross mistake.
Wheeler's "It from Bit" can be understood in the context of the "delayed choice experiment". He realizes that it is not enough to specify the outcome, but also what we measure - for example "which way" or "both ways" in the Mach-Zehnder experiment. But he realizes that our choice of what to measure determines how the state was (yes, in the past). This is the key problem of quantum mechanics, and this is the fundamental obstacle of all realistic interpretations of quantum mechanics: we choose "now" what to measure, and our present choice dictates how the state was, long time before we made our choice. We can think that there is an ontology behind the outcomes of our measurements, as in the classical world. But the "delayed choice experiment" shows that the "elements of reality" depend of the future choice of our measurements. And the outcomes depend of these choices too. So, it is in fact "the choice of what to measure" (Hermitian operator) plus "the outcome" (eigenvalue) that forms the "Bit" from Wheeler's "It from Bit". And the "It" is in fact the eigenstate corresponding to the obtained eigenvalue, given that the observable was that particular Hermitian operator. Wheeler was not that naive to think that eigenvalues determine eigenstates by themselves, without considering the Hermitian operator, so he accounted well for the prescription "A 'bit' has no meaning except in the context of the universe".
The central point of Wheeler's "It from Bit" is that the reality of today depends on the choices we make tomorrow, when we decide what to observe, and of the outcomes of the observations. He compares this with the game of 20 questions, when we try to guess a word by asking 20 yes/no questions, under the prescription that the choice of the word is not done at the beginning. The person who "knows" the word changes it by wish, so long as it remains consistent with the answer she already gave to our question. Wheeler wants to emphasize by this the similarity with the quantum state we try to determine, but which depends on what we choose to observe. This is why he was led to the idea that the state of the universe (it) results from the observations (bit).
I give more credit than Julian Barbour to the "It from Bit" philosophy - I view it as a way to present a central problem of quantum mechanics. I think, nevertheless, that it is exaggerated to conclude from this, as many do, that the world is digital. It may be or it may be not, but we should not force the conclusion. After all, the "It from Bit" philosophy is intended to clarify some points of a theory based on continuum - Quantum Mechanics.
My viewpoint on "It from Bit" is that we should regard the outcomes of measurements as "delayed initial conditions" for the Schrödinger's equation. I presented my view in
this article and
this video. A solution of a partial differential equation like Schrödinger's is determined by a set of initial conditions. Classically, the initial conditions can be determined from future observations. In Quantum Mechanics, the future observations determine the state in the two meanings of the word "determine": passive - "find out what it is" (by the selection of an eigenvalue of the observable), and active - "choose what it is" (by the choice of that observable). Another central problem is that two consecutive observations of the same quantum system are incompatible, if the observables do not commute. That is, they impose incompatible initial conditions to the wavefunction. But, the second measurement is not, in fact, a measurement of the same system. The system interacted with the first measurement device, and this measurement device has many degrees of freedom which are not determined yet. So, the second observation measures in fact the composed system - the observed system plus the apparatuses used for the previous observations, and all the past interactions of the observed system. This may offer enough degrees of freedom to maintain the unitary evolution and to avoid a discontinuous collapse of the wavefunction.
My interpretation comes with a realistic wavefunction, which is not yet determined among the possible wavefunctions, but whose "delayed initial conditions" are determined by all future and past observations. I think that we cannot avoid the idea of "delayed initial conditions", no matter what "It" we choose to consider as the underlying ontology.
My view is therefore that "It from Bit" and "Bit from It" are reciprocal: a set of possible "It"s (solutions to the Schrödinger's equation), a set of possible "Bit"s (observations, delayed initial conditions) and the Universe is a pair (It, Bit), so that the "It" and the "Bit"s are compatible.
Cristi Stoica
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 11:25 GMT
On the other hand, the "Bit" itself is part of the solution of the Schrödinger's equation, that is, of the "It". This is why I said at the beginning that I agree with "Bit from It". But if we have some "delayed initial conditions" - the "Bit"s - the "It" that satisfies to them is not necessarily unique. So, in fact, what we have is not a pair (It, Bit), but a pair ("It"s that satisfy to the observed "Bit", the observed "Bit"). There is a relation "one-to-many" between the "Bit" and the "It"s. The "Bit" appears to be discrete, but the "It" may very well be continuous. So, although "It from Bit" reflects an important aspect of Quantum Mechanics, it should not be taken too far.
report post as inappropriate
Roger Granet wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 17:27 GMT
Dr. Barbour,
Hi. Your essay was very good. In regard to your thinking about a "thing" with "The way that they [the distinguishing attributes of a thing] are knit together defines the structure of the thing", I would strongly agree and made the same point in my essay ("Reality is digital, but its perception as digital or analog depends on the perspective of the observer"). There and elsewhere, I conclude that a "thing" exists if it is completely defined as to what is contained within, or meant by, that thing. This complete definition is an edge or boundary defining and delimiting what is contained within. This complete definition/edge/boundary gives substance and existence to a thing. I go on to show how this definition can be used in thinking about the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?".
Again, very nice essay, and I would be interested in any feedback you might have. Thank you.
report post as inappropriate
Roy Johnstone wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 02:09 GMT
I'm not sure how it is possible (I have not read Roger's essay yet though) to define a "delimiting boundary" for a "thing" in the context of information, where "things" both create information, which we convert into various "bit" forms *and* are created by information from a more fundamental level. Can a "thing" be considered as complete in isolation from it's causes? For example a logic gate ("it") creates information by a given state, open/closed, which we interpret in bit form, yes/no, 1-0 etc. The gate itself is however constructed from more fundamental elements such as atoms which have supplied "information" that we have used to construct the physical gate. Atoms in turn are composed of elementary particles in a way determined by laws according to the "information" those laws carry. A regression by decreasing (more fundamental?) scale would seem to then leave us ultimately with just "laws of nature".
What status should we attribute to those laws? Are they primary in the sense that, as Dr Barbour says - "message sources could not exist if the universe were not subject to laws of nature". This would seem to attribute informational status to the laws. On the other hand, to quote Dr Barbour again - "I claim that the configuration carries intrinsic semantic information in the sense that different intelligent beings can in principle deduce the law or process that explains the observed structure". This implies "bit from it" whereas the former implies "it from bit"!
I guess it all depends on your definition of information, but I see physical laws as primary and "informational" in the above sense. Should the goal of science ideally be to find and describe necessary and sufficient causes for all "things" at ever more fundamental scales? This is in fact what the history, at least of physics, shows to be the case. Are there global natural laws , in the sense of (dare I say) a "multiverse" or "string landscape", which are primary even though there may be different mass spectra and gauge couplings locally and perhaps more fundamentally, compactified manifolds/brane geometries which are "informed" by these primary, global laws? Or perhaps a Bohm type primary "information field" giving form to what we see manifested as the "explicate" physical world? Again, "it from bit", but in a different sense to Wheeler's (I think absurd!) "self observing universe" meaning.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Roger replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 18:01 GMT
Roy,
Hi. Thanks for reading my posting. By "thing", I meant any existent state. This could be a typical "it" like a car or a logic gate, but it could also be concepts, information/bits, physical laws, etc. These are all existent states. A car exists outside the brain, but a mental image or concept of the car or information about the car can also exist inside the brain. There, it's composed of electrical gradients, neurons, etc., but it's still an existent state. To exist, all these things must be defined as to what is contained within, or meant by, those things. This definition is an edge or boundary giving substance or existence to the existent state.
In regard to physical laws, I pretty much agree with what Edwin wrote in that these laws also must be existent states. Many physicists and mathematicians say they exist in a Platonic realm somewhere that we can't see or examine. I can't argue with or refute that point. But, I could also say that a cheeseburger exists in that realm and that it is the source of all reality (sorry for the stupid joke). But, even if this Platonic realm does exist somewhere, it and the physical laws inside it are still existent states.
I think real progress in physics will come not when we decide what to call the most fundamental of all existent states (ie, call it a physical or mathematical law, information/bits, things, etc.) but when we can figure how and why that existent state can exist in the first place and what its properties are and use these to build a physical model of the universe. That's what I was trying to get at in my essay.
Thank you!
Roger
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 02:43 GMT
Roy states: "Atoms in turn are composed of elementary particles in a way determined by laws according to the "information" those laws carry. A regression by decreasing (more fundamental?) scale would seem to then leave us ultimately with just "laws of nature".
While this is probably the consensus, it begs the question of where the 'laws of nature' come from. Originally everyone knew that laws came from the 'king' and the laws of Nature came from the 'King', ie, God. But over the last century or two the King has been banished but his 'Laws' have been retained. In my model this is not kosher, and the laws must evolve from the 'self-interaction' of the basic substance of which the universe consists.
It does appear that we are capable, as conscious beings, of abstracting these behaviors in such a way that coded 'laws' can be derived that effectively generate an infinite amount of information, in the same way that the relation y=x^2 generates an infinite amount of information. I have developed the theory of such 'evolution of theories' in The Automatic Theory of Physics.
But do the 'laws' exist 'out there' governing what's happening 'in here' or are we simply part of a self-evolving, self-interacting 'substance' (for lack of a better word) that behaves according to Marcel's "law of non-contradiction". If the latter, then we have a unitary universe, complete in itself, and capable (despite Roy) of eventually 'observing itself'. Otherwise, we have a dualistic (schizophrenic?) universe where we have not only to figure out what 'reality' is, but where and how the 'laws' came to be. It's an easy choice for me.
The confusion of descriptive information, of meaning only to certain observers, with substantial reality that exists for all observers, leads to problems. In another thread it was suggested that "Watch out for the bus!" has consequences and so this information should be considered 'real'. But if you only speak Chinese, "Watch out for the bus" means nothing. Yet the energy of the moving bus is real in all cases. Information has reality only with respect to an observer. To deny the substantial reality one should stand in front of the bus and argue this point.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Roy Johnstone wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 03:19 GMT
Dr Barbour,
There are sections of your essay where you seem to be arguing against yourself. For example, you argue that QM "probablities are determined by the wave function/configuration space and the Schrodinger wave equation" and go on to say the probabilities are the "bits based on the its". Yet, by it's very nature, the standard interpretation of QM must deny real physical status for the wave function and therefore it's state space, as it is explicitly interpreted as representing only our knowledge of the system (information) and probabilities for *measurement outcomes* with *no reality in between observations*. It would seem that you are therefore attributing primacy to *information* contained in the state evolution.
You then equate the QM "laws and configurations" with classical mechanics, yet classical configurations have real physical status. By applying the analogy between QM and classical "laws" you would be arguing more along the lines of my previous post wherein primary laws are primary information content. This would seem to clash with - "Try eating a 1 that stands for an apple" in the sense that it would become - Try eating a law that describes the particles and interactions that compose what we call an apple!
Congratulations on the essay though. It is as usual, most thought provoking, just as "The End Of Time" was!
Good luck!
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 22:06 GMT
Dear Julian,
As my second favorite writer on time (you get three guesses as to the favorite--it's not I--and the first two don't count) -- you never disappoint. And when you speak geometry and information theory, it's with the same crisp authority and delightfully melodic prose that captivates from the beginning and carries to the end.
So it's not easy to suggest to a master of his subject that he's missed an opportunity. Fools rush in. Appendices are not part of the competition, so you're still a safe "10" -- still, I would point out in appendix B that your diagram for translations and rotations in Euclidean space, if my arithmetic is correct, is Euler characteristic 2. That of course implies a closed manifold of dimension 3 which corresponds to your N = 3 dimensionality. What's missing from this picture is what you're famous for; i.e., those rotations and translations are time dependent, and if there is nothing "left over," so to speak, through any transformation of points in 3-space, then time as least action has disappeared from your domain and quantum configuration space is static, as you hold. Nevertheless, the dynamics of mass points (Mach's principle) necessitates the inverse of Einstein's universe which is finite in time and unbounded in space -- i.e., to one which is finite in space and unbounded in time. Unbounded in time in this context gets you T = 1, and your static quantum universe holds.
A superior essay. Thank you.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 01:03 GMT
Dear Julian,
I enjoyed your "Bit from It" essay. It was well-written, good examples were given, and I agree with your perspective (or clarification) of "Bit from It" being more fundamental than Wheeler's "It from Bit". I was a little disapponted (I still think that your paper deserves a perfect "10") that you addressed the continuous vs. discrete nature of reality in just a footnote (#7), but I was likewise guilty of addressing the concept of information in a mere footnote. I enjoyed your clarification of information vs. entropy - the two are similar enough that they often get mixed-up.
One example was how the explaination (from Aristotle to Ptolemy and ultimately to Kepler) of planetary motion on a 2-D background of space implied motion in a 3-D space. I think that clues exist in our apparantly (3+1)-D existance that imply more dimensions.
I also liked your example that "1" - by itself - is meaningless without units, thus emphasizing that the "It" is more fundamental than its "Bit" length of measure. Your example was that you can't eat "1" unless your "units" are something like "apple". Peter Van Gaalen's essay discusses various combinations of "units", and I think that each distinct type of unit may imply a distinct type of dimension.
You also mentioned that we can only observe half (at most) of the variables in a given experiment. My essay emphasizes that this is due to wave-particle duality and reciprocally-scaled dynamic variables (such as position and momentum). I also think that this implies that dimensions (and degrees-of-freedom - i.e. SUSY) need to be doubled.
Regarding Qubits, I recommend Larence Crowell's and Philip Gibbs' essays.
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
re castel wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 04:16 GMT
Dr Barbour,
You say: "What we observe and interpret as the outcome of an individual quantum event does not reside in space and time; it is embedded in a configuration."
If the configuration is in space and time and the 'outcome' is embedded in a configuration, then the 'outcome' should at least be in time if not in space.
The 'outcome' of an 'event' is 'embedded' in a...
view entire post
Dr Barbour,
You say: "What we observe and interpret as the outcome of an individual quantum event does not reside in space and time; it is embedded in a configuration."
If the configuration is in space and time and the 'outcome' is embedded in a configuration, then the 'outcome' should at least be in time if not in space.
The 'outcome' of an 'event' is 'embedded' in a 'configuration'. I supposed this simply means that "the abstract information is embedded in the corporeal formation". Is it?
You said nothing that clearly names and describes the fundamental component of the 'event' or 'configuration'. What is the fundamental component of the 'event' or 'particle' or 'configuration'? If for instance there is the quantum event or the quantum particle or the field configuration, then what is its fundamental component? Or if 'components', then what components? What is being vented, particulated or configured? And what components belong to the 'it' and what components belong to the 'bit'?
-
Regarding the "it from bit" or "bit from it", I think it has always been and ever will be that we have "it and bit" in unison and thus neither one derived from the other!
From my point of view, we have the kinematic configurations (the phenomena) - from the kinematic voids to the kinematic black holes and all the kinematic things in-between (e.g., the quantum particles, the familiar life-forms, etc.). The noumena are 'embedded' in all these phenomena -- all the realized events of the past as resolved in the present and all the possibilities of events of the yet to be resolved future.
In every kinematic configuration is the input-process-output (IPO) capability of intelligence or consciousness; and there are all degrees of intelligence or consciousness according to the IPO capabilities of the kinematic configurations.
The noumena and the phenomena are always realized in unison - concurrently. The current noumenal 'mental' state is always realized in unison or concurrent with the phenomenal 'brain' state.
I think phenomenal events generate phenomenal events; and the noumenals simply occur along with the phenomenals -- the bits along with the it, information along with the formation.
The mental conception of an idea may occur before the 'object' idea's incorporation; the conception precedes the incorporation, which suggests "it from bit" -- essentially the "thing in itself" before the "thing".
But, evidently, the current noumenal conception of the 'object' idea is that which is in the current phenomenal state of the brain -- the current incorporation of the current mental conception but not the remembered or predicted 'object' idea's incorporation itself. There is thus the "thing in itself" (the information) and the "thing" (the formation) in unison.
Therefore, it may be the "it and bit" -- and not the "it from bit" nor the "bit from it"!
Rafael
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Thomas J. McFarlane wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 19:18 GMT
Dear Julian,
You write at the bottom of p.2 of your essay that "my position is that something that one does not directly observe exists if it explains phenomena."
However, there are often multiple distinct explanations for the same phenomenon (i.e., under-determination of theory by the facts). Thus, on this definition, existence is not unique, and the ontological basement of reality is a collection of different realities, each corresponding to a different way of saving the phenomena. Could you comment on this?
Regards,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 01:41 GMT
Dear Julian,
The one problem I might have with what you say is that information in the Shannon sense does not include what appears to be a sematic depth you associate with it. The association of ontology seems to imply something with respect to realism which may not be quite operative. This is in particular since a quantum bit is just a particular way of formulating a quantum state. In effect there is an isomorphism between the quantum state and qubit. We then have nonlocality issues with quantum states, and Bell inequality violations which illustrate there is no underlying realism to quantum mechanics.
I have done work with quantum information with respect to black holes and it is in
Discrete Time and Kleinian Structures in Duality Between Spacetime and Particle Physics. This covers some of the issues which the associated AdS sspacetime. There is a discrete quotient group, which as it turns out subsequent to submitting this has to do with a discrete structure on the Calabi-Yau form. This results in a “stringy derivation” of integer paritions.
The Bit from It or It from Bit I touch on in my essay, but where in effect I leave that up in the air. Quantum mechanics is really in effect devoid of reality outside of its measurement or reduction of states in some classical setting. The classical reality, though it is built up from quantum states, or may interfering quantum paths, or further from lots of quantum bits, is what we can say has “ontology,” or is what we can tangibly identify as real. It also is what we might call “continuous, even if that breaks down when a small enough of a unit is looked at. This appears to connect with the ρ as evaluating the probability for some outcome, which you state in your paper.
I rather suspect the answer to this question is beyond our grasp, at least at this time. The process by which certain quantum states are stable under decoherence or quantum noise, and thus constitute a classical world, is marginally understood. Further, this einselection model requires invoking a prior estimate on such stability, which makes the einselection somehow observer dependent. The role of consciousness is utterly beyond our scope. It might require that to understand this in completion requires we have an understanding of how the universe through IGUS (information gathering and using systems) within the universe are able to completely characterize the universe itself. So the universe as a quantum computer, if we are to use that idea here, in effect generates a Turing machine which is capable of executing everything, including how that universal Turning machine is classical. This seems mathematically impossible.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Phil Warnell wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 13:57 GMT
I much enjoyed reading your essay as to find it to be both a clarification and continuation of J.S. Bell's central complaint regarding the confusion inflicted when 'words' find themselves into theory as to be taken to have meaning exceeding what is reasonable.
"The concepts 'system', ' apparatus ', 'environment', immediately imply an artificial division of the world, and an intention to neglect, or take only schematic account of, the interaction across the split. The notions of 'microscopic' and 'macroscopic' defy precise definition. So also do the notions of 'reversible' and 'irreversible'. Einstein said that it is theory which decides what is 'observable'. I think he was right - 'observation' is a complicated and theory-laden business. Then that notion should not appear in the formulation of fundamental theory. Information? Whose information? Information about what? "
-J.S. Bell, "Against 'Measurement' ", Physics World (August, 1990)
report post as inappropriate
Albert wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 16:17 GMT
Dr. Barbour,
I have read a book of yours in the past about Dynamics and Newton's Laws of Motion and I liked it. However, I do not agree that you proved that things, not information, are primary.
When we observe things, it is not the things themselves we observe but the electromagnetic energy they emit. Therefore, physically, we cannot verify this realism and it remains in the realms of metaphysics.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 21:54 GMT
Albert,
You seem to deny that it is "the things themselves we observe but [only] the electromagnetic energy they emit." Why is the 'electromagnetic energy they emit' to be granted reality?
By your remarks it would seem that absolutely nothing is 'provable', and everything is meta-physical. I don't disagree with that, but it not only applies to Dr Barbour, but to everyone here.
I found your remarks on Dean Rickle's thread much more cogent.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Ignoranitum wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 17:00 GMT
I am confused how this essay is not rated higher than 7.3.
report post as inappropriate
egal replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 19:17 GMT
Perhaps because the author ignores that what he calls 'factual' information is actually 'algorithmic' information? that is information where individual meaning of a message can be somehow defined, in opposition to Shannon's information that is purely probabilistic and suffers of the caveats of probability when it is about single objects rather than distributions.
The author of the paper, who unfortunately seems to have no time to drop a line in this discussion section, overlooks (perhaps because he is not aware of) the current state of information theory.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 23:12 GMT
"I am the recipient of two large FQXi research grants, the current one for ``The nature of time and the structure of space''. "
What does the author of "The End of Time" have to say about the nature of time? A specific question: Why is space real and time is not?
For this contest from Dr. Barbour I am reading about different definitions of information. I wonder though: Intelligence needs information in order to reveal itself, so, what is information from the point of view of intelligence? In other words: What is interpreted by experience before theory begins?
James
report post as inappropriate
Dan J. Bruiger wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 02:23 GMT
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your sensible elucidation of ‘information’—much needed. I fully agree that information must reflect real structure, and that ‘bit’ is a concept derived from experience with real things, not the other way around.
You are quite right that “A dot on a screen is not the unadorned answer to a straight question.” Your example of the information preserved in rocks, about their geological history, is very much to the point. It amazes me that some thinkers see information “encoded” everywhere, without asking, encoded by whom and for what purpose? Yet, as you note, “Wheeler is explicit: bits are detector-elicited answers to yes or no quantum binary choices.” This forcing of answers from nature as a binary decision response seems to be the latest evolution of an idea expounded by Aristotle (and which, ironically, he feared could produce only “monsters of nature”, not true descriptions). It then progressed as Bacon’s procuring nature’s secrets under “torture”. What next, one wonders?
I believe there are cultural reasons for the current information craze. I explore some of these in my own submission (“topic/852”), which I invite you to read. I also suspect that interest in the utility of ‘information’ as an ontological basis for ‘reality’ probably stems in part from its promise as a common bridge between the categories of ‘mind’ and ‘matter’. In that context, its adaptation into physics from cognitive psychology can be no better than the understanding of physicists of the mind-body problem.
Best wishes,
Dan Bruiger
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 02:39 GMT
Information certainly has to do with 'its' but not with 'bits'. Why not, because bits are truncated, frozen, pieces of code. While a code can be considered information, for the sake of argument, it is only an incomplete symbol used to represent information.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 22:43 GMT
Dr. Barbour,
You are welcome to use whatever description your deem to be appropriate to describe the value of what I ask or what I say. Perhaps silly is the correct description; however, I request that you say that is so. Otherwise, I assume that my points are irrefutable.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 19:18 GMT
Dr. Barbour,
With all due respect for your qualifications: I think that your theoretical positions are near, actually beyond for me, to being unrealistic. Good luck to you in this contest and in the future.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 23:38 GMT
Dr. Barbour,
Are you there please? What is interpreted by experience before theory begins?
James
report post as inappropriate
Ray ASCHHEIM wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 01:58 GMT
Dear Julian,
Congratulation for your clear essay on a fundamental Skakespearian question: bit from it or it from bit, (to bit or not to bit). I totally agree with your conclusion than "The set of all onta is the ultimate Shannon source." and argue that the answer is "It from bit from thing".
I would like to reconcile your point of view with Wheeler's and his followers. You write "It is a mistake to believe that the digits 0 and 1, being abstract, represent the immaterial". The main point is there: what does sounds that a bit is immaterial ? Is it totally abstract and not made of any 'thing' where a thing is not necessarily made of matter; or is it just not made of matter.
An immaterial bit can be both, not made of matter for Wheeler and made of thing for you. Here is how:
For me a bit is a topological feature of a very fundamental structure, a trivalent network in graph theory, or a set of cardinal 3 subsets in set theory (both are equivalent); This feature may be that if the node is in a 3-loop it holds value 1 otherwise value 0.
With this definition, I agree with you, bit is made of thing, the thing being one or three nodes, or cardinal 3 subsets; but remains immaterial, not made of any matter, nor having coordinates in any space background; because matter only get sense at a larger scale (a supernode of 48 bits). So, "They do not exist in isolation. A bit is not a single-digit atom of reality as it from bit implies."
But they exists together in a simple network that is a proto-space, encoding space, bosons and fermions.
Time is another story. Configurations (spin networks) are linked by pachner moves, forming spin foam, with a causality but no need of absolute clock. So my conclusion is: "It from bit from thing"; This "thing" is well documented in my essay.
Best regards
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Emmanuel Moulay wrote on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Julian,
Your essay is very interesting. However, I have a remark. You use the Shannon theory of information in your essay. The Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem gives a result on the frequencies showing when it is possible to discretize a continuous signal without losing information. This result is often used in engineering. Considering the Planck time, the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem implies that the frequency of a particle must be limited if we don't want to lose information. For instance, it implies that the energy of a photon must be limited.
Best regards,
Emmanuel
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear Julian
"The catch, all too often forgotten, is that an inertial frame of reference is needed to define the motion."
That sentence alone sums up the problem that remains central today. Do you think physics may recognise it one day?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Israel Perez wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 22:27 GMT
Dear Julian
I have read your essay which is interesting. I am aware that information is important to convey or storage data among physical entities, but, it seems to me that it is not a fundamental concept for physics. I believe that more fundamental concepts like space, time, matter, force, etc. should be properly addressed first. In this sense my
essay is aim at giving ontological arguments of space and time. These can serve to build stronger basis for a new edifice of physics. Perhaps, you may be interested in seeing my work. Amazingly Helmut Hansen treat the same topic as you do. You should read his too.
Kind Regards
Israel
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 03:51 GMT
If Holographic Universe exist, then the time really an illusion.
Julian would be right.
report post as inappropriate
Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 15:58 GMT
Hello, Mr. Barbour:
I still have your winning essay on the nature of time. It's like a fractal to me, I find new structure upon re-reading. new insight and ways of thinking. Anyway, your's and Mr. Rickles and several of the top essays in the contest are what inspired me to join this third one and give it a try.
Mine was one of thelast entries as I frantically proof-read, re-read, and gathered the gumption to actually enter. Then I noticed your entry a couple days before with dread. It's one thing to enjoy you essay as a non-competitor, etc....
Anyway please check out my essay, "A Method to Measure Consciousness, and Demonstrations of Worldy Multiplicity" when you can, and comment if you can. There is no reason here to try to bolster you ego, so I'll just be honest: if you read and/or comment on my own essay, that to me would be a sucess no matter the outcome of this contest. (and encourage me to continue my mid-life foray into natural philophy proper)
Anyway, I'll be back with my comments. But I wanted to past a reply just submitted on another author's thread, as it is germaine to all of the essays, it seems (post follows):
Importantly, though, it would seem there is an over-arching theme (framework) emerging from these essays (among others). That is a debate about hidden dimensions and/or hidden internal structure in the subatomic particles.
The LHC website has a surprising result that is so far unexplained: when protons collide with enough or more force to produce more than 122 particle products or so, the excess partiles travel off in the same direction! Clearly, either a heretofore unknown internal structure is being revealed, and/or those particles are expeiriencing the same force (or the same resultant forces).
FRom your thread, you have touched upon this in your essay, with the help of other's results. In my own essay is an explanation for this. I plan on continuing to develop the implications of my essay whatever the results of this competition, due to the excitement and critical thinking that I've been forced to hone therein. There is another exciting result from my essay, I am learning.
Another article in last months scientific american; where a theoretical physicist bemoans the fact that as a group they are having great trouble picturing what is going on with their various models of reality, due to the great complexity of the equations. Again, the path is laid out in my essay, and the clarification of modern theoretical concepts can be explained " in language a patient bartender can understand".
This is simple, and I can contribute to the advancement of our understanding if given the opportunity.
Pleasure,
TommyG.
report post as inappropriate
re castel wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 16:42 GMT
Dear Dr Barbour and all you folks,
I just read Paul N Butler's essay at
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/849. This may be good reading for you, too.
Rafael
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 22:20 GMT
Absolutely castel. good essay so far. it is fantastic actually. up to page six...
Nevertheless before continuing with the essay, I must ask no-one in particular: isn't ad hoc introducing a new dimension just adding a degree of freedome? So really you could prove anything with that device. However, to in addition add on a second assumption (degree of freedom) doubly a device to explain a theory? To whit, that the new dimensions are so small as to be not observed just a facile attempt to further remove the consequences of a possible false proposition from its conclusions?
{This is so fun.}
Then again, the LHC experiment recently confirmed for quark-gluon plasmas that the assumption of perfect fluids in theoretical models is correct! Just like the thing you describe, with the "wind" analogy,, mr. jurgenson. Fascinating. In the Mr. Spock sense; not the objective one.
I will continue that essay, and comment tomorrow in this, this thread very few (if any) will actually ever see, much less read lol.
TO BE IMMEDIATELY TRUNCATED
report post as inappropriate
re castel replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 01:14 GMT
-
Yes. Page six and seven dampens the essay quite a bit. But I still think that overall his essay is good reading. His essay struck a chord - you would understand if you've read my essay.
Rafael
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 22:22 GMT
TommyG., anonymously stumbling his way through esoterica and the essential both.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 09:45 GMT
beautiful essay full of spirituality, congratulations, I understand better why you won in the past, good luck.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 00:15 GMT
Dear Julian
I would like reminding you about your answer by mail Mon 6/7/2004 2:57 AM
to my question.
"I do not know the answer to your questions. However, I do believe continuous symmetries are fundamental except perhaps the Lorentz boosts.
Best wishes, Julian Barbour."
Now i have my own answer
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946
report post as inappropriate
Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 17:56 GMT
Atta boy, Yuri, don't let the Gentlemen sit on his laurels like that! I'll check out your essay right now!
report post as inappropriate
Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 16:09 GMT
Thanx for your outstanding essay Mr. Barbour. I mustneeds read it three more times to fully enjoy. but alas time is short. minimal. limited. must vote soon....
please see my comment in Mr. rickles thread for my final word on the subject matter. I mean my final equation in this one contest lol
double dog dare you
report post as inappropriate
Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 10:36 GMT
Dr. Barbour:
Please disregard all of my previous threads. I had a plan to raise interest in at least getting my essay read, but if you get a chance to check out my own essay thread, you'll see why that is no longer the case.
I have a day-job (night-shift) and basic Aristotellian Rhetoric is being used as a weapon in my threads to paint me the ignorant villian. Dont' have the energy to provide a long explanation as to what these false arguments are to all, or what Rhetoric is , and even Aristotle himself despised the techniques he invented. But every courtrm practices Rhetoric every day.
So now my thread has untrue charactarizations from other groups that make my essay look incorrect and riddled with mistakes!
While I don't give up now, I may surrender later (future contests): these threads are rip-roaring fun from the other side of the aisle. But when it's a contest, the red herringss let fly and stick to my threads. This will probably be enough to convince every-man to check out another essay as there are so many.
It's no long er quite so much fun.
report post as inappropriate
Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 15:37 GMT
OK OK your Silence is deafening me!!!!
I hear you and I've listened. I shall now respond on my thread in the spririt of Dr. Newton's Prinicpia, if nothing else...
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 05:07 GMT
that nature is fundamentally digital and continuity an illusion.
Julian,
Your points were well-defended, but my prejudice, perhaps argued with less precision, is that reality is analogue, not too popular for physicists.
Does your statement above imply that nature is reality? I know we can easily get into semantics.
Best regards,
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Michael Jeub wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 02:35 GMT
Julian,
I read your other essay about the nature of time. So long as you don't measure anything you get this holistic that you are believing in as ultimate. If you measure anything at all you are left with N log N as general ontology of your measurment. I think that there is too much dependencies, duals, symmetries to make the ideas of yours as NP complete; the structure of the three part event could be contained in just one N but measured would reveal N log N of the event? I don't see where this weakens discretization of the reality when you are forced to give the reality of things themselves a triad ontology. Mathematically, i think that you could some charcter for this maximal variety, maybe a zero or a one.....
report post as inappropriate
Janko Kokosar wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 12:59 GMT
Dear Julian Barbour
Your essay is the first, which I found, where reference to Zeilinger theory of information exists. I think that this is almost necessary for such a topic.
You write that information needs things. I thing similarly. So in the essay from 2009
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/571 I write that this thing, which is needed from information is consciousness.
You write that Bohm-Aharonov experiment needs a lot of bits to determine location of the screen. (It is similarly for double slit experiment etc.) I think that our physical theories and experiments are not enough to be described with only a few bits. But maybe my theory of quantum gravity is enough primitive to give such a possibility.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0025v1.pdf I will think.
I was late for this contest so I published my essay on viXra.
Good essay are such which gave new ideas. I hope that your essay will give me new ideas.
Regards Janko Kokosar
p.s.
I need an endorser on arXiv for publication of my article:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1012.0006v3.pdf It is not speculative. It is a base for the above article. But the above article is speculative. But I need such a publication that my theories will be read and discussed.
report post as inappropriate
Russell Jurgensen wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 20:34 GMT
Dear Julian,
I wanted to be sure to say hello and let you know I enjoyed your essay and gave it a high rating. In reading it a second time after reading many of the other essays I appreciate it even more. My few disagreements were minor in comparison to my appreciation for the philosophy you present in how we look at scientific observations. It was very educational to have help in understanding the different concepts of information.
Back to the philosophy of how we look at things, it seems like our philosophical approach is highly important. For example, Roger Penrose in The Road To Reality suggested that perhaps we need to view modern observations from a different angle so that a fundamentally new perspective may be obtained (P. 1024). I see your discussion being similar with your example of how we view data such as Wheeler's magnetic field measurements with several perspectives.
Following along those lines, it seems there could be perspectives or philosophies in science that are so well established that they discourage inquiry from other useful perspectives. As we see in this essay contest, physics is analyzing the philosophy that drives current thinking and is opening the door a crack to consider other views. The views that are actually considered will provide a logical (probably mathematical with accurate units) view that shows more about "it" and explains the "bit" that once was thought to be the explanation in itself.
By the way, I have enjoyed the debate between your essay and posted comments. Information could actually be considered a smallest reality device. The problem with any smallest reality device is how to define what produces it. Of course we are all realizing there may be some limit of what can be known in physics and we are trying to define it.
Thanks for a thoughtful, educational, and enjoyable essay!
Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen
report post as inappropriate
Tommy Gilbertson replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 13:13 GMT
Shoot, that is exactly what I wanted to say...
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 14:49 GMT
Dear Julian,
Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top ten placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the top front runners btw:
Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?
Best wishes,
Alan
report post as inappropriate
basudeba wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 00:31 GMT
Dear Sir,
Congratulations for your excellent analysis of information theory in relation to describing reality. We will like to further add something to your analysis.
You quote the views of two scientists that information is “physical” and “real” and “occupies the ontological basement”. Both argue that information is more basic than quantum fields or energy. They...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
Congratulations for your excellent analysis of information theory in relation to describing reality. We will like to further add something to your analysis.
You quote the views of two scientists that information is “physical” and “real” and “occupies the ontological basement”. Both argue that information is more basic than quantum fields or energy. They conclude, information, and with it reality, is digital and rests ultimately on the answers to yes/no questions. They claim continuity is an illusion. Differentiating between three types of information, you conclude that: “ontological primacy should not be given to information but to ‘things’, as has always been the standpoint of realists.”
Information is nothing but results of measurement, which is comparison between similars. Without the “things”, there can be no measurement. Hence you are right. But then without the perception (information) about “things”, they are meaningless, because reality must be perceived as such and the validity of a physical theory is judged by its correspondence to reality. To this extent, the other view cannot be ignored fully. Hence the truth lies in an all embracing theory.
The same applies to your interpretation of “bits” and “its”. If we look at the mechanism of perception, we find that each of our sense organs perceive different kind of impulses based on the nature of fundamental forces of Nature. Eyes see by comparing the electromagnetic field set up by the object with that of the electrons in our cornea, which is the unit. Thus, we cannot see in total darkness because there is nothing comparable to this unit. Tongue perceives when the object dissolves in the mouth, which is a macro characteristic of the weak nuclear interaction. Nose perceives when the finer parts of an object is brought in close contact with the nose to interact with the small buds, which is a macro characteristic of the strong nuclear interaction. Skin perceives when there is motion that is a macro characteristic of the gravitational interaction. By themselves the perception has no meaning. They become “information” and acquire meaning only when they are amalgamated in our memory: for example the statement, “the apple that I saw is sweet to taste, smooth to touch and gives a fragrant smell.” Here the individual perceptions are ‘bits’ and the totality is ‘its’. Thus, ‘It’ is the totality of ‘bits’. You also admit it when you say: “The way that they are knit together, as in the taste, shape and color of an apple, defines the structure of the thing.” We will discuss Wheeler’s views separately.
You say: “The definition of a thing then amounts to a description of the universe from a particular point of view.” This is both right and wrong. From the point of view of individual perception, it is right. From the point of view of imperfect (mechanically defective) perception, it is also right. But from the point of view of ‘universal perfect perception’, it is not correct. By ‘universal perfect perception’, we mean the result of valid measurement that remains invariant under similar conditions irrespective of statistical data, i.e., the number of times the measurement is conducted.
You have correctly pointed out that: “A symbol can stand for anything, but it must stand for something.” This is because number is a perceived property of substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no others characteristics of an object with a similar perception, it is one. If there is a sequence of perception of similars, each of them is given a name, which is called the number sequence. Infinity is like one: without a similar. But whereas in the case of one the dimensions are fully perceived, in the case of infinity the dimensions can not be fully perceived. It is different from a very big number. Zero signifies the absence of something at here-now which was perceived earlier. Negative numbers are related to ‘ownership’ of the object – it shows the relationship of the object with someone. Mathematics is all about accumulation and reduction of numbers. Linear accumulation is addition and subtraction. Non-linear accumulation is multiplication and division. Complex numbers are ‘unphysical’ – hence they could not be used in programming. Thus, they could not be used for perception. Since numbers are associated with objects, they are not abstract entities, but “must stand for something.”
Your statement that “assuming the existence of things that we cannot see to explain things that we can is a good strategy,” is self contradictory. If you “cannot see” something, how can you “assume” it? The content of all assumptions is the form: “this (something) can be like that (your description).” Here you can describe “that” only if you have perceived it earlier. Your perception might relate to different segments and your final description may relate to the assembly of such individual segments. If the assembly of such individual segments is permissible depending upon the fundamental laws of Nature, then your assumption will be proved correct. Otherwise it will be wrong. For example, Helium atom contains equal numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons. But as we higher in order, this relationship becomes unstable because of the fundamental laws of Nature. If you assume such a law based on your perception of helium, it will be wrong. As we have repeatedly described, the atoms can be stable only when they are slightly negatively charged which makes the force directed towards the nucleus dominate the opposite force, but is not apparent from outside. Hence we do not experience it. We have theoretically derived the value of the electric charge of protons, neutrons and electrons as +10/11, -1/11 and -1. The negative sign indicates that the net force is directed towards the nucleus.
In your example of Kepler, the three dimensions were already perceived. What he found out did not appear to violate the fundamental law because a circle with a moving center appears as an ellipse. Though contrary to Kepler’s description, the planets orbit around the Sun in circles, because the Sun is moving, the orbits look elliptical, though in reality the ellipse never closes on itself. If we chart the planetary movements against the back drop of stars and galaxies, it will be evident.
Shannon’s views are nothing but the mechanism of perception of numbers described above and their conformity to the fundamental laws of Nature. Since the higher or lower numbers are perceived in a sequence of one at a time, it can be accumulated or reduced by one at each step making it equivalent to binary numbers. The Morse code is based on the principle of conformity to the certain laws. The rest of Shannon’s views are based on the detailed working out of the above principle. You also admit this when you say: “the probabilities on which Shannon based his theory (and are relevant for this essay) were all based on objective counting of relative frequencies of definite outcomes.” The rest are only details that conforms this concept. It only it only lays down rules for ‘bits’ to conform to ‘its’. This is the “grammar or programming” of language. The qubits are only a part of this description. You also admit that they can be realized in many different ways that “require great experimental sophistication and rely on the low entropy of the universe”
Your description of “factual information” is nothing but ‘bits’ that is tested for the conformation of its harmony with ‘its’, so that it follows some prescribed pattern. You also admit it when you say: “If we receive a picture, we normally understand by information the distribution of colors and shapes we see when looking at it.” The “distribution of colors and shapes” are based on earlier perception. This is like “dictionary or compilation of data base” of language.
The configuration that “carries intrinsic semantic information in the sense that different intelligent beings can in principle deduce the law or process that explains the observed structure” means “popular usage or special exclusive programs that may or may not follow general logic” – i.e., it may or may not be in conformity with the general principles. For example, “Wallis and Darwin’s law” is still a postulate and has not been proved. They derived the information based on some observation of the same evidence in fossils and living animals that many others had seen. Their views are widely accepted though it is not scientific. Evolution is related to mobility while natural selection is related to survival. Mobility is carried out through external projections of support (feet?). Thus, the virus and the bacteria with their innumerable “feet” were the first to evolve. They were followed by worms of reducing numbers of “feet”. Finally the animals with four “feet” were evolved before humans with two “feet” evolved. In this sequence monkeys evolved before the humans, because though they are basically four legged animals, they can walk short distances with two legs. This does not men that monkeys are forefathers of human beings. Among the other animals, those born out of eggs are deficient in one sensory organ. Other four legged animals have all the sense organs, but while some are more developed, others are less developed. Only in the case of humans, these are balanced. Human beings are the only living beings that can unite and copulate facing each other in their normal position.
Your classification of information is incomplete. There are two more types of information. During programming, the computer is also programmed to use the same logic in all “similar cases”. While in the case of “factual information” or “compilation of data base” of language the program searches for the compatibility of the next character to proceed further, in the case of “similar cases” the program searches for the sub-group as a whole and reacts to the sub-group to proceed further.
The last category belongs to some “axiomatic postulates that are accepted as evidently proven”. This is essential for the programming to begin with. For example, unless we accept the numbers and the binary system as self-evident truths, we cannot start writing a program. Of these, the third; the principle to deduce “the law or process that explains the observed structure” that is “popular usage or special exclusive programs that may or may not follow general logic” is the most important because it follows a law of its own.
It is true that “information theory can in no way change what has always been the starting point of science: that structured things exist, in the first place in our mind and, as a reasonable conjecture given the remarkable correlations in our mental experiences, in an external world” and “the proper task of ontology is to establish the structure of things.”
Your views on “Wheeler’s Aharonov–Bohm experiment” are fairly accurate. We will like to add the following. While conducting experiments, most people exclude the properties of the measuring instrument that affect the outcome. Electron beams are associated with heat that flows towards positively charged particles (closing in). Magnetic flux is associated with closing on itself fields that are not “hot”. This property of “closing in” is common to both. Hence they co-exist (In our second comment under the Essay of Mr. Ian Durham we have given a different interpretation to charge interactions that is different from Coulomb’s law. We have explained spin differently under the Essay of Mr. Gene T. Yerger).
Since the electric fields and magnetic fields move at right angles to each other and to the direction of motion, it is obvious that when a magnetic flux is present in the coil, the electron beam would be deflected. The degree of deflection also follows a predictable pattern (not uncertain pattern) depending upon the strength of the magnetic field in the coil. The detector-elicited information is only the result of measurement that shows the strength of the existing magnetic field in the coil. It is not correct to claims that it “derives its very existence entirely from discrete detector-elicited and information-theoretic answers to yes or no quantum binary choices: bits”. But the existing magnetic flux (it) in the coil is a part of the total magnetic field (bits).
While explaining the implications of acceleration much beyond the general impression in one of the threads under the Essay of Mr. Biermans, we had discussed about Newton’s laws of inertia to show that there is nothing called inertia of rest and there is something called Inertia of Restoration, which is known as elasticity. We generally agree with description that the Universe is “a set of possible configurations that nature has selected” except that in our model we describe the complete theory that describes how the Universe evolved from singularity, how the forces evolved, how time and space evolved and how the structure formation evolved. We will discuss it separately. We will also show that the same laws govern both micro and the macro worlds. The quantum world is not fuzzy as it is made out to be. We have discussed entanglement, double slit experiment and decoherence under various Essays. We have defined space, time, infinity, and reality, etc., precisely in our Essay. You may refer to those.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry wrote on Jun. 6, 2011 @ 10:46 GMT
Dear Julian,
Congratulations on your prize. It is no surprise to me as I thought your essay would do well. It is very well written. It is a pity you have not participated at all on this thread. Still, I know now that it is a waste of my time writing as you do not reply. So to spare -my- time I'll just say, Very well done - again!
report post as inappropriate
Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Jun. 12, 2011 @ 17:11 GMT
Congratulations, Mr. Barbour:
Good job placing 4TH with your essay. I'm abashed to say, I havent' read it yet. In my own defense I work a non-Theoreticl Physics day job, so only get a couple hours a day to dedicate to this first Passion (Philosophy and Physics). Yet due to the three factors of your Time essay being so excellent, getting 4th place, and your very large recent grant to basically 'keep thinking', there is little doubt this current essay will be better than ok!
My own meagre Essay languishes in the middle of the bunch. Of which I am thrilled and humbled in such company. It continues in it's conclusions and results and applications (whether actual or not is of no moment, as to the veracity of my definition of Consciousness therein) on my website and threads here. These are all off-shoots of my travails in getting the gumption to write an entry and dealing with my daily environment of a dearth of fellow Thinkers in Physics and Philosophy.
What I love most a bout rubbing shoulder s in here is that I am the tiny intellect among experience Giants. When I'm in my normal work-enviroment, this situation is reversed, and it is almost impossible to convince anybody otherwise. Mr. know-it-all doesn't, whether you believe him or not.
QuantumWidgets.com
report post as inappropriate
Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Jun. 16, 2011 @ 22:28 GMT
Well, I guess if I had a ginormous Grant to Think about Thinking, I wouldn't diegn to match wits with the common Rabble either, sad to admit. Probably wouldn't engage in these thread if I had a chance of winning that way too. Bad news is, I wouldn't neglect to recall that there is a third point here, which is that I might have been a world-famous Author and Philosopher and have a quite cornacopious and interesting and ongoing--obviously, you are reading this Kind Sir--Thread-ology.
So if you will permit--and by your absence of Reply--we in the -ology can all assume you permit... Let me take this opportunity to offer up a fantastic sea-change in the world Monetary System. My newly created store, Quantum Auto Parts is now offering at huge discouts globally, oil of any kind. Most have free shipping. The most important product is sythetic oil, of course, for Energy Security... Soon, my probability AIs informed me before i deleted them, we will all have a web-presence. Soon (defined as 1-3 years) we will use those individual sites to pay very little. For everything. Soon (right now, partially) my own site will be offering absolutely any [useful] item for the lowest prices globally. Soon (defined as 6-9 months) everyone on Terra will have an identical, biodegradable disposable device which my AI's termed an AntiKythera. Anyway blah blah they were deleted. Last thing i saw on the screen was something about the determining factor in this new Star Trekkian future, where money don't matter is what you do with your identical handheld de\vice that's special, since they're all the same.
So apologies for the length. By your continued and now weighted silence in light of your Triumph you permit. Adieu!
QuantumWidgets.com
report post as inappropriate
Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Jul. 8, 2011 @ 05:11 GMT
Wow: still here sitting back and trying to absorb this Threadology. It meanders quite interestingly from shrill ejaculations to insightful input. Like it was written by a genius with a mental illness, but with a heart of Gold...
Anyway, hello fqxi hello Scientific American. I'm looking for a job now. Maybe web Development? Or a little writing? Consulting? Don't make me look for another technician job (I've had 2 now since 2002), and waste away some more of my relative youth for the love of money. My advisor could have grabbed me by the collar and shook me when I graduated in 2002 and said, " the only way to make money with a physics degree is to stay in academics, get an even higher degree, and stay in that world. or you'll be doomed to practice some subset of Physics by being a technician forever..." So all you undergraduates out there, take heed to this wisdom, which wasn't shared vehemently enough with me.
As a demonstration of my web-erly Kung Fu, search my full name in a google search. Third relevant hit is this thread, right here. It ain't another coincidence, you know. (Won't last, now it's said out loud!)
And as an individual, with no relation to my job experience, in addition to my normal duties in a new position, I offer for purchase any kind of battery whatsoever, any kind of auto part, any kind of translator, backpack, software, tools, oils, rfid-blocking apparel; all at the lowest prices on Earth and free shipping. Even cheaper than from the sites themselves!
All of these extra skills were acquired and developed in response to, and in retaliation for, the horribly abysmal performance of my essay in this contest. And all are consequences of said horrible essay. There I feel better now it's said. So keep up the non-recognition, and I'll keep on developing consequences. Wish someone would stop me: it's inevitable, if current trending continues, that the site will eventually offer absolutely everthing useful at absolutely the lowest prices. Quick, hire me before I collapse the world monetary system. It' sgoing to happen relatively soon, I'll wager, anyway. But why let me accellerate this process for all the wrong reasons?
Quantum Auto PartsTravellor's Companion
report post as inappropriate
Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 08:53 GMT
Dank u vriendelijk, Wilhelmus. How' s Nederland? Ik zou zo willen bezoeken als u kon helpen? Uw commentaren waren divers en enigszins beknopt bij verscheidene punt. U bent duidelijk hartstochtelijk over u verhandeling. Dank die voor hij inspanning mijn poging eigenlijk om te lezen nemen. Het zou het begin van vrij verreikend iets kunnen zijn. En zal zo van u. Ik verheug me op het lezen van het. En ernstig, ive nooit aan scandanavia? kreeg een kleine ruimte voor een couupleweken. lol? voorzien van een netwerk here.give me tijd en voor u verteren om met contact te onderbreken. NetherLand@QuantumWidgets.com zullen aan me voor bepaald… krijgen thanx opnieuw
report post as inappropriate
Sridattadev wrote on Aug. 2, 2011 @ 13:37 GMT
Dear Julian,
I would like to introduce myself in quantum terminology and share the truth that I have experienced with you.
who am I? I superpositioned myself to be me, to disentangle reality from virtuality and reveal the
absolute truth.
Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 7, 2011 @ 16:39 GMT
Julian Barbour wrote: "However, the notions of particle and field remain crucial to our interpretation of quantum phenomena."
Einstein had to apply one of the two notions in 1905, picked up the wrong one and made the following confession in 1954:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d0
0-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Einstein's 1954 confession: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."
Clues to Einstein's 1954 confession:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.
pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 21:21 GMT
Dear Julian ,
so sorry I will not be able to attend the symposium on time and have the opportunity to hear you talk, and possibly even meet you in person. It is not that I would not like to attend but I am on the southern hemisphere at present and do not have the funds or the opportunity to fly over for it. I expect it will be a very interesting day indeed. Enjoy it.
Regards Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
Would-Be Author replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 23:15 GMT
Yeah, fqxi, how 'bout some free tix to fly there (and a room)? It would encourage us 'would be' authors to contribute more to see that if you don't win this contest, at least there's more to the aftermath than getting trounced in these threads! Signed--one of the most trounced!
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.