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

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

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/discuss

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 Fnd.
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

Wilhelmus Wilde: on 10/16/13 at 15:28pm UTC, wrote sorry here is the link

Wilhelmus Wilde: on 10/16/13 at 15:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Edwin, I read with great interest your latest essay, and this I can...

Edwin Klingman: on 8/21/13 at 22:50pm UTC, wrote Recent comments on Daryl Janzen's thread caught my attention. In...

Edwin Klingman: on 8/14/13 at 18:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Bill, Thanks for your response and your kind words. I knew that we...

William McHarris: on 8/13/13 at 18:15pm UTC, wrote Dear Ed, Thank you very much for your kind remarks concerning my essay and...

Héctor Gianni: on 8/10/13 at 21:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman: I am an...

Edwin Klingman: on 8/9/13 at 4:17am UTC, wrote Dear Jonathan, Thanks. I'm also happy to see that you made it. In fact,...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/9/13 at 0:00am UTC, wrote Wonderful to see you finish in the top 10! Good luck in the finals, Ed. ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

thuy lien: "Good article, thanks for sharing. hell let loose metal gear survive far..." in Blurring Causal Lines

Boyd Bunton: "Nice share! I am no able ti skip this moment without appreciating you...." in Podcast Up: Interacting...

Greg Fantle: "Brush your hair! You look like a homeless person." in The Complexity Conundrum

kurt stocklmeir: "shape of time and space around mass vibrates - some times the shape of time..." in Alternative Models of...

Gary Simpson: "Still waiting for essays to be posted. There are only 5 weeks or so left..." in What Is...

Boyd Bunton: "Its absolutely very helpful put up about the subject. All readers can be..." in Podcast Up: Interacting...

Georgina Woodward: "John, I reported your post as inappropriate as it is mostly irrelevant to..." in What Is...

Scott Gordon: "This article states,"Carroll believes the misfit between the two theories..." in In Search of a Quantum...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.


FQXi FORUM
December 15, 2017

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Gravity and the Nature of Information by Edwin Eugene Klingman [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 15:29 GMT
Essay Abstract

The question 'It from Bit' or vice versa is the question of what is real. The answer is a matter of belief, so I analyze why physicists believe theories, including QED and QCD and follow with the simplest possible theory of the real world. I focus on the fact that gravity is real, and discuss a new approach to non-linearity. Because Wheeler’s 'It from Bit' is tied to his 'Participatory Universe' I explore that topic and a theory of information based on gravity.

Author Bio

Edwin Eugene Klingman was a NASA Research Physicist (atomic & molecular). His 1979 PhD dissertation, (now published as "The Automatic Theory of Physics"), describes how numbers and math derive from physical reality and how a robot would derive a theory of physics based on pattern recognition and entropy. Founder of three Silicon Valley companies, he holds 33 technology patents and has published two university texts, "Microprocessor Systems Design" Vol I and II. He has recently non-linearized the weak field equations of relativity, and is now applying the technique to problems mentioned in this essay.

Download Essay PDF File




basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 01:16 GMT
Dear Sir.

The master presenter has done it again! Presented a highly readable multidisciplinary essay with the right conclusions.

Mathematics explains only “how much” one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not “what”, “why”, “when”, “where”, or “with whom” about the objects involved in such...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

Thank you for beginning my comments with such a gracious remark. Before responding I wanted to review your current essay and was rewarded with a high density of insights. You have captured the essence of perception when you say that

"Perception is the processing of [...] something with some stored data to convey a combined form 'it is like that'..."

and

"In the perception "this (object) is like that (the concept)", one can describe "that" only if one has perceived it earlier."

That is, it was not meaningful the first time!

You say, "our thoughts consist of words with etymological or fixed meanings [...] which are preserved in Nature [and hence across cultures and languages!]"

You have clearly spent much time analyzing perception.

And your summary of Shannon is masterful.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 00:51 GMT
Thanks Guru!

Regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate


Helmut Hansen wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 08:17 GMT
Dear Eugene,

thank you very much for your very inspiring essay.

I was surprised to find even esoteric aspects in your profound approach, f.e. the Not-Two aspect of reality, which is indeed terribly difficult for our brains to deal with.

I am convinced that our Universe bases fundamentally upon such a Not-Two conception (which I am calling the "Principle of Radical...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 18:23 GMT
Dear Helmut,

Thank you for your kind remarks. You and I are in complete agreement on the fundamental 'not-two'-ness of reality.

I have read and enjoyed your essay and am grateful for your reference to de Broglie's "Thermodynamics of the Isolated Particle". I thought that I had read most of de Broglie (one of the greatest physicists) but I was unaware of this paper. I have just downloaded it but (at 104 pages) have not read it yet. When I do I may have more questions or comments.

Your essay asks "Is the Planck constant itself the natural digit?" It is, in my theory, the quantum condition that enables a continuum to possess a threshold, thereby defining "two-ness" -- above or below the threshold of action. This is the essence of 'bit'.

We agree in principle on the particle wave nature of reality, but perhaps differ in details. For example the electron effectively "condenses" from a C-field vortex and exists as a stable soliton-like particle which is inherently accompanied by C-field circulation (the 'wave'). Thus both the particle and the wave are 'forms' of the gravitational field that exist simultaneously and inseparably. In this sense,

"Wave and particle are two distinguishable aspects of one and the same reality..."

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 08:43 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I enjoyed very much reading your essay, and I like your criticism on how physics is done, unfortunately too often today, much like in the theory of epicycles. I tend to see all these as explorations of alternative possibilities, so that natural selection can eventually apply to the various approaches. Thanks for citing my essay. It is good to see that you touched very well the theme, and I wish you good luck with the contest and with your GEM!

Best wishes,

Cristi

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 18:32 GMT
Dear Cristi,

I'm glad you enjoyed my essay. I agree with you that natural selection is the ideal way for physics to involve. As I noted in my essay this requires that all premises be subject to question. Jaynes pointed out the necessity of this.

Thanks for your good wishes and good luck to you also.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 18:44 GMT
Edwin,

What can I say. I started with a page to note the bits I agreed and any compliments and another for the bits I didn't fully agree with or grasp.

I now have a short essay and a blank sheet of paper.

Absolutely brilliant job. It deserves to be number one, and may even, god forbid, be noticed by the judges. OK, we mustn't get carried away, perhaps just a couple of Nobel prizes!

As there's no room for me to identify all the analogies and commonality with my own essay I'll leave it to you to do that 'Easter Egg hunt'. But I can't compare mine to yours. ill I've done is drawn a line between reality and maths, and resolved the EPR paradox. A drop in the ocean relative(istical)ly.

Just one point I'd offer, on; " ...the self-interaction grows until a threshold is reached, whereupon the field grows in strength almost without limit!"

In reality we have the Unruh effect, now not found as just due to acceleration but essentialy photoionization or condensation increasing with velocity, and I've also now derived the clear real physical mechanism of the curve and LT limit gamma. Perhaps we'' chat privately on that one.

Very best of luck. I think you've excelled this year.

Do let me know if you could follow all mine ok, I fear I made it far too dense yet again!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 19:21 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for your wonderful comment. As Philip Gibbs pointed out elsewhere, the goal is not so much to 'win' as to record the ideas, so that, when the establishment discovers them one can point to the record. But I really do appreciate your sentiments.

As for the "grows in strength almost without limit" aspect, the limit of course is determined by the driving force, which is always finite, but not by any 'mechanism' or inherent limit. If you have ideas about the Unruh effect (and I know you do) feel free to communicate them to me by email. I am not sure I understand the point above, but look forward to your elaboration.

I have read your essay, and it is definitely dense! I plan to return to it and others for review now that mine is posted.

Thanks again, Peter, and best wishes for you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 02:13 GMT
Dear Edwin

I enjoyed your guided tour into realms of ideas that are brilliant, inspiring and always thought-provoking. I could not follow everything, and did not agree with everything that I did understand. You have the right combination of technical grasp and mental stamina, and have scribbled a treasure map with the few equations you distilled from the infinite tangle of those available....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 03:32 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Knew you'd like the elephant!

The vector v is the velocity of the local mass (actually mass density, rho) so that the combination (rho)(v) is momentum density. The existence of momentum density then (according to Maxwell's, Einstein's, and my own equations) gives rise to a circulating gravitomagnetic field exactly analogous to the manner in which a charge current...

view entire post




Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 01:43 GMT
Thank you Edwin for your careful and satisfactory responses to my questions.

What you say that " Rather than derive gravity from some imaginary field, I simply accept it as real and try to derive everything else from that reality, starting only with the idea that it must evolve" makes sense - In a self-acting system there is no 'primal motive force' as it would be in a car engine. There the pistons turn the gears that turn the wheel - it is wrong to start with the wheel. But in the type of system you describe it is reversible at least in the local micro volumes. Hope that is right.

I noticed the chirality of the arrow because in my own paper I did all the illustrations using a special font I created for the top-like rotating nodes. And it all followed the left hand rule. I revised the font and illustrations when I discovered that!

Oops I will now have to revise the web page describing the font as well because the nodes there still rotated left-handedly!

Cheers

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 03:05 GMT
Dear Sir,

You have proposed a different field, never seen, as the consciousness field and the field is aware of both position and motion aspects of reality - Space and Time! Did you realize that by this you have not only made a universally true statement that can explain the creation event?

If you bring down position and motion to fundamental levels (Space and Time are later...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 04:41 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

In answer to your first paragraph, despite the broad nature of the claims made in my essay, I have not exhausted the implications of the theory. Both the 9-page limit and psychological realities operate to limit my claims, but I am generally aware of the implications of the theory.

As for your finding harmony with your theory, I am pleased. As one works with a theory over time, one develops intuitions, terminologies, and concepts that support the theory. In communication with others it is often necessary to spend time in translation. Of course it is best when the solutions to the equations also support the theory! As I have only recently developed the current technique, I have a number of calculations to perform before I can demonstrate some of the implications.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jacek Safuta wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 11:06 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Nice to read and comment your next essay.

You are right saying: “Not all theories make predictions, yet some physicists seem to believe in these because of the ‘beauty’ of the math. But what about theories that do make predictions testable by experiment? What does ‘testable by experiment’ mean? Generally it means a theory can fit the data.”

You claim...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 20:18 GMT
Jacek,

Thanks for reading and commenting. In your abstract you note that "answers can differ from one scientist to another". In my abstract I say that "what is real... is a matter of belief." You ask what could possibly give us a guarantee that the ideas a theory is based on bear the slightest relation to reality? I don't believe that anything can do so, although I do believe we can do...

view entire post




Jacek Safuta replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 10:33 GMT
Hi Eugene, It is my pleasure to explain…

If we assumed that no measures give us a guarantee that the ideas a theory is based on bear the slightest relation to reality (experiments and observations) then what would be the sense of our work? Obviously I do not expect 100% relation and forever but an approximation possible to get at the moment. In the abstract I have meant a common language issue.

Yes, I do not understand the illusion not as fully distorting reality but rather as the issue of human being’s perception (incl. our brain construction that has evolved for DNA successful replication and not for discovering the reality). The explicit example is gravity being not a force but a manifestation (representation if you like) of spacetime geometry. Exactly in my view it is an *idea* of reality, not direct reality. As you see we do share similar understanding of reality and we only use different language (that is what I have noticed in the abstract).

I will try to clarify my experiment idea. If we assume (like in my thought experiment) that the photon comes back to us along a geodesic coming around the “particle” observed and not it is reflected (as assumed in QED) than it cannot change the spin.

The reality as "created" out of Platonic math world is I guess what Wheeler meant in his “It from Bit”. And here we come back to the illusion / perception / definitions issue. It is not easy to shortly explain how to find the relation between the spacetime and Bit but Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga in his great essay “directly identifies the spacetime as carrier of the Bit”. His essay is very technical so maybe it would give you better view at my concept from a different angle. It does not mean that I fully support Torsten ideas but our concepts in general are very close.

Thank you for commenting.It is nice to observe a unification of ideas and I hope in the outcome we will get a unification of forces.

Best regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 21:43 GMT
Jacek,

Thanks for the explanations. We do agree that we do not expect a 100% (and forever) relation of theory to reality, so "certainty" is impossible. But as I explained above, we can hope for and work toward an anomaly-free theory which would give us greater faith in the "probability" of correct understanding.

I understood your use of "illusion" to mean "idea" and we do agree on this point.

I now understand the idea behind your experiment. Thanks!

I do believe I understand space-time as "the carrier of the Bit", but I view it as the carrier of (packets of) energy and, as I noted in my essay, it is not a 'bit' of information until it triggers some threshold that essentially 'records' the information in some structure. The structure may be as simple as a hydrogen atom or as complex as DNA or neural network. There are no "bits" traveling through space-time, there is only energy registering at the end of the travel. As far as I can see the net results are the same, but the lack of independent existence of the 'bit' means it could never "give rise to" physical reality, as Wheeler suggested. It has meaning only in the context of a pre-existing physical reality. On the other hand, the information *does* give rise to our mental images or ideas of physical reality, which your diagram seems to allude to.

You and I are largely in agreement on these issues except for the Platonic math and the reality of the 'bit' before it registers. As I note above, we agree that "space-time is not the background, but the material of matter and energy itself..." and are close to agreement on "the self-organized space-time in the form of [waves] being physical world and perceptual experience (mental world) at the same time".

In agreement on these issues we are close to a unification of ideas. Thanks for sharing your ideas.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 21:34 GMT
Edwin,

Quite a mindfull. Much of it above my paygrade though.

If I may make a few observations about the section on consciousness;

"Awareness is located in the field, but concentrated where the action is.'

The example I tend to think of is of a magnifying glass, focusing light to a point. When we draw it out, the light is diffuse and fills the whole circle, while...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 22:16 GMT
Hi John,

Thanks for reading and commenting. I'm always interested in your ideas, as you tend to take a more catholic approach, and don't sweat the details. But, of course, the devil is in the details!

I'm very happy that FQXi has finally created an essay contest where the topic of 'consciousness' must be treated, since knowledge, information, interpretation, meaning, and similar...

view entire post




John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 00:32 GMT
Edwin,

The distinction is between awareness and self-awareness. Yes, I do agree self-awareness is (a form of) gravitational feedback. Yet as I point out in the analogy of the magnifying glass, when we become too self-aware, it becomes that gravitational collapse into narcissism, personal obsessions and political fanaticism, that causes isolation. Much as gravity points to a center, without...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 02:33 GMT
John,

I think we're failing to communicate. You're talking analogy. I'm talking 'nature of'. My position is not 'It's like..." but "It is...". Philip Gibbs says his ideas are radical. My ideas are radical: the idea that gravity is aware is radical. After 7 years of exploring this idea I am more than ever convinced of the reality of it. But then everyone who writes an essay on FQXi is...

view entire post





Anonymous wrote on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 05:05 GMT
Edwin

“In short, awareness is a field property, while perception is awareness of the relation between structures that information has built into one's brain. The question is how awareness couples to physical reality. The general fuzzy idea that prevails today is that arrangements of matter lead to awareness. Instead, the field is inherently aware, and always has been. But the biological...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 05:19 GMT
Hi Paul,

I do not assert how this existence came into being, only how it is, in my opinion. As I state in my abstract, "what is real" is a matter of belief. You have very fixed beliefs, which do not coincide with mine. You also have your own definitions, which do not necessarily coincide with mine either. I am fully aware of your beliefs, which have at least been consistent. This has been the case for quite a while and we both know this, so there is absolutely no point in my arguing with you over this. Thanks for your opinion and good luck in the contest.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 10:01 GMT
Hi Eugene,

If I will be entering next year's contest I have things to learn and copy from your presentation.

A lot of comments have been made so I wont bore you repeating issues like 'awareness', etc

Now here goes...

1. Gravity is a subject where even Angels like Newton fear to tread (recall 'hypothesis non fingo') but you have boldly tackled aspects of it....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 23:10 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

Thanks for reading and for your gracious comments. I've observed that you always ask good questions!

1.) As I noted in an earlier essay, Eugenio Calabi in 1953 essentially asked if our Master equation was valid:

"Could there be gravity ... even if space is a vacuum totally devoid of matter?"

He reasoned: "...being non-linear, gravity can interact with itself...

view entire post





Lev Goldfarb wrote on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 14:48 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I have a simple question.

Since you use "aware" or "awareness" about 36 times, can you clarify its 'technical' meaning, if any?

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 14:54 GMT
I forgot to mention that I liked these:

"Smolin says "it took 55 circles to get epicycles to work", while Susskind recently summarized physics as depending on from 25 to 150 parameters, whose values are set 'by hand'. How can physicists believe theories that require 25 to 150 parameters to fit data?"

and

"ET Jaynes reminds us that:

'…a false premise built into a model which is never questioned cannot be removed by any amount of new data.' "

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 21:55 GMT
Hi Lev,

That's a reasonable question, but it doesn't have a simple answer. For one thing, it's the fundamental 'entity' of my theory, and fundamentals are often undefined by specific words. The theory tends to define them. But more significantly, it is subjective, which increases the difficulty. I am self-aware and aware, as are you, so I assume you know what it is. It is simpler to...

view entire post




Paul Reed replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 05:45 GMT
Edwin (Lev)

On the contrary, as per my comment above, 'aware' has a very simple physical definition. It involves the receipt of physical input, which is then subsequently processed, that not being a physical process. A brick receives physical input, it just does not have the evolved capability to then process it.

This is the somewhat obvious point. Existence is independent of us,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 02:35 GMT
In a comment above John said, "I would say light is aware and gravity is the form it chooses to manifest."

I did not ask John how he came to this conclusion, but his comment made me realize that it might be relevant to describe how I came to my conclusion. I did not just wake up one day and say "I think gravity is aware." Instead, after writing a long book about life (unpublished) I...

view entire post




John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 02:56 GMT
Edwin,

Not to range too far afield here, but you might want to think about plugging political and social movements into that formula as well.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 03:09 GMT
John,

Thanks for the suggestion. There are many more fundamental steps I have to do at this time. My first response would be that there are many more appropriate ways to model socio-political movements. But that is merely a gut feel. The fact is that non-linear effects are famously anti-intuitive, and I don't yet have enough experience with my new non-linearizing technique to have developed any feel for where the limits are. It is a big change from my earlier assumptions, and I'm still digesting the implications.

Living in the middle of a big ranch I am sometimes tempted to wonder if there is not something like a consciousness-field density factor that operates in big cities! In some ways they seem to resemble the bee hives that I have all over the place.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 13:44 GMT
Hi Edwin and Hi Lev,

I agree with Edwin, that 'fundamental entities' may sometimes be best definable in the negative terms. That is in terms of what is 'not aware'.

In this line, I will like to know from Ed, whether Computers and Drones that see and accurately shoot missiles are aware?

Penrose talked on this at length in his book, The Emperor's New Mind. Can Artificial Intelligence when further advanced become or simulate Awareness?

Then, can awareness be destroyed or created?

Can what loses its existence still be aware? Can what comes into existence from nothing acquire awareness?

Although I dont wholly buy his idea, Leibniz talks of something like 'awareness' in his Monadology, which he says is similar to 'perception'. http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/leibmona.pdf

Of course, these are tricky questions I have asked and Ed has accused me of asking such :)

Cheers,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


William Amos Carine wrote on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 15:51 GMT
Hello Klingman,

This was an interesting read and I'm sure it struck other peoples hearts as well. It was nice to hear of developments in gravity. The awareness view here presented has multiple corollaries. It would give some reason why the limited human brain can start to unravel the mysteries of the deep, if the mind is a part of the greater whole. The natural question is one of death of this great system, or perhaps more appropriately put, the existence of some outsides beyond an not find-able edge, or the initial conditions. It's tough to talk about science and such question without using somewhat religious terminology, which shows their close link concerning the impetus to arising thought. Yet, if science is to be maintained as a standard, facts and figures must be found to accompany this emotional progress on the gravity question in the community. Not to say you or anyone else hasn't, but on the whole and rather blatantly, most physicists are not working on it.

Best,

W. Amos

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 18:58 GMT
Hi Amos,

I'm glad you enjoyed my essay. I believe you have put your finger on the key point when you note "it would give some reason why the limited human brain can start to unravel the mysteries of the deep, if the mind is a part of the greater whole." This is not unrelated to the statement in your essay that "one does not arrive fundamental changes by looking at huge sets of data [but] by sheer gut and intuition [do] real advances in thinking happen. The mind guesses the form of nature."

You also note that "physical laws are often built on analysis of difference." That is the key operation I used to derive 'feature vectors' from differences in intra-set and inter-set properties of measurement numbers, which in turn derived from physical threshold-based counter circuits, from which all numbers are derived.

You also mentioned "space being made out of the same thing as the matter in it." This is almost certainly what Einstein meant when he said "there is no space absent of field."

Thanks again for reading and commenting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 19:44 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

An excellent question: can computers be aware?

Considering that I posit awareness in the field, locally concentrated near mass flow, then to some extent the answer would have to be yes. But I'm sure you're asking can they be aware "like humans" (or dogs, etc.).

I don't think so, for the following reasons. If local awareness depends on velocity of mass flow, both...

view entire post





Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 23:38 GMT
Akinbo,

In an earlier comment above you ask the tough question, about "the not-two aspect of reality". You note that Parmenides said "of necessity one thing exists, viz., the existent and nothing else."

If this is true then several questions arise: how to conceive of or represent this fact. And whether this is merely a conception or whether one can be aware of this fact in direct...

view entire post




Paul Reed replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 05:04 GMT
Edwin

"Now whether awareness arises from the biological fact of putting the right building blocks in the right order, or from its inherent existence as a primordial field, in either case human beings identify as 'separate individuals', generally denoted by the term 'ego'"

What evidence is there that this is a physical process, which you are labelling as awareness (and I cannot understand what it could be-not what you want it to be- other than what is normally termed awareness)was existent from the outset, and not just the result of an evolutionary process?

And incidentally, physical existence is not just the province of humans, it is all that is potentially knowable by any sentient organism. Indeed, if a non-human landed on this planet and could explain a way to utilise a different sense which has not developed here, that would be included too.

Paul

post approved

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 12:38 GMT
Okay, Edwin. Will keep my mind open and "aware". If you dont have it, you may like to read this classic on Parmenides. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/parmenides.1b.txt

Cheerio

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 20:50 GMT
Akinbo,

I read the Parmenides paper. Very interesting. I would be interested in what you see as the main thing to be taken from it.




Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 17:50 GMT
Doctor Klingman,

This essay is indubitably the best essay so far presented in this competition. As a doddering amateur realist, I would just like to make one comment. I contend in my essay BITTERS, that reality is unique, once.

There is no way I can thank you for bringing to my attention the results of the Planck 2013 expedition: “Planck satellite data shows with high precision that we live in a remarkable simple universe.”

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 20:44 GMT
Dear Joe,

Thank you very much for that appraisal.

I have read your essay and am in basic agreement with you. But there are aspects of reality -- perhaps "chaotic attractors" -- that produce 'repetition' or 'near repetition'. As I point out, without such we would not even have language, as nothing would ever be stable enough to describe. Thus for example, while no two snowflakes are alike, we can make reasonable approximations of how much sunlight is reflected from Antarctica from trillions of snowflakes. That is what science is about. But your reminder of the nature of reality is very welcome.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 15:12 GMT
Respectfully Doctor Klingman,

You wrote in your essay that you had self awareness. Obviously, it is clear from the sheer brilliance of the writing that you are indeed gifted enough to have self awareness. You may be the last man in America to have self awareness.

I never had self awareness. From my birth to the present no matter in which direction I faced, I have only been able to see humanly fabricated structures or humanly explored terrains. My nostrils have only ever received wafts of humanly compromised fumes. My mouth has only tasted humanly adulterated food and liquids. Man made sounds have constantly drowned out any bird songs or dog barks or cock crows. Only fabricated materials have ever touched me.

There is no me here. I have three options. I can be a conventionally, consistently, or conspicuously conformist.

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 18:46 GMT
Edwin and Joe,

"There is no way I can thank you for bringing to my attention the results of the Planck 2013 expedition: 'Planck satellite data shows with high precision that we live in a remarkable simple universe.'"

However, what about "Huge-LQG" (Huge-large-quasar-group), and neighbors another large clump, the "CCLQG" phenomena?

report post as inappropriate


Robert Bennett wrote on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 04:13 GMT
Edwin,

Re your iconoclastic survey of the status of modern physics.... Bravo! Your insights into the wild and wooly world of physics research are a refreshing .... well, just refreshing says it best.

The difficulties of experimental testing of extrema theories, like particle physics and cosmology, seem to tempt some of our colleagues to cheat on sci method testing in order to stoke...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 07:38 GMT
Robert,

What a gracious remark you begin with.

I could not recall which essay was yours and when I found it there was only one mark on it: 're-read', underlined. I will do so and respond on your thread.

As for the current anomalies in physics, is it surprising that they seem to get 'swept under the rug'? The establishment structure is so heavily invested in QED that even 120...

view entire post





Gene H Barbee wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 21:30 GMT
My post turned into more than I could put in this space. Please read my post below.

attachments: Post_for_Edwin_Klingman.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 01:58 GMT
Dear Gene,

Thanks for your heartening remarks.

You mention that I did not include values for the C-field. This is correct, although the values are included in the linked references. I will give you a brief summary:

In 2006, when I decided that a new field was likely, I asked myself how strong the field could be without interfering with known atomic and molecular physics and chemistry. I arrived at a value that turned out to be 31 orders of magnitude greater than indicated in Einstein's field equations. Then, within the year, Martin Tajmar reported measurement of the C-field with an experimental result 31 orders of magnitude greater than expected. So for the last seven years I've been using this scale factor. It has produced very interesting results, while at the same time not yielding other results that I expected to find. As mentioned in my essay Kauffmann's work in the East and Pretorius papers caused me to focus on the nonlinear approach I show on page 4. The result is that, rather than a fixed value, the strength of the field appears to vary depending on the driving force. This is a radical change from my previous work and I'm only beginning to pursue quantitative results. I have great hopes for this approach, but, so far, have solved very few quantitative problems. I expect this to change within a reasonably short time.

I've looked at your essay, but of course have not yet worked through all of your numbers. And I'm not sure that I fully understand your model. You ask where your large factor exp (90) comes from. My belief, based on work I have done, is that the nonlinear approach yields very unexpected numbers. Your comment references Kauffmann (reference 15 in my essay). I recommend reviewing this and looking at my reference 16, East and Pretorius, to gain a better idea of the effect of nonlinearity on gravity.

Thanks again for your extensive comment and your kind remarks.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 19:39 GMT
I would like to call my readers' attention to a remarkable essay by Alexei Grinbaum. To understand fully the following comments, one must read his essay, nevertheless, my comment to him is worth reproducing:

Dear Alexei,

A most interesting essay! If I understand you correctly, you are considering the case of what will remain of a physics theory "if one clears away its human inventors...

view entire post




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 19:01 GMT
Because I have slightly misrepresented Alexei's position, I am including his response and my further response:

Alexei Grinbaum replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 07:10 GMT

Dear Edwin Eugene,

Thank you for your comments. There is no claim in my essay about Platonism. Indeed I am not choosing between object realism, property realism, structural realism or Platonic idealism, i.e. the...

view entire post





Gene H Barbee wrote on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 07:04 GMT
Again my post is a bit lengthy so it is below.

attachments: Second_Post_to_Edwin.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 21:33 GMT
Gene,

I'm slightly confused by your first table. Your label says Compton wavelength, but you show the Planck length. You say "they picked a combination of Compton mass and Planck energy that gave p/hc=1." Who is they? Also, by doing the calculations I see that E/C uses C for speed of light, while hc uses c for speed of light. It's time-consuming to have to check that you mean the same thing by C and c, and at the moment I don't have time to go through all the numbers in your essay to check everything.

In short, the above page is too condensed for me to fully follow your arguments. It's not clear to me where the exp(90) comes from [which, I believe, is what you're asking me.] I will try to review your paper again, but at the moment I'm still catching up on the latest submissions, (some of which are very good.)

I wish I could see the answer to your problem, but at the moment I don't.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 02:02 GMT
This bold insightful essay has much in common with my own view on the current state of quantum theory. I especially applaud the comments on Bell's errant role in the current fiasco re nonlocality, and hope that my own contribution will be seen to rightly support the emergent view re Bell's theorem so clearly and forcefully presented here.

[NB: My critique of Bell in no way diminishes my...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 05:46 GMT
Gordon,

Thanks for the positive comments on my essay. Let me spend my time addressing the critical comments.

You and I are both convinced that Bell's inequality is the root of what you label the 'fiasco of non-locality'. In particular you are focused on showing mistakes in Bell's logic. Toward that end, the focus on awareness, which you view as psycho-physical, and more properly...

view entire post





Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 20:55 GMT
Dear Edwin

Please help guide : What is name the Lee Smolin’s new book ? and what write about matters? - many thank you.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 01:57 GMT
Dear Hoang cao Hai,

Smolin's book is the second reference at the end of my essay:

L Smolin, 2013 "Time Reborn", Spin Networks Ltd ISBN 9780547511726

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 20:44 GMT
A note to readers of my essay: I highly recommend Mark Feeley's essay -- Without Cause




Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 03:13 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Things like ''ad hoc 'creation' and 'annihilation' operators'', ''virtual particles'', ''Bell nonlocality'' and ''awareness'' look quite different when we discard causality -in which case we can no longer conceive of the 'speed' of light as the velocity light moves at but have to interpret c as a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely.

If real particles...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 03:15 GMT
As to ''the origin of the universe'', as argued, unlike a BBU, the real universe we live in has no beginning as a whole, no cause, no origin as it does not exist as 'seen' from without: in a SCU every particle can consider itself to be (at) the center of its own interaction horizon, so is the alpha and omega of its own universe. A SCU obeys the perfect cosmological principle: here particles start...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 21:20 GMT
Hi Anton,

As I noted in my comment on your blog, we agree on a number of points, and I'm confused on different points. I still fail to see that a BBU exists "inside" anything any more than an SCU does. In fact I see the BBU as a self-creating entity, and, I see it as conserving momentum and energy. So either we have different definitions or I am missing some fine point.

I also...

view entire post




Anton Biermans replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 03:35 GMT
Hi Edwin,

A Big Bang Universe (BBU) is not a self-creating entity. This is extremely hard to explain and comprehend, yet crucial if we are to comprehend quantum mechanics (which to me seems a prerequisite to develop quantum gravity), to understand our universe. Though like you ''I do not see reality as something we could step outside of'', we actually do so in Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) as...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Anton Biermans replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 03:37 GMT
Though at macroscopic scale a property of an object indeed is what the dictionary says it is, something it privately owns, only the cause of its interactions, independent from interactions, here the observer doesn't affect the observed in a perceptible manner. If, as classical mechanics, big bang cosmology and general relativity assumes that the properties of objects are eternally unchangeable,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Mark Feeley wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 16:19 GMT
Edwin, very nice essay. I think we are in solid agreement on the approach to physics – one grounded in the idea that there is something real, an “It”, from which we derive information, “Bit”.

You do a good job of exploring why we believe a theory is good. The graphic of the n-parameter elephant, combined with the Jaynes quote in your conclusion “the proper question is not “How...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 19:58 GMT
Mark,

Thanks for reading my essays and commenting. Just as I managed to pick out the key point of your essay, that "an observable is a name for a type of experiment, not a property of some physical thing", you have discerned the key point that data fitting should discriminate between theories.

We both prefer to start with a real field. In my essay the field can produce a self-interacting vortex which shrinks to a finite soliton-like toroidal particle, which is simply a very stable "concentration of field". So it is still field, but probably is more localized than your view of the field, although this local 'particle' has sufficient mass density to produce a secondary disturbance or circulation that corresponds to de Broglie's 'pilot wave' (but not an exact correspondence). Since the local energy is stable, particles endure, but sufficiently high-energy collisions produce new vortices which yield particle jets spitting out new particles. The process is too complex for a comment, but I hope you get the idea. The process also leads to integral charge, including quark charges, and quark confinement also falls out of the single field.

I am certainly not opposed to geometry, but was addressing what I see as a problematic view: that physics is "nothing but" geometry. That seems to abstract away physical reality, replacing it with math.

I am extremely pleased that you see the logic in my hypothesis. It is logical and seems to match my experience, so I put it forth at the risk all 'daring ideas' run. As I am independent and cannot be fired, I can afford to pursue probable truth.

Mark you have a real ability to cut through the fog. I hope you continue to produce works the quality of your current essay!

With my best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Mark Feeley replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 15:50 GMT
Edwin, make no mistake, I meant "logical and daring" as a high compliment. Logical is fairly easy, and daring is even easier, but it is often very hard to combine them. Keep it up. Mark

report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 07:41 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Mean while, 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

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 00:31 GMT
Eckhard Blumschein, on his thread, asked me questions that are relevant here, so I repeat portions of my answer below. I made the decision to write an extremely high level overview of my theory in 9 pages, guaranteeing that those unfamiliar with it will find it confusing, or at least incomplete. The list of references are intended to "fill in the holes". But of course many will not have time or...

view entire post





Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 02:16 GMT
Dear

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

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 because I worked against the main stream. The...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 18:24 GMT
Hello Ed,

I greatly enjoyed reading your paper. It was well-reasoned and you make a great case for your main point. I find a lot to agree with, but as you know I find the Platonic view appealing. Why can't we all just get along?

It is my opinion that your main point is well supported by the logic and evidence you cite, and that your Plato bashing is a side trip - wholly unnecessary to your point or its establishment. So I'll treat that separately later, once my own essay has posted.

All in all, yours is an excellent paper. I got mine in early on the final day, so I imagine it will appear by Tuesday or Wednesday, but that my paper is one of many in a queue.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 19:00 GMT
On Platonism,

It's interesting Ed; I think our stance on the archetypal aspect of Math has a lot to say about the way we got to our present view. What kept me in the Physics game for many years was my investigation of the Mandelbrot Set and how the progression of form at the periphery relates to Cosmology.

So I've spent a lot of time wondering about why a purely mathematical object might influence or shape the evolution of the Cosmos - because I already had the absolute conviction that such a connection exists. I was scheduled to give a talk on this at FFP12, but never made it to Udine - and it has sat on my shelf.

But I am not ready to totally give up on the MUH or other types of mathematical Platonism, as that is what brought me to the table, or is the horse I rode in on. Who knows? I might need a way to get home. And I'll say more when my essay posts. In the meanwhile; I think I see a way our ideas can coexist.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 06:17 GMT
Jonathan,

I'm glad that you enjoyed the paper, and feel bad that you think I bashed Plato too hard. I have another friend who likes the physical aspects of my theory but wishes I had left out any mention of 'awareness'. He feels like you that it is "wholly unnecessary to your point or its establishment".

Of course I point out that one can omit the 'awareness' aspect and the physics still holds. But then one must explain awareness, which no one has done (satisfactorily). You are probably correct that I could omit any mention of Plato and the physics of my model would still hold. But the essay is not just about my model of physics, but about the main question of whether physical reality is fundamental, and it seems to me that if one believes that math lives, and particularly in Tegmark's MUH, then one can believe somehow that 'information' is real, and 'It from Bit' is possible, which I decidedly do not. So at the very least my whole argument is weakened, and much of the rational for assuming only 'ONE' field disappears. If there are TWO fundamentals there may as well be Susskind's hundreds of fields.

So I'm not so sure that it is wholly unnecessary to my point. As you know, we both agree on very many things, and I have expressed my surprise that you are so in tune with Eastern process thinking and Taoism, yet do not seem to accept the 'Not-two' basis of reality. Yet you and I actually do get along rather well.

I am sure that you came to Platonism through a path that was meaningful to you, such as the Mandelbrot Set. But it is incompatible with the way I make sense of things, which is outlined (far too briefly) in my essay. So I particularly look forward to hearing your idea about how our ideas can coexist.

Best wishes and I look forward to reading your paper.

Best Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
Let me answer mathematically.

One can speak of smooth, topological, and measurable objects and spaces - and relations between same. Waves and fields require spaces that admit smooth relations, and this is considered a looser condition than topological or measurable, which are respectively more strictly defined. I first saw this hierarchy spelled out in a 2000 paper by Connes, but I understand it forms the basis for differential geometry and topology.

However; this all comes into play more or less automatically, when considering how some of the very simplest forms arise. An unbroken space possesses the quality of oneness, or not-two, but the presence of an observer (of whatever form) induces a sense of toward and away from some center. But consider a loop in the C-field and the induced geometry - as it is analogous. A circle is a topological object, having an inside and outside, and a 1-dimensional face, but the space is no longer unbroken - oneness is now divided.

Somehow; even though you have but one field, the whole of Mathematics comes into play as it evolves and complex form emerges.

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 23:43 GMT
Hello again,

I wanted to comment that I especially liked your comments on linearizing equations. My take is that it is not so much a trick of abstract geometry, nor a matter of conflating a mathematical reality with the physical, as it is a tendency to ignore the fact a simplifying assumption was made.

It is common, for example, to replace Cos (theta) with 1 for a small angular displacement. But this breaks down, once there is more than a tiny excursion. As you point out; the behavior of the system is not linearized at all, but the key point is that the assumption that allows linearization of a non-linear equation has a limited range of applicability.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 06:53 GMT
Jonathan,

Thanks for commenting on my point about linearization. I agree about "a tendency to ignore the fact a simplifying assumption was made." Your example of cos(theta) = 1 as an approximation that works in a limited range is appropriate. I am suggesting that it is misleading to assume that there is even a limited range where a non-linear field behaves linearly. There are only ranges...

view entire post




Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:34 GMT
Ah so My Friend,

I had the pleasure to share a meal with and hear a lecture from Ram Gopal Vishwakarma a few years back, when in Port Angeles for CCC-2. As I recall; he was a student and later colleague of Narlikar, and presented a cyclical universe model at that conference. I think that work may have been related to his essay offering, focusing on one of the solutions mentioned.

And I am very happy to have inspired you by promoting Kauffmann's paper on an upper bound for concentrations of energy. It is interesting that the point of how energy and even gravity are self gravitating is missed. But the subtle point that this leads to an upper bound for energy concentrations is all too easy to miss entirely, so we owe bold thinkers like Steven Kenneth Kauffmann, Christoph, and Gibbons a vote of thanks.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 04:06 GMT
Hello again,

That should have been Christoph Schiller in the above comment, who also pointed out that a lower or upper bound (depending on how described) exists. But I think Kauffmann's insight that there can be a maximum concentration of energy is the cleanest conceptual formulation, or most useful to Cosmology.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 16:58 GMT
Thanks, Edwin. It's a delightful essay full of pearls of wisdom, seemingly simple concepts but steeped in meaning and nuance. I'm impressed.

Perhaps in my simple way I touch upon some of your concepts, probably because you open so many boxes.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 04:59 GMT
Jim,

Thank you. I appreciate your comments at face value, but after reading your essay I treasure your comment. You've obviously put much thought into the topic at hand with emphasis on the role of consciousness and its nature. I enjoyed your entire essay. Your discussion of the number of neurons (100 billion) and connections (1000 trillion) "channeling countless sub-atomic particles in a consciously assembled reality" was excellent! As was collapsing the electron into one state when observed, versus all states when not observed! And the "unimaginable assemblage of trillions upon trillions of ... particles from the superposition state" into a cat! In short, you put the "It from Bit" picture into clear perspective. It helps to bring all scales into view, as opposed to focusing on one particle.

Your summary of various current beliefs about consciousness was masterful. As was your discussion of the Anthropic era. Although your previous essays have focused on gravity and the flow of time and space, this topic seems to tie it all together for you. You succeed in shining a light on some of the fuzzy thinking that resulted in It from Bit. This is not your first essay, but it is your best. Both your writing style and content are superb.

Thanks again for reading my essay and commenting so graciously.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 06:27 GMT
Hi Edwin

It's nice to read you again. You did such an excellent job that I'm afraid I have no points of disagreement. I'm interested in your work because I think we have many points of common, specially, we are suggesting simplicity in theories.

I only have a request. In your work you claim that GR (and perhaps QM) can be derived from your formulation. Of course, the space in this essay is so short that one cannot put all the information. So I'd be glad, if it's not much to ask, if you could show me the derivation of Einstein's equations (and QM if you have it) according to your formulation. Do you have any publication about the derivation?

As well, I wonder if your approach make some new predictions. do you have any comments?

You also say: Gravity is a field, not abstract geometry.

I definitely agree. I'd like to invite you to read my essay and leave some comments. There I discuss about Wheeler's dream and propose a potential way to get out of the present crisis assuming also that space is not geometry.

I'll be looking forward to hearing any comments you may have.

Regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:49 GMT
Hi Israel,

Very happy to see you back. Even happier that we have no points of disagreement. Having just read your essay I found nothing to disagree with either. In fact, your final argument about the vacuum as 'material substance' is the major physical fact underlying my model. I don't recall this particular argument. Is it new with you? It is very effective.

Your requests are...

view entire post




Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 05:59 GMT
Hi Edwin

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry, I misunderstood then. You are talking about the linear approximation of GR. Ok, I'll be looking forward to seeing the results of your nonlinear treatment as well as the predictions. I can see that there is a lot of work to do. Good luck with this.

You: I don't recall this particular argument. Is it new with you? It is very effective.

Well, it is not new with me, but it is new in the sense that I invoke it as an argument in my essay. Most physicists are aware of this but it seems that the majority overlook its relevance.

Best regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 22:52 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I really enjoyed reading your essay. It is lucid, well argued and relevant.I thought it was an interesting approach to the question. I liked your introduction referring to the illustration of the two pointing men and how easy it was to just keep reading to the end. Good luck, Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 05:42 GMT
Georgina,

Thanks for reading my essay and for your kind words. I've read yours and will comment on your page. Good luck to you also! Edwin Eugene Klingman




Anton Biermans wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 02:56 GMT
Edwin,

Perhaps you haven't noticed my post of 25 June. Though I'm aware that you are having many discussions with other contestants, I do hope that you'll find some time to formulate a reply.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 02:58 GMT
Hi Anton, I'll study these and reply. Thanks for pointing this out!




Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 04:22 GMT
Thanks for your replies above Ed,

FYI, professor Vishwakarma is now responding to comments. And in private correspondence, he noted that the current work is indeed an outgrowth of the research in the lecture I attended.

Please note that I have no wish to debate here further the relative value or Platonism or lack thereof. It it pleasant that we can debate and explore the edges of the subject in an academic way, without locking horns.

Perhaps, though I took the attitude in my new essay that Math is integral, the same principles apply if it is emergent instead. You noted after reading my draft, that most of my points stood without that connection. Didn't I say the same about your paper above?

Have Fun,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 05:38 GMT
Jonathan,

If it's emergent, then we agree on almost every thing. And if not, we still agree on almost everything. It's not necessary for friends to agree on everything. It would get boring. So you are right, let's focus on the things we both find exciting, such as Kauffmann's, Schiller's and Vishwakarma's work, and how it relates to ours.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 21:15 GMT
In a conversation with Gerard 't Hooft during FFP10, when I inquired about the calculational mechanism for a computing universe (Planck sized space atoms perhaps?) he said it wasn't necessary, because the laws of nature do the calculating for us. Perhaps by calling them that, any dispute between us is avoided, because the same 'natural law' can have its expression in either Math or Physics - depending on what kind of knowledge we seek, concrete or abstract.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 07:39 GMT
Dear Eugene,

Thank you for asking me to give my opinion about your essay. I will do it in the coming days.

As an invited editor at the journal Neuroquantology I have some interest in this kind of topics although, as many sientists, I do not have a clear opinion about the deep nature of gravity and the information it contains.

Approaching the subject probably needs quite sophisticated mathematics. I just tried to think about the perception of time

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0403020

and found afterwards that the formalism relates to Riemmann hypothesis as well

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1012.4665

You received many comments on your essay, and I will try to contribute.

Best regards,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 08:02 GMT
Dear Michel,

I am pleased that you found something of interest, and look forward to your comments. I have printed out the two papers you reference and will study them.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 13:35 GMT
Dear Edwin (or Eugene),

I have now red your stimulating essay and tried to get some hints on your reasoning, especially about the 'awareness" of gravity, for a possible coupling to my own research. The challenge would be to put mass on diagrams decribing the wholeness of quantum observables (such as the dessins d'enfants created in my essay). May be at a further stage it will be possible to convert the bits attached to the measurement space (there the Riemmann sphere rigidified at three points) into invariants having the meanig of mass. I still don't know.

Thanks for reading my essay and good luck.

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 21:03 GMT
Dear Michel,

I have had a chance to review the two papers you referenced. The Riemann paper discusses the details of a specific partition function, which I find interesting as I base the applicability of the Born probability to my wave function model on the partition function. The other paper, on time perception is also interesting. I had not seen the Poincare discussion of the Continuum, and found that fascinating, as well as your connection. I am somewhat confused as to whether you are proposing the phase locking as the 'mechanism' of time perception or of the 'scaling' of time perception? I can understand how this could relate to scaling, but not perception as I understand it.

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. I hope it stimulates some ideas for you.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 14:44 GMT
Dr.E.E.Klingman,

I'm yet a bit slower to enter lately into your marvelous essay. So far I'm yet realize, I think, there is same left and right or mirror image questions to resolve the 'It from bit' or 'bit from it', we have almost similar opinion. In my submitted essay, "It from bit' equally 'bit fro it", is nothing but a same statement written on a mirror and it depends on stands of observer.

Best wishes

Dipak Kumar Bhunia

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 21:37 GMT
Dear Dipak Kumar Bhunia,

Thank you for your gracious comment. I have read your paper and believe we overlap as follows: you support that nature is not (or cannot be proven to be) analog, and consider observers (us) to be digital: "then nature that perceives through such digits or quantum must appear as a digital." [and] "the digital observers (like us) have a natural limit to detect the nature non-digitally, even if it would be non-digital anywhere in its deeper levels beyond that digital limit. "

This is a well-thought-out proposition, and the locus of our agreement seems to be here. I tend to believe that the deeper levels are non-digital, but, as you may recall, I view the transfer of information as energy transfer, that does, or does not cross a threshold. This is the digitization you refer to. If the threshold is crossed, then the digit is '1', else '0'. This sets the digital limit of observation. The details of the observed world are so rich that we cannot expect any two essays in this contest to agree upon all of them, but the basic mechanism seems to be in agreement.

Thanks again for reading and commenting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 16:13 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I thought your essay was very original approach, but simultaneously it is very logical and nothing is in there I disagree with. Physics does require many constants to make certain areas work, so the elephant example was an excellent illustration.

Suggesting gravity is self aware as the only true field makes sense if we ever want to unify the four forces, and I suspect that Einstein was correct when he suggested that certain configurations of space-time incorporate the effects of electromagnetism. An area of particular interest to me.

I've opted for an approach that thinks about how information can pass between Observer & the Observed within curved space-time. Hope you get time to read it.

Best wishes for the contest - great essay!

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 21:34 GMT
Dear Antony,

Thanks for your very gracious comment.

Fermi, who claimed "with five parameters I can fit an elephant", probably never dreamed that our main theory of particles would have more parameters than particles!

I too am interested in how electromagnetism arises. I have a 'mechanism' in my theory that explains this, but it is probably the weakest part of my theory. On the other hand, I can show how the nonlinear gravito-magnetic field confines quarks, which is about the only thing that the 'strong' force does. The theory also both produces and transforms particles which is what the 'weak' force does. So if my electromagnetic 'mechanism' is correct, the forces are unified.

It's hard to keep up with the number of essayists this year, but I will read yours and comment on your page.

Thanks again, and good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 12:38 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I think poor Fermi would feel it was a nightmare. I'm very keen to hear more about your unification theory, as mine has its strongest part in the electromagnetism and mass, followed by weak and finally strong.

Thanks for your kind comments on my page and for writing an excellent essay!

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate


Steven P Sax wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 22:45 GMT
Hi Dr. Klingman,

Your essay is very fascinating, and I really enjoyed how you explored the deeper connections between physics and mathematics, and the art of physical theory itself. Also your use of the references was great - in particular your application of Smolin is very enlightening. I'm inspired to read your other works (such as your PhD thesis), and also probably will pick up Smolin's Time Reborn.

Thanks again,

Steve Sax

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 23:58 GMT
Dear Steven,

Thank you for your comments. I am very pleased that you enjoyed my essay, because, as I remarked on your page, "I found your essay the most careful and complete study of the nature of information [the topic of this contest] of the hundred I've read." In particular, you do not mix Shannon's information entropy and thermodynamic entropy carelessly, as is often done. And, as I noted, "You present a more convincing argument for an info/area relation than most I've seen." These brief comments do not exhaust the topics in your essay, which I recommend to my other readers.

So thanks for reading my essay and commenting. And thanks for writing yours.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 13:33 GMT
Hi Eugene,

I enjoyed your lively style and use of entertaining and explicative graphics! :)

I enjoy and agree with your statement: "...Wheeler’s "absence of a clear definition of the term ‘bit’ as elementary unit in establishment of meaning" imply awareness, since there is no meaning absent awareness. He believed in a Participatory Universe..." It does seem to me that the "it from bit" concept breaks down without some sort of reciprocal relationship between the measurer and the measured.

I am fairly new to the argument that gravity is "anti-entropic" although I also encountered the concept recently in the book "Time Reborn" by Smolin.I'm still thinking about how I relate to/interpret this approach. Have you read much Ilya Prigogine or much of Barbour's works on the principle of maximal variety?

"From Oppenheimer’s deep interest in Zen, to Cristi’s Tao essay, physicists are fascinated by the idea that unity underlies an apparent surface division of the world into related and correlated entities. Yet Zen koans remind us how terribly difficult it is for brains that have mastered the skill of partitioning and relating systems to reach mindful awareness of undivided Nature: the ‘Not two’ aspect of reality" -- Indeed!!! Bit logic isn't able to convey koans. I definitely feel a comradery in your appeal to zen. My use of the phrase, "Is Bit It?" came about as a sort of koan--is bit "it" (made from the stuff of the universe), or is bit "it" (all there is at all). ^_^ The "superposition of states" (I am using this non-literally) experienced by a human mind processing a couple ways of interpreting a koan or a haiku may represent something fundamental about the nature of the universe.

Cheers, and thanks again for putting forward intriguing and fun ideas and for sharing ideas on my thread,

Jennifer Nielsen

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 18:19 GMT
Hi Jennifer,

I'm really glad that you enjoyed the essay, and that you understood the point about koans and the problem of 'un-learning' how to discriminate and correlate, which we begin learning at least as soon as we emerge from the womb. And you are correct that "bit logic isn't able to convey koans."

The idea of gravity as "anti-entropic" does bear thinking about. Smolin states it as the case, and I have intuited this in other places, but I don't think the idea is rigorously defined. I haven't read Prigogine recently, but have done so extensively in the past. I also am aware of many of Barbour's ideas, but not as sold on them.

On your blog you comment that it's exciting to be part of FQXi. It truly is exciting to find 175+ ten-page essays dealing with such an important and current topic. I always derive a number of new and significant ideas from these contests. As I indicated on your page, and will repeat here for other readers, I think some key ideas are to be found in, for example: Wang Xiong's treatment of information as symmetry breaking, Mark Feeley's treatment of probability in QM, McHarris' essay on non-linearity, Janzen's treatment of time and relativity, Gordon Watson's analysis of Bell's inequality and Vishwakarma's essay on the stress-energy tensor. These are examples of why FQXi is a great place! There are many, many more.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 18:29 GMT
P.S. Are you familiar with the idea of Roger Penrose that gravity and mass is what causes decoherence? Was wondering how you would interpret his ideas.

Thanks,

Jennifer

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 19:41 GMT
Jennifer,

Penrose is a brilliant man, but I don't buy his idea of gravity and QM nor his and Hameroff's idea of consciousness as the QM of microtubules. I think most attempts to base consciousness on quantum mechanics are founded on the logic that "one thing we don't understand" must be (related to) "another thing we don't understand". Detailed pictures of microtubules are pretty, but they are a small part of any cell. If you want to get really blown away, work through Bruce Alberts "Molecular Biology of the Cell".

For an understanding of my ideas about decoherence, see my previous essay, The Nature of the Wave Function. It produces the supposedly impossible correlation -a.b when Bob and Alice choose independent settings, upon which Bell's statistics is based.

Thanks for your questions and your interest. With your attitude, you should go far.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 19:38 GMT
Although the above is still my opinion, I note that Phys Rev Letters yesterday published Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 021302 (12 July 2013) "Effective Field Theory Approach to Gravitationally Induced Decoherence", to the effect that: "Adopting the viewpoint that the standard perturbative quantization of general relativity provides an effective description of quantum gravity that is valid at ordinary energies, we show that gravity as an environment induces the rapid decoherence of stationary matter superposition states when the energy differences in the superposition exceed the Planck energy scale."

Those interested in this topic might wish to check this paper out.




Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 02:50 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Of the things I understood in your essay, I find nothing to disagree with worth disagreeing with, but that leaves many references, your math and hence most of your essay opaque to my understanding. I leave it up to you to see elements of agreement or disagreement in the following observations, none of which are meant as criticism.

When philosophers considered space and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 05:31 GMT
Hi Zoran,

I appreciate your description of the problem as you see it. There appear to be several issues:

Space and time independent versus 'block time'

Continuous versus discrete

Existence versus re-creation

First, space and time. I don't view space as 'a container'. I view the existence of the primordial field as "defining space". No field, no space. ...

view entire post




Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 07:54 GMT
Edwin,

From your comments it seems that we are in accord in most basic principles, and I think closer than you believe, let me clear up the "final issue" you mention, and I quote:

"The final issue is something I don't understand, which is your insistence on re-creation versus existence. You insist that it's necessary for God to "re-create" a large universe of small things from moment...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 17:29 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

Your essay was recommended to me by Ralph Waldo Walker III. I'm glad I read it - I found it fascinating, and very well written. It also has much in common with my work.

You open your argument by showing that physics builds its models from its own assumptions, so that we shouldn't be too impressed that the data obtained seems to bear these out. This does indeed...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 02:16 GMT
Hello John,

Thank you for your kind words. I'll respond to your comment here, and try to comment on your page.

We do agree on the desirability of simplicity. Recall that Einstein said "as simple as possible, but no simpler." As you note, we diverge on there being other universes. This, of course, cannot (currently) be proved one way or the other, so we're both safe in our assumptions. Your argument for it sounds very reasonable, and, if the effects you propose are seen, that will certainly be strong support for your view. I do not understand your various different vortices, so I'll have to read your paper more closely. Vortices are very important in my model, but they are all of the same type.

I did notice that you focus on the gravito-magnetic field, but did not discern whether this refers to the "magnetic" aspect of gravity, or whether you are combining gravity with the magnetic field of electromagnetism. I've made a few incorrect assumptions about what others mean by similar terminology, so I'm being more careful now. It seems like the vortices are of different types in your theory, however you do assume that they are involved with evolution of the field through self interaction. Reading your comment more closely I see that your three fields remain distinct from each other, which differs from my model, although the electromagnetic field does emerge in my theory after the original symmetry breaks. In other words we seem to overlap in some important areas but diverge in others. Part of the beauty of FQXi is the stimulation this provides, enabling us to potentially improve our theories based on what we learn here.

Thanks again for your comment. I'll re-read your essay to understand it better.

Best Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



john stephan selye replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 14:10 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

I am looking forward to hearing from you after you've had a chance to read my essay in detail - not only do we seem to overlap, but I suspect there are no contradictions.

Thanks for getting back to me - I should mention that I did rate your essay very highly, and would like to consider its mathematical aspects more carefully later on.

Yours Truly,

John.

report post as inappropriate

john stephan selye replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 12:56 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

Thanks for the comparison of our outlooks you left on my page. All very good points that I would like to consider at greater length later. The good and bad thing about the contest is that it does impel one to rate as many essays as possible, rather than to explore any in depth.

All the Best,

John.

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 13:28 GMT
Hello Edwin,

I see you talk above on your preference for a continuous nature of reality... What do you think of the Planck length? Does it have any physical significance?

But main reason I am here is that I posted the below on Armin Shirazi's blog and said I would be copying you in view your huge gravitational investments.

-------------------------------------------

Dear Armin,

You ask me a couple of head scratching questions over at my blog, let me "retaliate". Talking of backgrounds, about which you know so much, particularly section 4 of essay:

1. When a celestial body curves the space around it according to GR, is this curved space carried along with the orbiting body's motion?

Or

2. Does the body leave this space behind, thereby uncurving it, while curving the previously uncurved space in its new orbital location?

Or

3. Is there a third consideration?

If you answer positively to 1), would this not be important to experiments like the M-M expt?

If it is 2) you answer positively to, will such a space capable of being curved and uncurved, not be a substantival background? Taking note, that with the action-reaction principle, something can only be said capable of being acted upon IF it can also react. Then as you ask me will this reaction be instantaneous?

One head-scratching turn deserves another!

Regards,

Akinbo

CC: Peter Jackson, Edwin Klingman

------------------------------------------------

Best
regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 18:49 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

Thanks for commenting on the comments. You tend to ask very good questions. I'll give you my current views on these issues.

First; the Planck length. I view this as an operational limit. The de Broglie wavelength grows shorter with increased energy and Kauffmann [referenced in my essay] has shown that the self-gravitation of extremely high energy density leads to a...

view entire post





F Earle Fox wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 21:05 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I had penned a long reply to your stuff, which disappeared into a puff of nothing, which I assert violates the law of conservation of energy. So would like an instantaneous return of my thoughts... O well. So here I begin again. But I am first writing offline so that I can control things better.

You wrote on my blog...:

Einstein said,"There is no space...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

F Earle Fox replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 21:11 GMT
Hi, Edwin,

I should have added that the above was written after I read your paper. It will take another reading to digest adequately, but will do so and respond again.

Blessings, Earle

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 23:01 GMT
Dear Earle,

While you convey many relevant thoughts, I don't believe that you understood the basic thrust of my essay. I do not propose gravity as the basic "cause" of our phenomenal universe. I make no conjecture as to how gravity "came to be", and I believe that those who attempt to explain its existence as the result of mathematics are very misguided.

Nevertheless, gravity is...

view entire post




F Earle Fox replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 20:53 GMT
Hi, Edwin,

Thanks you. That does clarify a lot. I am in the midst of a move to another city, so spare time is scarce, but will reread your essay and respond again. I am very glad to have gotten into this discussion on FQXi, brings me up to date on a lot of issues. The depth of the mess into which philosophy of physics has fallen is startling, but I should have been forewarned by my own original doctoral thesis as to the problems ahead given what philosophers of science were saying in the 1960's.

Our views might indeed be compatible. I will have to think through your thoughts above with another reread of your essay.

Blessings, Earle

report post as inappropriate


KoGuan Leo wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 06:07 GMT
Dear Edwin, what an accomplished man, what a renaissance man! What a beautiful essay and what a pleasure to read it. You started with the Suzhou Qingming Scroll that shows the celebration of ordinary lives during the worship of ancestors festival in Suzhou market. You mockingly ask the quetion of this contest: "the ambiguity of life. I hear the man on the left saying "Information is real, matter...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 16:23 GMT
Dear Leo KoGuan,

Such a comment from a man of your accomplishment is very meaningful. Thank you sincerely. Yes, we use different physics terminology, but share the same metaphysics.

Your Ouroboros equation is a mathematical Qingming Scroll representing universal observing, singing, dancing, and exchanging, seen over and over in Suzhou festival scenes.

As I read your essay, I thought how few American physicists celebrate our universe with unabashed joy. Only one came to mind, so I was not at all surprised to see only Carl Sagan's name appear in your sonnet, "Child of Qbit in time".

As you so clearly demonstrate in reality, you are hero of your own life, owner of your own destiny... "hacking Existence's operating system according to your own desire, I swear!"

Yes, let the mind do what it likes.

It is an exchange of gifts, Edwin Eugene Klingman




Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 01:54 GMT
Dear Edwin. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate


Richard N. Shand wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 02:38 GMT
Edwin,

I very much appreciate your thought provoking essay. You gave me much to think about!

You can represent the dualism of the C-field using a 2D complex space (Eddington's phase dimension). Widening the phase angle indicates an increase in the conditional entropy of the observer (corresponding to the expansion of spacetime). Narrowing the phase angle indicates an increase in entanglement entropy (gravity). (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

In Eddington's hypersphere model universe, the toroidal topology of a spin 1/2 particle and the universe is the same. As with the dualism of the C-field, one can envisage winding states reciprocally generating meridial mass flow. The radius R of the winding states stretches towards the maximum limit (the Cosmic Event Horizon) as quantized meridial mass states diminish to a continuum (de Sitter spacetime). Conversely, as R deceases, the spacing between the winding states grows smaller until they form a continuum at the quantum critical point, where entanglement entropy is maximum.

A hypersphere can turn inside out and fold back into itself, like a Clifford torus. The lines of latitude and longitude are interchanged, and with them, the corresponding mass flows. A 720 degree spherical rotation of a spin 1/2 particle has analogs in homotopy group inversion on a hypersphere. If we consider passing "inside" a 1/2 particle, the winding and the meridial states flip at the crossover. Maximum entropy winding states in de Sitter space become minimum entropy meridial flow in AdS diminishing to a continuum. In effect, we now have the same physics (in reverse) at i/R as we did at R.

Best wishes,

Richard Shand

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 06:28 GMT
Richard,

I'm very glad that my essay gave you a lot to think about. That's the purpose of these things, as I see it. I also found your essay stimulating and will comment on your page.

We agree that information is contextual, and that we are perceptually guided (you say 'contained') by our brain. You ask how can we, based on illusory projections, comprehend the basic nature of...

view entire post





Robert H McEachern wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I kept wondering why I have not been seeing any posts regarding interesting essays, under the "Recent Forum Posts". It just dawned on me that only posts about blogs, not essays, appear there now. Bummer!

I recently encountered this essay, from a local college, that I think you might find interesting, in the context of your essay:

Fields and Particles and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 16:08 GMT
I forgot to mention something important. It occurred to me, while reading Casey's essay; while the introduction of fields may provide a solution to the action at a distance problem, another, more fundamental problem remains. How do particles sense/measure the field? None of our hard-won technology can do it. And we keep building *bigger* instruments, like telescopes and particle colliders to increase the sensitivity to the things they do sense. So, when you drastically decrease the instrument size, down to a single electron, with no internal structure, how can that little bit of unsophisticated technology accurately sense the field around it, so that it can response accordingly? Even when you consider particles to be merely some aspect of the field, such as a resonance or vortex within the field, if the field evolves, why don't the nature of the particles evolve along with it? Why is an electron always an electron? Do electrons in different parts of the universe, subject to different localized fields, behave differently than those in the field near us?

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 16:33 GMT
Rob,

Great to hear from you! I'll study your comments above and reply.

I was really looking forward to your essay on this topic, and am disappointed that you did not find time to write one. By the way, I have tried to find your email address during the last year and failed. If you would, please send it to klingman@geneman.com.

Hope you are well,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 23:25 GMT
Dear Rob,

Thanks for your interesting questions and for the link to Casey's essay. You ask "why assume that the *entire* field is interacting with itself?" Initially, I do *not* assume either that the entire field is interacting with itself or not... just that evolution can only come from self-interaction. This leads to a symbolic equation, in which neither field nor "change operator" is...

view entire post





Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 20:00 GMT
Hi Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Nice work, It gets my highest mark and I also admire Alfred Korzybski.

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 22:45 GMT
Dear Don (knower of all),

I very much enjoyed your essay, both the ideas expressed and the superb humor (just a little computer glitch on the pod bay doors!). I thought you integrated lambda-hopping with Zeno, Newton, Heisenberg, Feynman, Wheeler and Einstein very well. And we both agree that "quantum mechanics is made up a mathematical story that fits the data" but has big gaps in the physics. As one who has a bad case of the continuity gene, I'm not yet on the lambda bandwagon, but I believe that these FQXi essays are the ideal vehicle for presenting our ideas to the community, improving the ideas from user feedback, and presenting the idea again in the context of the new topic, if it fits (or can be made to fit) the topic.

Yours was the most fun essay of all, and you managed to keep lambda-hopping in our awareness and Siri was an excellent foil.

Thanks again for reading and commenting.

Have fun,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Don Limuti replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 15:36 GMT
Hi Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thanks, for a most positive review. You captured my work perfectly. I am under no illusions a fundamental discontinuity of motion (not time and space) can be accepted readily (the gene thing). But allow me to suggest to you that at some time in the future you may walk up thinking: "why did I ever believe that matter and energy must have a continuous existence".

Given that just about all entrants in this contest have the gene, it is amazing how well I am doing.

And Siri tells me that Edwin Eugene Klingman is master of the game"

Thanks,

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 05:55 GMT
Hi Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thanks for posting on my blog. That was very kind of you to point out to my readers that I believe in the continuity of space-time. That is something that I do not explicitly point out and it should be.

We are very close in outlook.

One of my goals is to topple the uncertainty principle. Do you have similar leanings?

What do you think of this notion: photons and particles do not move, but they do change positions. What we call velocity is actually a calculation from position to position. If this does not immediately drive you crazy, checkout this experiment that I believe can be performed:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/20_Experiments-_QM.html


Nothing moves but everything changes....

I do not know if you can agree with a lot of my speculations, but I appreciate your openness.

You and a few others make this contest great.

Thanks,

Don L.

report post as inappropriate


Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 02:33 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I very much enjoyed your essay. You wrote:

1. "Without the physical, there simply is no information. To argue otherwise one must show how a world with no physical reality can be brought into existence from information. Wheeler's remark "how to combine bits in fantastically large numbers to obtain what we call existence" was just unsupported fantasy."

I think the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 20:27 GMT
Dear Hugh,

Thank you for your comment and your analysis. I've just read your fascinating essay and will respond (mostly) on your page, however I will say here that it seems to be one of the most serious approaches to software cosmos that I have read.

Your ask, "is our "physical reality" an illusion?" This is of course the key question. You then ask "when we look out at the world,...

view entire post




Hugh Matlock replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 03:28 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your comments and compliments. You wrote:

> I cannot conceive of how one produces the software without the hardware.

I agree that there has to be some kind of "hardware". But I do not think it has to be what we call "physical" (And that is what I took to be the "It" of the "It from Bit"). Of course, that means I should come up with a proposal for what...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 18:37 GMT
Hi Hugh,

A few remarks. I'm glad you agree there has to be some kind of "hardware". I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say it doesn't have to be "physical". Of course one instruction set can simulate another instruction set and the simulation can simulate another instruction set and so on ad infinitum, but this only goes forward. There must be the original physical instruction decoder on which the whole chain is based. I'd be very interested in what you come up with in this regard.

Yes that darn essay length limit gets in everybody's way. But you note that "learning and memory do not seem to depend on the physical brain." Could you elaborate on this.

I'm a little confused on the "unobservable hardware" basis for storing memories in a virtual world. In the physical world, as I see it, the things themselves store the initial data ("memory") themselves. And their ongoing state keeps track of ("remembers") their current state.

Thanks for the email, and the suggestion of geometric algebra processing hardware. We can conduct this discussion off-line.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Anonymous wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 16:42 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank your for your many very interesting ideas. Here are a few comments.

The real world is not a purely mathematical or informational entity. As I understand your essay, this is one of your main theses. I agree with this contention. For one thing, nearly all of mathematics has no relevance to the physical world. Therefore, some additional principle or fact of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Laurence Hitterdale replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 16:47 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Not sure why the system posted my comments (immediately above) as anonymous. However, I signed on again, and this should attach my name to the post.

Thanks.

Laurence Hitterdale

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 20:50 GMT
Dear Laurence,

Thanks for your comment and questions. As I noted on your page, you handle "bit as fundamental" and "universe as computer" so masterfully that the topic should be closed! Nevertheless, if you'd like to see how fascinating the "other side" can be, I recommend Hugh Matlock's essay [see comment above yours.]

You point out a little-noted fact, that "nearly all of...

view entire post




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 20:57 GMT
Laurence, my mistake. Upon attempting to rate you, I find that I already did so.




Anthony DiCarlo wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 14:16 GMT
Edwin,

OK, so the "existence" and "changes" in this "self field" constitute what? Measures? ...they better be .... and .... then your arguments draw on other's measured data to confirm or deny your drawn conclusions. You therefore remove yourself from measures of your "self" field changes and revert to quoting data external to that measured by the "self."

That sounds like a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 18:12 GMT
Dear Anthony,

I'll try to respond to your comment as I interpret it. I've found in the past that even those who hold a similar view of consciousness typically require extended effort to harmonize vocabulary, since most relevant words are very fuzzy.

You ask what "existence" and "changes" in the "self field" constitute, and conclude they better be measures. I'm confused right off...

view entire post





Anonymous wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 14:49 GMT
Edwin, first I want to thank your for your open reply. Here are a couple replys to your questions.

You state: "I am subjectively aware of myself and this does not require either measurement or definition."

I can assure you that your subjective view of your "self" was developed by ALL the measurable information your personal biology obtained throughout your entire life. Remove all of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 18:00 GMT
Tony,

Thanks for your replies. You say "I can assure you... [that if you remove your personal biologically obtained information] this "subjective self" you believe is present will no longer be capable of being defined." While I agree with you (close to) 100% I would say you're focused on my self-identity, i.e., myself and this body with its particular history. But, if the situation is as...

view entire post




Anthony DiCarlo replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 17:51 GMT
Edwin,

I agree with your statement: "I think we're closer than you think."

What I always attempt to do is pick up a ruler and time clock to "measure" just how close we are because it is enevidable that we all "think" differently and it is he who actually predicts physical measures that take the podeum (and for good reason - we can then better mankind with new inventions). If...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 20:53 GMT
Tony,

In general, of course, I agree with your stance on measurement. And I'm glad you asked "what good can it do?" and not "what good can it be?". You give the example of new inventions. As an inventor (my bio is out of date, I now have 39 patents) I can easily say that my awareness, measurable or not, is responsible for every one of my inventions. Or better, that I would not have...

view entire post





Robert H McEachern wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 19:56 GMT
Edwin,

In regards to your on-going discussion concerning "awareness", it is important to remember that "self-awareness" and "consciousness" are not the same thing, even though most people treat them as such. "Self-awareness" is neither hard to explain, nor hard to implement. The same cannot be said of "consciousness". My house has a limited form of self-awareness. So does my car. My house is aware of itself filling with smoke. I know this to be true, because it sounds an alarm. Similarly, my car is aware of keys being left in the ignition, and doors being left ajar.

But consciousness is another matter. Consciousness is about *how* a system experiences itself, not *if* a system experiences itself, as in the examples given above. The latter can often be verified by an external observer. The former cannot.

Although it is a bit oversimplified, consciousness might be considered to be a second-order effect of first-order self-awareness; how does a system "feel about" or "experience" its own self-awareness. Pain is part of a damage detection system, but how does the system feel or experience that pain.

The real question is not if a system can experience things like pain and color, but do they experience it the same way that I do. Or that you do.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 02:43 GMT
Hi Rob,

Thanks for jumping back in. Everyone has their own interpretation of the vocabulary of consciousness. Of course in most situations the only thing that matters is whether the parties can agree on the meanings of their words.

I think it's a little different when one is dealing with a theory of consciousness and equations relating it physical reality. In this case it's not...

view entire post




Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 12:13 GMT
Edwin,

"I define 'consciousness' as 'awareness plus volition', where volition is synonymous with will"

"Cybernetic feedback of temperature or smoke density is not an example of "awareness", just physical sensing and response. "

I agree with your statement about definitions, but a problem remains. 'self-awareness' (subjectivity) and 'awareness-of-other' (objectivity) plus volition etc., all can be described in terms of information transfers and processing. But the way in which I actually experience them internally, cannot. For example, I can readily imagine a being that looks and acts like a human, but experiences itself as an information processing machine. It would be aware of the internal message from the hand on the hot stove (as I am aware of the receipt of an external sound), informing it that the hand was burning. It would be aware of the resulting messages to the arm, to pull the hand off, and aware of the messages to the muscles of the face, causing it to grimace and scream. It would be aware of all the algorithms employed to process this sensory information into responses. But that is nothing like my internal experience of the same external experience. I feel pain. My internal feeling per se, is experienced in a manner that is completely divorced from information processing, sensing and response. In other words, I am "conscious" of an experience, but not of any of the processing from which that experience seems to be constructed. As described in my book "Human and Machine Intelligence", I can imagine how to construct the latter. But not the former.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 15:54 GMT
Edwin,

Since my previous post, I have conducted my usual week-day observance of "Closer-to-Truth", on the local public television station. Today's episode was about consciousness, and one of the participants used a word, that I should have used in my previous post. So I will use it here. "Seeming" is the word.

As far back as Plato's Socratic dialogues, it has been apparent that a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Chidi Idika wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 15:08 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Your responses are vibrant. I have your essay to read next. Could you find time to read my What a Wavefunction is

And let me have your honest comment. Meanwhile, it makes demonstrable claims on the subject of consciousness/the observer. Now a warnig: the text may be "hard going" the physics is not! And I'll be back here to rate.

Best,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 22:09 GMT
Thanks Chidi. I'm glad you enjoyed the responses. Of course that's in large part due to the great comments I've received. Hope you enjoy my essay as well. I'll look at yours.

Best, Edwin Eugene Klingman



Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 04:17 GMT
Dear Chidi,

I have read your very interesting essay. I'll make a few remarks:

You say "conversely, the observable is definable strictly only in inverse-observer values...". That's worth contemplating. For example, James Putnam objects to the vagueness and circularity of the force definition F = ma whereby force is defined in terms of mass and mass is defined in terms of force...

view entire post





Ram Gopal Vishwakarma wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 18:42 GMT
Dear Edwin,

It was a privilege to read your essay. Though it is difficult to understand your proposed theory with such a brief description, it seems to share some common themes with my recent work (see my essay in the present contest). The non-locality of mass/energy has a deeper meaning than obvious, and is not realized generally. This, in fact, hints towards an altogether different representation of the source of gravitation in Einsteinian gravity. I would be glad to have your elucidations on your master equation in view of the new perspective I have proposed.

Wishing you luck,

___Ram

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:50 GMT
Dear Ram,

I've been very interested in your paper and also read your essay and your arXiv (ref [2]) several times. I've not yet had time to study the Milne model.

My model is based on the simplest possible assumption -- that only one field existed initially and has evolved to our current state. As most of the universe is described by the weak field equations I have focused on these, as they are solvable, whereas the full field equations are not, except in very simple cases. But as I point out, the weak field itself is not linear, only the weak field equations, therefore I have attempted to incorporate the non-linearity in these equations. My initial results are very promising, based on assumptions that I find reasonable. I have several problems in which I hope to apply this technique and will know more about the value of the technique only when I obtain these solutions. On page 4 you state: "...the gravitational energy is inherently present in equations (2) [...] resulting from the non-linearity of the equations." What else could the non-linearity represent?!

Since I first read your paper I've been working to show that Einstein's nonlinear field equations also derive from my master equation and this appears to be successful. I am rechecking my derivation currently. I have hesitated to comment on your page only because I have not had time to study the Milne and Kasner solutions in terms of my model.

I have recommended your essay to friends within and outside the FQXi community. I find your paper exciting and I believe that it is very relevant to my own work. I too consider it a privilege to read your essay.

Thank you for writing your paper and entering it in this contest. I believe your approach is correct. I hope to show the consistency of our approaches.

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Ram Gopal Vishwakarma replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 23:38 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thanks for your marvelous remarks and your keen interest in my work. Recently I have found some more strong evidences and supports (not mentioned in the essay, but reported in two journals) for the new paradigm I've advocated. So, it seems to me that the approach is correct.

As you might have noticed in the essay, besides the gravitational energy, the matter fields (for example, the momentum density) also appear through the geometry (through the non-linearity) of the canonical equations R^{ik}=0.

___Ram

report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:02 GMT
Dr. Klingman

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


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 06:02 GMT
Dear Than Tin,

You begin with an excellent Feynman quote and then present a list of dualities that you cover in your essay, which I plan to read.

You noted that I "have touched some corners of it." I wonder which corners you had in mind? I typically try to relate specifics in other's essays to similarities in my own, to compare and contrast.

Thanks for the comment, and good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Antoine Acke wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:07 GMT
Dear Eugene,

I enjoyed reading your very inspiring essay. I agree with you that it is experimentally obvious that gravity is real, that the gravitational field is not abstract geometry, and that the GEM theory leads to a consistent description of the gravitational phenomena and laws.

In my essay I show that the substantiality of the gravitational field can be explained by the hypothesis that it is a cloud of "information carried by informatons" ("g-information"). I start with the postulate that any material object manifests itself in space by emitting - at a rate proportional to its rest mass - what I call "informatons": granular entities that run away with the speed of light carrying information about the position and the state of movement of their emitter.

That hypothesis is justified by the following facts: we can deduce the GEM equations from the dynamics of the informatons and we can deduce the gravitational force exerted on a mass from the interaction between the "own" field of that mass with the flux of g-information emitted by other masses.

May I invite you to go through my essay?

I wish you all the best in the contest,

Regards,

Antoine.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 20:14 GMT
Dear Antoine,

Thank you for reading and commenting so nicely about my essay. Yes, gravity is real. I have now read your essay and am always happy to see others recognize the existence of the gravitomagnetic field. Your treatment is original. I'm confused about several points however. You seem to imply that 'informatons' carry only information, not energy, and gravitons carry energy from oscillating masses. I do not understand how energy-less and mass-less particles can exert a force. In addition, you state that the informatons carry information about the velocity of the emitter. Do you explain how this information is coded, and how it must be decoded differently in different inertial frames, and who does the decoding? I could not find the answers in your essay.

I'm also confused about how the informatons exert the magnetic-like force orthogonal to both velocity and to the gravitomagnetic field. Do you explain this elsewhere? It's a very difficult concept to understand.

Thanks again for commenting and for participating in the contest. Good luck.

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Antoine Acke replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 10:39 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,

Thanks for your reply.

In my essay INFORMATION AS THE SUBSTANCE OF GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS I give an introduction to my idea's about gravity (and electromagnetism). These idea's are elaborated in detail in ref 6 and in ref 7. Some comments on the points mentioned by you.

1. In a space where there are no other particles, a particle with mass m at rest in a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 23:00 GMT
Dear Antoine,

Thanks for answering my questions so succinctly, and pointing out that refs 6 and 7 hold more elaboration. I will look at these references. The idea that the acceleration of mass is generated by the particle's motion to restore symmetry is an interesting, and I believe original, idea and I will give it some thought. I do not quite understand your answer about the information about the velocity, but I will look at 6 and 7 for this insight.

If your theory makes any predictions, I would also be interested in those as I am, as mentioned, very interested in gravito-magnetism.

Thanks for the clarification and the links to references.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:55 GMT
Dear Edward,

You have produced yet another masterful essay and that too on your favorite subject- gravitation. Your essay is filled with originality and you have developed your C-field further so as to encompass both gravity and EM field in to one reference frame. It is interesting to note the way you have done it from your ‘master equation’. You have now thought how gravitational field manifests (I don’t want to use the word- creates) masses and hence energy in it. But this has been pointed out by me in my previous year’s (2012) fqxi essay contest paper. In it I have dealt with the QG field and black holes. So, please, go through it and ‘see’ it through the eyes of your ‘master equation’ and C-field; there you find ‘revelation’ of your dream of unifying gravitational field with the EM field. I insist you to see that essay and then inform me what you have found in it.

BTW, please, have a peep in to my current essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and post your invaluable comments on it in my thread.

Thanks again for producing such a heart touching essay.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 20:24 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for reading and so graciously commenting upon my essay. As you noted, I continue to develop my theory of gravitation as in earlier fqxi essays. Typically each contest provides questions to answer, concepts to explain, and the stimulus of new ideas from others essays. The result is year-by-year improvement in our theories.

I focus on the few things that I have direct and immediate awareness of: gravity and self-awareness. You mention in your essay that -- as we advance from classical macro-physics, where sight and sound provide relatively direct information, to the microscopic world of QM, in which only indirect information is provided by instruments -- the kind of information is different, and can be interpreted in many ways. This helps to explain the many "consistent" versions of QM. I also agree with you that information is nonphysical in nature. And it is probably true that our knowledge is nonphysical, without defining knowledge exactly. Also, that "constructing [a model of] Reality of the external world" is the most important function of the brain. Additionally, I agree that "there is no limit to the comprehension power of the human mind [and] no limit to the horizon of his imagination." And finally, I generally agree that "Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit", although it is difficult to fit the direct experience of gravity into this formulation.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 08:07 GMT
Dear Edwin,

From your last sentence in your above remark it appears (or certain?) to me that you are not 'seeing' gravity now but feeling (experiencing) it as you are trying to become one with the reality of gravity through the vision your wisdom has provided you with the help of your mathematical skills. This reminds me of subject (mind) becoming one with the object (reality), in the Indian philosophical system of 'Advaita' Vedanta, to attain liberation from the bounds of our senses. This is how I cognize your present state. Am I mistaken? You only can tell.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 23:03 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I am even more hesitant to interpret other philosophical systems than I am physics, however, according to my interpretation of Vedanta, you are not entirely mistaken in your cognizance.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 03:04 GMT
Dear Edwin,

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

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

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

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 20:34 GMT
Dear Amazigh,

I agree with your essay that dualism is certainly a major aspect of reality, although I don't necessarily agree that the world is binary. The existence of almost any feature or property of anything is typically defined in contrast to its opposite, hence duality. Thus it seems not unreasonable to view duality as a basic principle of the universe.

In fact, I discuss dualism in my essay and point out a little recognized duality associated with the gravitomagnetic field.

Thank you very much for reading my essay and commenting. Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 06:09 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Empirically nature of information is continuum, while the phenomenon of gravitation differs from particle scenario to string-matter continuum scenario, in that gravitation is a tensor product that emerges with eigen-rotations of string-matter segments. In this scenario, information is the transfer of mass of string-segments with eigen-rotational energy, whereas in particle scenario it is the transfer of energy only. This describes that, information is physical and gravity is an integral part of it; while eigen-rotation of string-segment is causal for dynamic time evolution with other space-time coordinators and thus a causal set, in that ‘past’ of that locality is local rather than universal.

In this context your concepts on information, ‘in-formation’ from form-al structure on states, is true; though three eigen-rotational states are expressional with this paradigm.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 23:07 GMT
Dear Jayakar,

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I'm glad to see that you find the concept of 'information' from formal structure on states as true, and will follow the link you provided to see in what sense you interpret this.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 01:29 GMT
Dear Edwin - a very thought provoking essay. I think I may need to read your other work in order to appreciate it fully. I enjoyed the snippets of wisdom from Lee Smolin's book, which is on my iPad the day it came out. I enjoyed it very much, but perhaps not as much as his previous books, the Trouble with Physics (which makes many similar points to your essay), and Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, which I regard as a classic, and should be read by every scientifically literate individual.

I liked the way you brought in the Leibniz quote. Very nice.

Good luck in the contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 04:43 GMT
Dear Paul,

I'm glad you enjoyed my essay. As I noted on your page, I very much enjoyed the originality and lucidity with which you present a 'far-out' idea so well that I must take it seriously. That is the real beauty of these FQXi contests. Neither your nor my essays would stand a chance of being published in Phys Rev Lett, partially because we are outside of academia (the 'establishment') but also because we push the limits. Yet FQXi gives us a platform to expose our ideas and receive feedback. Who could ask for anything more? (Well, yes, we could ask, but who would expect anything more in this old world.)

Thanks for reading and commenting (I also enjoyed your comments scattered about) and good luck in the contest. I look forward to your future contributions.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Chidi Idika wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 18:07 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Great essay, as far I can see. Here is to you (my rating) for pushing boundaries. You state:

“My self-awareness is integral, not fractured or fragmented. So I see light —not a photon, not a ‘bit’—but images”

I think it is the central objective of science to differential always between FACT and EXPLANATIONS of fact. If we mix these up we miss the unique value of science to society.

And thanks for that power comment over at my blog. You may want to take another look and see my exchange with Marcoen. I think it clarifies. And please DO rate me as you deem.

Regards,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:30 GMT
Dear Chidi,

I very much appreciated your remark above, "I think it is the central objective of science to differential always between FACT and EXPLANATIONS of fact." That is a very appropriate response to the statement you quoted.

I am also pleased that you found my comment to you helpful. Also, you suggested that I look at your exchange with Marcoen, which I have done. He put a lot of effort into suggestions on how to make your ideas more understandable. At one point you say "May be I should make myself more express and not unduly expect imagination from my readers."

Yes, that is very important. When one has a clear idea of something, one sometimes assumes that others have the same idea, or can do so "with just a little imagination." But the fact is that when one is dealing with complicated ideas of the kind treated in FQXi essays, it is best to require as little imagination as possible from the reader. The more one can clarify his ideas, requiring minimum interpretation, the better.

Finally, in your last comment to Marcoen you say, "if in my axioms we replace the word "entity" with the word "universal constant" this whole thing about axioms DISAPPEARS and one has rather conventional wisdom." This choice of words is critical, and changes the whole meaning of your essay for most readers. For most of us, the word "entity" does not connote "universal constant", or vice versa. I would strongly suggest that you make this change in your future development of your ideas. It takes a while to understand these things, and even a longer while to help others to understand them.

This change helps me understand better the point you are trying to make.

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman.




CS Unnikrishnan wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 10:48 GMT
Dear Edwin Klingman,

If I understand correctly, you are exploring the issue of reality in the context of 'theories' of reality of physical nature, highlighting the large content of 'belief' and inserted parameters in the constructed reality in theories. Certainly it is important to point that out.

However, you have decided to risk proposing a theory yourself, subject to the same critique. You work with a single complex field, because that is simpler, but with a larger ingredient of belief and hope, perhaps. The problem does not end after writing down an equation - the consequences and their connections to what one can observe and test, quantitatively, is also important. So, isn't it too premature to call the description on page 3 a theory of physical nature?

Thanks and regards,

Unnikrshnan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 14:36 GMT
Dear Unnikrshnan,

You are certainly correct to state that, if I am highly critical of current theories of physics, I should expect equally critical examination of my own theory. You are also correct that page 3 does not constitute a theory. With a 9 page limit it is difficult to furnish a complete example of a theory, and also discuss the nature of the reality of information, in support of the main theme. But that is what page 12 is intended to support, and what my references 10, 11, 14, 22, 24, 25, 26,and 28 contain. So yes, I think it is a theory, with predictions, and suggestions for tests, and explanations for current anomalies that other theories cannot explain. And as I mention with respect to my newly worked out n-GEM technique of 'non-linearizing' the weak field equation(s), I hope to provide much more quantitative predictions in the reasonable near future.

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Margriet Anne O\'Regan wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 17:16 GMT
Hello Edwin from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder - I just finished a very long commentary on your fine essay & thanking you for your encouragement & I pushed the wrong button & lost it - I think !! I'm so cross with myself, I enjoyed your essay very much - I might try again later today (actually its 3.30 am here !!!)

Regards

Margriet

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 20:02 GMT
Hi Margriet from DownUnder,

Sorry to hear the dog ate your homework. That has happened to me so many times that I now prepare long comments offline in WordPad or equivalent, then copy the comment over. Then if it eats it, I still have it.

Anyway, thanks for reading and commenting. As I remarked on your page, we have largely arrived at a similar general model of consciousness and information, although the specifics of the 'interstitial fluid' differ in details.

Again, welcome to FQXi and thanks for submitting your essay. Most of your feedback was good, which should make you happy as this was your first effort at a paper or essay.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Margriet Anne O\'Regan replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 01:15 GMT
Yep !!!!! I finally figured out how to write it up off line & then copy it in, thanx !!!! So now even though it's all so last minute-ly I'm rattling off my enthusiastic comments to other essayists every 15min or so - as, of course I kinda wrote up a 'blanket statement' . .... with personalized comments added at the last second - & not faked ones I can assure you as this intellectual adventure...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 01:34 GMT
Edwin,

In my usual distracted fashion, it has taken me several tries to read through your essay. It pulls a lot together and the wires in my brain get crossed.

The result is that I have to look at things very simplistically and other ways of thinking keep popping up.

Rather than the gravity field as the source of consciousness, why not light?

Consciousness is not...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:34 GMT
Hi John,

I think we discussed some of this above. I don't think your ideas about light as the basis of consciousness or gravity hold together. You ask, "Rather than the gravity field as the source of consciousness, why not light?" My essay is the short version, but I have written two books (on Amazon) that give you the long answer. None of these fit into a comment.

Your ideas are more poetic than physical, and do not offer explanations of how it all fits together, or equations to calculate the results of measurements, or predictions of what to look for, or any other of the requirements of a theory of physics. As I've told you before, I like the analogical ideas and metaphorical connections to social, political, and economic reality that you throw out regularly, and I agree with you that physics is very much in need of a swift kick in the pants, but whatever the final outcome, the 'final theory' will almost certainly come from someone who understands the current theories.

You would be surprised how many ideas can be cobbled together using words that very loosely relate to each other. But physics has to eventually produce numbers that match measurements as well as seamlessly tieing it all together.

Thanks for reading and commenting. My suggestion, take it or leave it, would be to try to understand what I am saying rather than to immediately propose your ideas as a way of dismissing mine.

Have fun,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Kyle Miller wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 17:47 GMT
I like the approach you took with your essay. The historical stuff, the illustrations, and the examples you gave make for a much more interesting read. I think your prose is also clear cut and makes otherwise hard to grasp philosophical things--like the essay prompt--easier to understand, which is good for making your essay more accessible. There is a bit of esoteric maths, not too much, but more than I would prefer in a essay entry for this contest. Alas, I think the conclusion in my essay corroborates your intuitions about forces (e.g., gravity) being more real than bits.

Please see my essay: All Your Base Are Belong To Math.

- Kyle Miller

P.s. I attached an updated version of my entry for last year's contest, I thought you might enjoy it.

attachments: The_Quantum_Supremacy2.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:49 GMT
Dear Kyle,

I always enjoy your essays, the current and the last. For example, only you seem to realize: "Electricity is well understood within Newtonian mechanics too; it's only a theoretical physicist who would prefer understanding electricity using a relativistic quantum field theory (i.e., quantum electrodynamics or QED)"

I also enjoyed your take in the last essay: "Teleology can offer an account of the universe where LSD, the "ultimate forbidden fruit," is the final cause..." You may recall a discussion I had last year with you and Georgina (on your page). Your essays are unique and you make valuable contributions to FQXi in my opinion.

I hope you continue to submit such essays, year after year.

Thank you for reading mine and commenting. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:25 GMT
Dear Edwin,

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.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:20 GMT
Dear Amazigh,

Thank you for returning and rating my essay. As I discussed in my above reply to you, we do agree that duality is a key principle, and I gave an example in my current essay. Thanks again for rating my essay, and good luck with your theory. FQXi is an excellent place to offer such theories.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Charles Raldo Card wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:57 GMT
Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

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

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:09 GMT
Dear Charles Raldo Card,

I enjoyed your extended comment above, attempting to integrate and summarize the ideas from various essays. I agree with you that Alex Grinbaum's loop is an important contribution, as I noted in several comments on his page and on my page above.

I find comments such as yours very worth reading and appreciate your placing it on my page. I hope you find time to read and study my essay. Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Antoine Acke wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:52 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,

May I draw your attention to my reply to your post of jul 30 where I have given further clarification concerning certain points that are treated in my essay: the accelaration of an object as an effect of the disturbance of the symmetry of its own gravitational field, the encoding of information about the velocity of the emitter, and the relation between the "theory of informatons" and the observation of gravitational phenomena.

May I ask you to take these clarifications into account when you rate my essay?

Best,

Antoine.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:01 GMT
Dear Antoine,

Thank you for the reminder that you did answer several of my questions, including the explanation about "the accelaration of an object as an effect of the disturbance of the symmetry of its own gravitational field," which seems to be an original idea. I did take this into account when I rated your essay.

Thanks for the extended discussion trying to relate our interest in gravitomagnetism.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear Edwin,

We had many good comments in our corresponding threads few weeks ago and mutually agreed in some of our ideas, but probably forgot to rate both of our essays.

I impressed by some of your's ideas there. So I rate you maximum. What is yours assessment on me?

Best wishes

Dipak

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:55 GMT
Dear Dipak, I did not forget to rate you about the time we read each other's essays. Thank you for coming back to my essay before the close, and best of luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:33 GMT
Greetings Ed,

I enjoyed being able to push your rating up a bit. Well done. Your high standing is well-deserved. I wish you the best of luck in the finals.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:50 GMT
Thanks Jonathan,

The rocky ride begins in a few hours. It's been another very worthwhile contest, despite a number of irregularities, and I've benefited via insights from many different essays, including yours. I look forward to your next essay, and to the Kauffmann-like blogs you will probably bring to our attention in the coming year.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 08:55 GMT
I am late in commenting your article because I come back to it several times. I rate you 9. Just look formulas in my essay and comment it. That would be enough. Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:34 GMT
Dear Branko,

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. I have looked at your essay and find some points of agreement. For example, you say "Overwhelmed by information overload, sometimes contradictory, we have to decide in advance which information we would pay attention to." For example, although general relativity applies to almost everything, I am primarily focused on the application of GR to particle physics.

I also agree that the Cycle is a fundamental concept on which to focus, and believe that gravito-magnetism introduced the fundamental cycle into existence when the primordial symmetry broke.

I have also been playing with James Putnam's idea of dimensionless force, and find that this leads to some insights that might otherwise be missed. I certainly agree with you that the fine structure constant is a key dimensionless parameter, but I do not find the proton-electron mass ration to be significant in my theory. I have not had time to study the values in your table.

Thanks again for reading my essay and coming back to it.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Christian Corda wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 10:37 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,

As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your beautiful Essay. Here are my comments/questions.

1) As I told in my Essay page, I worked and still work on gravito-magnetism. Thus, I have a personal interest in your Essay.

2) You extend General Relativity by adding your C field. This theory reproduces GR equations, but it represents a Yang-Mills gauge theory of mass. I think that similar results could be, in principle, re-obtained in some extended theories of gravity like scalar-tensor gravity and f(R) theory. You could be interested to extend your non-linear approach in those cases too.

3) Recently, Fromholz, Poisson and Will reformulated the MTW's statement that "any physical theory originally written in a special coordinates system can be recast in geometric, coordinate free language" as "The principle of general covariance, upon which general relativity is built, implies that coordinates are simply labels of spacetime events that can be assigned completely arbitrarily (subject to some conditions of smoothness and differentiability). The only quantities that have physical meaning - the measurables - are those that are invariant under coordinate transformations. One such invariant is the number of ticks on an atomic clock giving the proper time between two events", see http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0394.

4) I agree with your statement that all energy gravitates, but the problem is that, based on Einstein Equivalence Principle, the gravitational energy cannot be localized! This is in perfect agreement with Yau's statement and is also connected to Kauffmann's work recently noted by FQXi.

5) I think that solar system tests of gravity should put some constrains to the C-filed. In general, deviations from standard GR must be weak for a theory to be viable. Thus, I suggest you to extend your work in this direction too.

6) Concerning the linearization process, do you think that the C-field should enable more gravity-waves polarizations than the two standard polarizations of GR?

In any case, I found your Essay a bite provocative and also interesting. As I appreciate people who "think outside the box", I will give you a high rate.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:58 GMT
Dear Christian,

Thank you for reading and commenting, and particularly for the information you convey in your comments. I've already read your paper on gravito-magnetism (with Iorio) and found it the most concise and complete history of gravito-magnetism, and development of GW calculations.

I've not had an opportunity to look it scalar-tensor and f(R) extended theories yet.

Thank you for the reference to Fromholz, Poisson, and Will's work.

Yes, the idea that all energy gravitates is relatively new to me (or at least its significance) and very exciting.

I agree that solar system tests put relevant constraints on the C-field, but I'm not yet sure that these apply at the higher density one encounters it particle levels. Investigation of this is my immediate goal. I have not yet applied the n-GEM technique to gravity waves.

Thank you again for the comments and the rating, and congratulations on your unquestioned and deserved lead in this contest.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:47 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I think yours is a terrific essay in so many ways, and so learned.

Your section entitled "Why do physicists 'believe' current theories?" was a bit of an eye-opener. But I must say I was amazed at the many similarities of viewpoint between your essay and my essay. But there are other similarities too. E.g. I was pleased that you mentioned "the concept of 'false' information", which I've often thought must be accounted for in a picture of reality. Also the idea that "only one real field existed initially...[that] could evolve only through self-interaction" - very interesting that there now seems to be evidence that gravity really does interact with itself, which seems to back up the idea behind your master equation.

I'm not sure what your "Number Generating System" numbers are. I wondered if they were in any way similar to the non-Platonic physically real numbers I tried to make a case for in my essay.

Another interesting point you make is: the fact that the universe naturally self organizes "is an anti-entropic characteristic that only gravity seems to exhibit-and living beings!"

I think your essay deserves to win a prize. Best wishes,

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:02 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Thanks for the above comment. As you know from my long comment on your page, it's mutual. I found your essay to be one of the closest to mine in concept and in detail. We very much see the key issues in a similar light.

As for "number generating system", I address Wigner's issue of why mathematics is so incredibly effective in describing scientific reality. I start with the logic of physical thresholds, which convert analog reality to approximate binary models, and the fact that counters are easy to build from such connected gates. Then I ask how the resulting numbers can be applied to reality. This is beyond a comment, but is covered briefly in my essay and thoroughly in my expanded dissertation "The Automatic Theory of Physics".

Congratulations again on your wonderful essay and thanks for your remarks. I look forward to reading your next essay!

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 02:16 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

And if the eUniverse was a work of art ?

The eUniverse conceiving the woman and the man, the flowers and the smiley faces, is a recognized Artist.

The evidence is there and will remain forever. The motion was obvious for Aristotle, also for Galileo, Newton and Einstein. What has changed is the understanding and interpretation.

For the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:00 GMT
Wonderful to see you finish in the top 10!

Good luck in the finals, Ed. May the expert panel find as much to like about your essay as I did. You deserve to win a prize this year. Very well done.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 04:17 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thanks. I'm also happy to see that you made it. In fact, most of those that I hoped would make it did so, with the exception of a few very excellent essays, that did not. It is hard to understand how excellent essays do not make the cutoff, but that happens every year.

As occurs every year, the stimulation of new ideas and interactions with great people make this contest worth the time and effort it requires.

Best to you and all of my FQXi friends,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 21:51 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. As you can see my mind it is probably the opposite of yours, but 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...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


William C. McHarris wrote on Aug. 13, 2013 @ 18:15 GMT
Dear Ed,

Thank you very much for your kind remarks concerning my essay and for your e-mail. I responded to some of this under my thread.

You write convincingly, eloquently, and overwhelmingly! I especially liked — and, naturally, agreed with — your first section. Physics in general does seem to be stuck in a rut. One of the most positive aspects of this contest is that it allows for the introduction of ideas that are "out of the box," and which provoke deeper investigation of what science is all about. Your essay does an admirable job of this.

I fear that my knowledge of General Relativity is somewhat superficial, so I don't have any sort of solid, "gut" feeling about its concrete, experimental aspects. (I'm still an experimentalist at heart!) Thus, I couldn't follow your arguments to much depth, but it seems that the use of the interplay between linearity and nonlinearity is well worth following up. My only worry at the moment is that it might be too general in coupling relativity with electromagnetism (and quantum mechanics?). Could you comment on this — at your leisure, of course?

Now that the commenting and voting is past, I should have time to pursue things further. I'll look up your previous essay, and especially your books. Give me a few months, and I can respond more intelligently.

Best wishes,

Bill

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear Bill,

Thanks for your response and your kind words. I knew that we shared several ideas about the current state of physics, having read your essay and other publications. And apparently about human foibles and fashion. As I noted, I'm excited about your perspective on nonlinearity as potential source of 'weirdness' in QM.

I can't tell from your comment whether you are...

view entire post





Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 22:50 GMT
Recent comments on Daryl Janzen's thread caught my attention.

In particular, I really like Daryl's statement:

"The way for relativity to make sense is to assume that time truly passes and simultaneity is absolute, regardless of the fact that simultaneous events won't be described as synchronous in just any given reference frame."

Simultaneity is the fact, synchronicity is the communication of the event over distances at the speed of light, obviously synchronous only for equidistant observers, or other equivalent special relations between frames.

I have put enough thought into it to convince myself that there's absolutely no way our universe could "hold together" in stable fashion for 14 giga-year unless simultaneity spans the universe. This is why the "ict" formalism is appropriate (despite MTW). The orthogonality of time is a different order of orthogonality than that between the three spatial dimensions. Thus the signature: (-,+,+,+).

I also agree with Daryl's realist position that things should "make sense". I've often heard that "our brains evolved" in the classical world and we shouldn't expect to make sense of a quantum universe, or relativistic universe, etc." But if consciousness is as I propose in my essay, an inherent property of creation, then one would expect things to make sense.

I've begun reading a new book, "Bankrupting Physics" by Unzicker and Jones, which I recommend other realists.

I'm glad to see some comments going after the voting has closed.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I read with great interest your latest essay, and this I can write now without asking for a rating, I mean it.

There are some important parallels with my perception of reality and of course also great differences.

We have one thing in common : The Consciousness Field. Your consciousness field can be compared with my non-causal consciousness that triggers the causal consciousness and so is the cause of excitations in the field that is the originator of ALL particles. The difference is that my excitations are lasting only one Planck moment. It is our causal consciousness that is entangled with its non causal part (together forming the Consciousness Field) that is pasting these Planck moments together into a understandable "history".

This is only part of the picture so I would be oblidged if you could spent some time to read and comment my essay.

Best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
sorry here is the link

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.