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 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

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.

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


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

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

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

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
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

Don Limuti: on 8/16/13 at 19:42pm UTC, wrote City College of New York is rated #1 ...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/9/13 at 19:38pm UTC, wrote And by the way, FFP conferences are not always in Paris. This year an...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/9/13 at 19:34pm UTC, wrote Thanks Don, (in reply to your comment on my page) I guess you should be...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/8/13 at 23:50pm UTC, wrote So glad you could make it, Oh exalted One! Best of luck in the finals Don!...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 19:12pm UTC, wrote Dear Don, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Don Limuti: on 8/7/13 at 5:50am UTC, wrote Helmut, Thanks for your extreme vote of confidence. Anything on my website...

Helmut Hansen: on 8/7/13 at 4:52am UTC, wrote Dear Don, thank you very much for visiting my FQXI-page and leaving a...

Don Limuti: on 8/6/13 at 15:15pm UTC, wrote Hi Vladimir, Thanks for visiting. Appreciate your succinct review. Your...


thuy lien: "The faction in Bannerlord: Battania King: ‘Caladog’ -partially..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

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...

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.

December 15, 2017

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Information, Misinformation and High Philosophy by Don Limuti [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 16:11 GMT
Essay Abstract

Can we have enough information to answer deep philosophical questions like "how come existence"? This essay touches on this question and why it cannot be answered. Disappointing as this may be there is still lots to do in physics. One particular area of physics that needs to be addressed is the uncertainty principle and its source in our misinformation concerning how things move. This essay investigates the history of how we got stuck with the uncertainty principle an insidious distorter of information.

Author Bio

Don Limuti graduated from CCNY. He worked under Doug Engelbart at SRI International (where Siri was developed) helping to develop the second node on the internet. This is his fifth FQXi contest. The other entries were: 1. Making Time with Pretty Girls and Hot Stoves 2. Gravity from the Ground Up 3. Making Waves. and 4. An Elephant in the Room. He has a paper on gravity titled “Mercury’s Preces- sion Reconsidered” published by The Prespacetime Journal. He would like to see free higher education made available for all who desire it. He created and maintains the web site

Download Essay PDF File

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 21:49 GMT
Hi Don! Good to see you here again!

report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 02:24 GMT
Hi Lev,

I was really glad to see you in the contest, you missed the last one.

I am in catchup mode as far as the contest goes, I will get into it fully when I get back from vacation mid July. I look forward to reading your entry.

I am hoping that any visitors will excuse my lack of response, I will return!

And thank you Brendan, for sure I though my entry would be rejected as an attempt to lower FQXi standards :)

Don L.

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 08:46 GMT
Dear Don,

I read with agreat smile your essay, really encouraging of meeting people who want to go to the essence and also accept that perhaps we will never find it.

I also feel like the grain of salt trying to measure the depth of the ocean.

You mention the lambda-hopping. In my perception I use the Planck time as the limit of our causal universe, beyond this length and time we enter in what I call Total Simultaneity. Your hopping is thakin place (I think) in this TS from where it can "hop" to every place, every time and every existing or non existing universe.

I hope i will meet you on the thread of my essay :"THE QUEST FOR THE FINAL SEQUENCE3" where you can also give it a rating.

best of luck Don


report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 15:01 GMT
Dear Don

An interesting conversation, though somewhat cumbersome, but I like the last sentence: "Let’s get real!"

report post as inappropriate

Manuel S Morales wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 17:57 GMT

You have an interesting approach to writing an essay I must say. I appreciated the back and forth dialog approach you used to express your points and counter points. However, I would have liked to see a more structured analysis or presentation on some of your key points in order to give them their proper due. Nonetheless, I enjoyed your presentation overall and have rated it accordingly. Good luck with your entry.

Meanwhile, I hope you take the time to review my essay which touched upon some of the topics in your essay as well. The findings as presented in my essay have led me to how causality unifies gravity with the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministc force, see:

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:58 GMT
Send to all of you


To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 01:19 GMT
Dear Don,

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....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 06:17 GMT
Hi Don!

Nice style for essay! I have no words. But I see some more important thing behind of your words! You have well comprehend that in this topic only the joke may contain, nothing more! I appreciate your essay as "good" (8) with clean heart! Open my work please, there you will find also jokes but somewhat with more poison!

Best wishes,



post approved

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:09 GMT

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 04:29 GMT
I've enjoyed reading your essay, so far Don..

Very entertaining, oh liberated one. I'll comment further and rate your essay thoughtfully, when I'm done.



report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 04:33 GMT

You are invited to check out my essay, when you get the chance.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 05:10 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Pleasure to see you in the contest and looking forward to reading your essay.

I do expect a bunch of "ribbing" about my essay, I could not resist, it was just too

much fun.

I have just returned from vacation and expect to jump into the brouhaha soon.

Siri wishes you a nobel victory oh exalted one.

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 04:21 GMT
Oh thou exalted one, ...yourself



report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 10:41 GMT
Dear Don,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 19:30 GMT

Good to see you back. Hope you and SIRI had a good hols. Does he translate?

Great fun essay. A nice change from the more standard fare. How nice to have a SIRI not entirely dictated by mainstream doctrine!, are you working on the latest upgrade?

I entirely agree that; "Wheeler should have fixed theflaw in quantum mechanics instead of putting the band aid of information...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 03:28 GMT
Hi Peter,

Yes, I do use Siri quite a bit. She can be quite unladylike for an assistant, so yes I am searching for an upgrade. She worked fine in Florida, but I turned her off in the Bahamas because she can be a very expensive girlfriend.

Yes, a customizable Siri would be neat... I wish I had the talent to do it.

I am glad you enjoyed the essay. I am on my way to your blog.

Wishing you the best of luck,

Don L.

Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 09:50 GMT

Thanks for your kind comments on my blog. When we take bold steps challenging doctrine I think it's warming to find not all dismiss our propositions.

For me I'm a little surprised and disappointed so few of our most senior physicists seem to really understand all the subtleties of Bells Inequalities, so the form and importance of the resolution. Perhaps that's why it hasn't previously been identified. Interesting.

I'd assumed SIRI was asexual like god, but I suppose an asexual voice is tricky! I can see us all having our own eventually. Will they look for disagreement like most of us and argue amongst themselves? Or find the more valuable unity in hidden likenesses?

Very well done and best wishes.


report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 00:26 GMT
Dear Don,

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

Your ideas are expressed well and your humor is superb (just a little computer glitch on the pod bay doors!). You integrate 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 with a bad case of the continuity gene, I'm not yet on the lambda bandwagon, but FQXi essays are the ideal vehicle for presenting ideas to the community, improving the ideas from user feedback, and presenting the idea again in the context of new topics.

You noted that you're "under no illusions a fundamental discontinuity of motion (not time and space) can be accepted readily (the gene thing)."

That's an important reminder! Your casual reader, who does not understand as thoroughly as you all of the subtleties involved, may tend to assume lambda-hopping implies discrete time and space. If that is not the case, then it needs to be emphasized. For example, my model is based on continuous time and space, but has a quantum of action (energy*time). I tend to interpret this as meaning that unless sufficient action exists, an event will not occur. Recall that the units of angular momentum are the same as action (mvr). So if lambda-hopping is analyzed in terms of the quantum of action, it becomes more feasible for me, whereas discontinuous time and space is a deal breaker! So it's good to remind readers that you don't require discrete time and space.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 12:40 GMT
Hello Don,

Firstly where can I get that version of Siri? ;)

Very readable and interesting essay. Also relevant. I think you took the reader on a fluent journey through history and where perhaps physics has taken a potential wrong turn.

If you find the time, I'd be grateful if you would read my essay.

I like anything that challenges mainsteam, so top marks from me!

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 14:22 GMT

Unfortunately, that version of Siri was only in my dream. However, I believe a new iPhone is arriving in September. Perhaps I should send Apple a copy of my essay.

The divinity dialog module DDM could be a very cool feature. There could be a module for each of the major religions and maybe a special edition DDM for the Pastafarians (I think it could be a big seller) :)

I appreciate your to the point summary of my essay. I wish I had it for my abstract.

I am off to visit your essay.


Don L.

Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 07:03 GMT
Hi Don,

Definitely - Apple need this! ;)Thanks for the comments over on my page too.

Best wishes for the contest,


report post as inappropriate

Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 04:12 GMT
Dear Don,

Congratulations both for you and Siri for such sound dreaming to out put the essay!

In my essay I also used the term quantize inertial motions for the wave-corpuscular phenomena as like "hopping" of photons etc.

Most importantly both us like to propose that 'It from bit' and 'Bit from it' are just two side of a "coin".



report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 20:04 GMT
Hi Dipak,

Thanks for visiting my blog. I think it is just the two of us who say "two sides of the same coin" as describing the situation of -it from or bit from it-.

I owe a lot to that Frenchman Louie deBroglie, he was just amazing. And I see you use his amazing result that "corpuscles" have wavelength. That makes two things we have in common.

My own interest in quantum mechanics started with the conflict between Zeno and deBroglie. This is the things cannot move camp and the everything must move camp. I agree with both camps and phrase the result as "Nothing moves yet everything changes".

I do have a mission and that is to undo the "uncertainty principle".

Thanks again,

Don Limuti

john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 13:50 GMT
Hello Don -

A very humorous and engaging way to deal with the oddities of the quantum world. You describe its frailties very well. - and you also show how significant they are.

In the main, the way you answer the It an Bit question is similar to mine: but I show that that the Cosmos is a Vortex in a field of energy, and that as the force of this field continues to act upon this...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 03:09 GMT
Hi John,

I did enjoy reading your interesting and fast paced essay. Sometimes my readers assume my positions. This is a good time to restate them.

1. I think of QM particles and photons as appearing and disappearing over the course of moving a wavelength worth of space. And yes you could call this a type of pulsing, However this pulsing is how the particles move on a continuous background of space-time. I do not think of space or time as digital. The only thing that is digital is how particles move by coming in and out of a continuous space-time.

2. I think the quantum-classical divide is real and is marked by the Planck Mass. Masses above the Planck mass do not have the property of wavelength and thus are not quantum mechanical. It is the particle-wave divide that I find to be not real. Photons and particles do not at times have a particle nature and at other times a wave nature.

3. Our predisposition to not having particles appear and disappear is because of genes developed to handle a classical world where things do move smoothly.

4. Siri is very cool (and useful), but she is not really AI. She is much more an augmenter of human intellect. At some point AI may eventually dominate over augmentation. I think it will be some time before the excessive intellect level of Siri will be available.

And if you find an advance version of Siri, please let me know.

Thanks for your interesting essay, I am off to rate it.

Don L.

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 01:42 GMT
Dear Don

I really enjoyed your paper - using the Siri gimmick was an excellent way to keep the serious discussion flowing smoothly and lightly, tempered by a sense of fun. I rather like your concept of lamda-hopping. It is somewhat akin to my concept of momentum transfer across nodes in my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here. In your theory minimum distance for each particle would be the wavelength, but that leaves one wondering what sort of medium or ether can accomodate such variable hopping? No matter, continuous velocity is indeed a basic problem in physics. I will have to think some more about the various criticisms you (or was it Siri?) gave for the explanation of the double-slit experiment. In my book it is Einstein who is the one who goofed by eliminating the ether in Special Relativity, and by his point-photon concept, which lead to duality and probability. See my last year's fqxi essay 'Fix Physics!".

I wish you all the best


report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

Of course I take little responsibility for this work....It is all Siri's fault :) She has a sister that would love to met you.

I do remember Fix Physics but I do not recall Beautiful Universe Theory. I will catch up and get back to you. But first thanks for bring up the ether. It triggered something I had not thought of before.

Let me see if I can explain it:

1. Lambda-Hopping is the only way to get around Zeno's objection to motion. I assumed that Zeno was exactly right in that particles and photons cannot move. However, Zeno failed to mention that they may not move but they have to change position. This changing of position has rules and is deterministic. A photon (or electron) when nothing is present just Lambda-Hops along in a straight line, appearing and disappearing at wavelength intervals. When the particle disappears it is not not in some other dimension or hidden, it flat out does not exist.

2. Of course this means that all of nature is fundamentally non-local. Most people cannot accept this, that is why I say they have the "continuity" gene. I urge them to show a little backbone.

3. Now about the ether. A particle in isolation has no need of the ether, in that it creates its own space-time with the Lambda-Hop. Remember a particle has no velocity (with respect to an observer). A particle is always in the observers frame of reference, It does not need something to have a velocity with respect too. You could say that the sum of all particle's Lambda-Hopping is space-time.

4. So, is there an ether? When an observer sees everything from a QM viewpoint (as all particles), they become the ether. When an observer has to communicate to other observers, relativity comes into play.

I think this is interesting. What to you think, should I blame it on Siri?

I will get back to you,


Don L.

Author Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 19:15 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

I just read the Beautiful Universe Theory. I am still a little groggy but impressed none the less. I was expecting a FQXi essay not a 30 something page paper.

We start from very different points. Your start is spherical rotating charges. My start is an isolated particle alone in existence and how it manifests. I try to avoid charges as much as possible.

With these two very, very different starts our conclusions to a very great extent are the same.

Here is a list of what I believe we agree on.

1. A point photon is nonsense.

2. The speed of light is not constant. Yes there is a maximum speed c, but the various wavelengths of light only get close to it.

3. The uncertainty principle is nonsense.

4. The low level quantum stuff actually creates apace-time. Therefore space and time are dependent upon quantum phenomena.

Please let me know if my understanding is correct.

Even if just part of this correct, it is amazing given such different starting points!

I will copy this over to your blog. My sincere admiration.

Don Limuti

Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 05:39 GMT
Dear Don,

You have the knack of spellbinding your readers with your literary style and your conversation with your protégée Siri is highly interesting and charming too. Your reference to Indian philosophy of Vedanta in describing the relationship between It and Bit is very attractive. In Vedanta there are three branches and one of them is the famous ‘Advaita’ (literally meaning- nondualism) and in it your description of Nirguna and Saguna Brahman comes. Sri Ramakrishna was a follower of this system of philosophy.

Your view of the relationship that exists between It and Bit, that is, they are both inseparable or intertwined or represent two faces of the same coin, matches with the one that I have expressed in my essay. In your conversation, you have historically but lucidly analyzed how the problem between analog and digital nature of reality arose, and up till now how the problem persists.

You want to remove the uncertainty plaguing quantum theory by eliminating Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy from QM, but you have to bear in mind that it is at the core of QM and hence eliminating it means eliminating QM itself in its current form unless you have an universally acceptable another form of QM. But you have set forth before yourself such a task and I wish you every success in your endeavor to accomplish that feat and thereby become a model to others. I am curious to know how you do it through your computer simulation program.

Please go through my essay also ( and express your comments on it in my thread. After seeing your comments, I am going to rate your essay with maximum possible score.

Wish you all the best in the essay contest and congratulate you once again for producing such a beautiful essay.


report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 14:54 GMT
Hi Shreenath,

Thanks for stopping by. I still have my doubts about my dialog like approach, so thanks for expressing your appreciation. As you noted, I am a fan of Ramakrishna and the high philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. I find it most humorous that the list of world religions now includes physics thanks to Wheeler and other physicists. The concept promoted by Ramakrishna of the harmony of all religions needs to be expanded a little :)

You have pointed out quite rightly that I am a mosquito biting an iron bull. It will be very difficult for my work to get any recognition if it gets to be judged by professors who have been publishing and teaching about the validity of the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle is like a tax loophole, something that will be difficult to get rid of. And who knows, maybe the community of physicists have enough ethics to get rid of the tax loophole?

Thanks for your encouragement. I will be getting familiar with your work and post on your site.

Don Limuti

PS Please, if you would, ask your last question again, the one about computer simulation. I am not sure what it refers to.

Christian Corda wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 08:58 GMT
Hi Don,

As promised in my Essay page, I have read your beautiful Essay. It is well written, particular and humorous. Do you think that Siri's statement "It is neither IT from Bit nor Bit from IT" could be in agreement with mine "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"? I have also found interesting your comparison between Einstein's hidden variable and Wheeler's information. In general, I agree with your and Einstein's point of view on the incompleteness of quantum mechanics.

Your Essay give a lot of fun to me. Thus, I will surely give you a high score.



report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 20:01 GMT
Hi Christian,

Without stretching too much I think our viewpoints are the same. Here goes:

1. Start with: "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"?

2. Change physics to "it" and change information to "Bit" and you get:

"Bit tells "it" how to work. "It" tells Bit how to flow"?

3. Lastly change tells to determines and we get:

"Bit determines "it" how to work. "It" determines Bit how to flow"?

4. This is a little awkward so we make it smooth:

"Bits determine how "it" works. "It" determines how Bits respond.

5. This is close enough for me to say we are saying the same thing. IT and BIT are two side of the same coin.

What do you say will "Russell and Whitehead" accept this logic? Siri says the logic is OK!

Don L.

Christian Corda replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 05:23 GMT
Thanks Don, I agree with Siri that the logic is OK. It should be OK for "Russell and Whitehead" too. Definitively, our viewpoints are the same!



report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 03:50 GMT
Dear Don,

Thanks for your kind compliments on my essay and also for rating it highly. Just now I have too rated your essay accordingly.

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:06 GMT
Dear Don and All,

You are right about the intertwined nature of the it and bit.

I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.

I give you all a cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive...

view entire post

attachments: 3_iDNASeries.bmp

report post as inappropriate

Than Tin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:06 GMT
Hi Don

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (

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

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

The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to .

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

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

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

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

Good luck,

Than Tin

report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 01:21 GMT
Hi Than,

Thanks for the thought provoking excursion into "analogies".

I consider the wave-particle duality as a traveling energy:


Best of Luck in the contest,

Don L.

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:40 GMT

Your running conversation is quite natural and engaging for such a weighty question. Your FQXi answer perhaps is the most sensible answer. I started this contest believing that philosophy and metaphysics had no place in this problem but now wonder. Even the current issue of Scientific American says, "Acquiring a comprehensive picture of the physical world requires the combination of physics with philosophy.

I am critical of Wheeler's ideas as well, speaking of retroactive determination with his tie of consciousness to reality, even when the mind and body didn't exist.

I like your approach. It is simple and engaging for the reader but I don't have the final answer like everyone else.


report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 07:01 GMT
Hi Jim,

I am still laughing from reading your essay.

Thanks for visiting my blog and sharing your kind comments. My mission is to unseat the uncertainty principle as a part of physics, so wish me luck I will need a lot of it.

I have a story idea for you. It is sort of like Les Miserables with Heisenberg as John Valjean being pursued by Schrodinger's cat (Javert) ....

Yes, some of the practitioners of physics want to expand to philosophy/religion, when it has a house of its own that is messy.

Thanks for your excellent and enjoyable essay.

Don L.

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 16:39 GMT

I must say you feel like a king when appreciated. I visited your website for more playful amusement as well. Now have it among my favorites.


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 19:10 GMT
Hello Don,

I have been skipping your essay not knowing how very informative essay. This inspite of having an informal flavour. Areas of agreement with you include that motion is digital. In fact, we share a lot in common in this respect by referring to Zeno and Newton. I do the same here. By the way, the Dichotomy paradox also has a big bite, especially if there is a Planck length limit. All mathematical solutions like those of Cauchy require division beyond this length.

Wish you luck in unraveling the mystery behind Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I don’t like it so I will check that reference. And finally, a big thank you for revealing so much misinformation in 9 pages!

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 13:37 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

Thanks for visiting, and thanks for your insightful essay.

I am going to give you a mark of 10, and if I could it would be 20.

I believe I my be one of the few who know what you are talking about.

I liked you history of monads, it made me realize that what I had

labeled as a "thingy" and later called a Planck Instant is very, very close to

a monad.

Best of Luck,

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 19:29 GMT
Dear Don,

Your comments on my blog are treasured. If you can lay hold on Sir Heath's account of Euclid's elements you will enjoy the aspect on how geometric objects came to be defined.

Yes, I agree Zeno left out a detail. What is that detail?

The answer is "Nothing moves, everything changes". AGREE. There is no such thing as velocity outside of calculations we make on a changing space-time. PERFECT! How can CHANGING SPACE-TIME give us the phenomenon of motion?

A suggestion I have is that in the direction of motion extension (or space-time) changes to non-extension while in the opposite direction space-time becomes extended. So while not actually leaving your own place and the space-time that is intrinsic to you as Zeno says you experience motion and get to your destination.

Then a little poser I have asked a few, just for my knowledge:

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

NOTE THAT in no other frame can circular motion between the bodies be described in this circumstance except in the 'observing' sub-atomic particle.

I will check here for your reply.

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 15:01 GMT

Thanks for your questions. I will attempt to turn a lot of coffee into an answer. Give me a couple of days. I will post here and on your blog.

I still think it is amazing that have such similar conclusions coming from such different directions.

Thanks for visiting,

Don Limuti

Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 00:23 GMT
Hello Don,

I read your essay at your invitation, and with great interest. I also went straight out to get a Siri of my own, but down under, i.e. Australia, they only have 1XL or 3XL upgrades, and the HST dialoged mode is a hack which must be added manually. They say the 2XL upgrade is on back order, and so those who what to have one foot in continuous space-time (1XL) and the other in discrete space-time (3XL) must wait because programmers are having a hard time making its conversation add up.

In DDM mode your Siri says "I think that lamda-hopping or teleportation for particles would strike most people as unreal?" and in HST mode mine says that lamda-hopping by particles is a travelling salesman problem, far out! We all know that a travelling salesman hops from one place to another, and that a group of travelling salesmen who travel as a group find it much harder to get from one place to another because they are connected and must travel as a rag-tag bunch, and to get them moving quickly they must be energised and polarised. And as everyone knows, once you get a bunch of salesmen energised and polarised they're very hard to stop, but at least where they are and where they're going is more predictable. HST mode seems to explain inertia and momentum, but only if space-time is discrete and those who hop have hotels and motels to hop to and from.



report post as inappropriate

Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 23:56 GMT
Hi Don,

Thanks for an engaging essay that treats the core issue straightforwardly. You wrote:

> A particle or photon consists of a core element that never moves, but disappears and reappears. It has a distance dimension that is the particles wavelength. It also has a time dimension that is the particles period. The particle itself consists of the core element plus its wavelength...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 03:06 GMT
Dear Don,

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 Don Limuti replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 14:55 GMT

I replied on your blog and voted for your worthwhile essay.


Don L.

Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 09:47 GMT
Dear Don,

Your essay was a real pleasure to read. Not only was it an engaging dialogue, it was very informative and fun too. I loved the explanation of the nature of Brahman compared to a two sided coin.

You wrote that the experiment to test the predictability of electron movement with a coherent source is easy to do.

Quote "Siri: Are you sure of this? Infallible one.

Don: An experiment can be easily done to verify it. Just use a controlled electron or photon source "

Has it been attempted? Is that what the references refer to? Or do you have plans to see it done?

A really enjoyable and 'different' essay. Good luck, Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 15:15 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I am glad you stopped by. If I remember correctly we both have been in all five contests. It is a pleasure to participate with you again.

OK, you caught me .... how should I say ....exaggerating! Getting a laser like electron source could be tricky because electron wavelengths are very short, so the electrons would need to be going very slow. It would be easier to use laser light. To get light with a wavelength of 1mm would probably require a free electron laser. 1 mm would give enough room to place the slits and position the beam between the slits. There might be a school with a FEL that would like to make the experiment.

Easy to do, if you have the resources 1. an FEL and 2. a few good physicists and associated staff. Hey! think would go for it? I think it could be done for under 100k dollars given the FEL was donated.

I was thinking about our old friend time, and the concept of now. Let me run something by you. If particles (anything with a wavelength) lambda-hop, then nothing really moves, instead everything changes. There technically is no motion. If we have a landscape in front of us 1.not all the particles are present 2. the few that are present are static and in our frame of reference. Time would be derived from having a memory of other static nows.

I think this is a legitimate quantum perspective. Here space-time is continuous, but velocity does not exist except as a discrete calculation of the observer using delta x and delta t measurements. This does violate our notions of continuous motion, what I call the genetic defect.

Let me know what you think.


Don L.

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 16:56 GMT
Dear Don,

I enjoyed reading your essay. You mentioned Wheeler's assuption of continuity. My opinion is that he used continuity when he couldn't find clearer ways to explain ideas. But his "it from bit", as described in "Information, Physics, Quantum The Search for Links" (1989) and in other articles, is fundamentally discrete, and it seems to me to be more close to your view of photon hoops. The difference seems to me to be that at Wheeler the observations (which are means to obtain the bits) are the "stops" of the photon, and not some points separated by the wavelength. Considering that the photons do the lambda-hopping, where are the "stops"? Are they the points of maximum? Are they points where the phase is 0? This works for real waves, but since photons are complex waves, it seems to me difficult to find a gauge invariant choice of the stops, but maybe you have such a choice, or maybe you adhere to a different description of photons than in QM.

Your proposal can, as you observed, be easily distingushed from QM by experiments. While QM was confirmed so far every time, it is not impossible that someday a new experiment invalidates it. One possible experiment to confirm your lambda-hopping proposal, for instance, is to send coherent light through a wall. It seems to me that it should pass through the wall, if the stops of the photon are not inside the wall.

You use at the beginning of the essay some philosophical ideas, mainly from Vedanta. The duality Nirguna Brahma / Saguna Brahma parallels that of unmanifested Tao / manifested Tao (a theme in my essay). Of course, nondualism is the answer to this koan.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 18:06 GMT
Hi Cristi,

Thanks for your input on my essay. It does feel good to be understood.

Here is what I propose for the stops: A photon in free space moves with uniform lambda-hops unless it is absorbed or reflected by matter. A particle in free space lambda-hops with uniform wavelength (velocity) unless it emits or absorbs a photon (in which case it changes its wavelength) or is reflected or absorbed by matter.

Laser's usually do not go thru walls but we can use precise 1mm laser light (produced by a free electron laser) in the dual slit experiment. Here we would aim the laser so that each photon lands in the exact same spot between the slits. My notion is that the photon will go thru the slits but no interference pattern will be produced.

Another experiment would be to look for lambda-hopping directly using Buckyballs. The experiment is outlined on my blog:

Do you think FQXi would entertain either of these tests?

Appreciate your comments on my essay very much.

Don L.

Cristinel Stoica replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 20:57 GMT
Dear Don,

Thank you for explaining the lambda-hopping and the experimental predictions. You ask "Do you think FQXi would entertain either of these tests?". Hmmm, that is an interesting question indeed. I have no idea, depends whether they consider it to be interesting enough. Your laser experiment doesn't seem too difficult, I suppose it could be performed easily at a quantum lab, if you find someone with access and interested in helping you. How you do any of these, I don't know.

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Than Tin wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 06:14 GMT
Dear All

A standard-issue big city all-glass high-rise stands across the street from my usual bus stop. When I look up the high-rise facade, I can see the reflections of the near-by buildings and the white clouds from the sky above. Even when everything else looks pretty much the same, the reflections of the clouds are different, hour to hour and day to day.

After I boarded the bus,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Chidi Idika wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 14:55 GMT
Dear Don,

Interesting read. Its got that tang of an original perspective.

You say of your "lambda-hopping": “This kind of motion also provides an alternative to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.”

would it be right to say then that to move is to change and vice versa i.e. TIME is simply the evolution of matter and vice versa for SPACE such that given any apparent space and time then the excluded middle [of Peter Jacksons’s essay] i.e. the “virtual exchange” of SM or “space-time” of GR indeed the “QUANTUM” or "lambda-hopping defines the term “observer”(“unit” of/or any measurement)?

Let me say that this assumption actually BESTRIDES (or “blends”) your Nirguna Brahman/Saguna Brahman positions. I tend to agree with Cristi's observation above that "Of course, nondualism is the answer to this koan."


This is the position I take to your λ-hopping as summed in my 4 axioms. I hope you can find time to read and comment on What a Wavefunction is. And I will be back here to rate. For me your essay is very much on the high side.

Just allow my essay a little of your time.



report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 19:39 GMT
Hi Chidi,

You were able to capture the essence of my essay. It is good to be understood, thank you.

I read your abstract and scanned your essay. The present notions of how an observer collapses the wave-function are so goofy that most keep away lest they get contaminated. So, you are to be commended for investigating this.

I am going to do a more through job of reading your essay. I will comment on your blog.

You work on an intuitive level that is deeper than mine, and there is also a language/culture barrier. So, before starting I will consult Siri, for aids in getting into an intuitive frame of mind :)

Thanks for visiting, I will get back to you.

Don L.

Chidi Idika replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 03:56 GMT
Dear Don,

Here, a cup of coffee to Siri and a most worthy rating to your essay. No asprin to you! Its good to know that the intuitive is not entirely to be discredited.

Now what do you have to say about some general direction of arguments that is developing in this contest? It seems to me FQXi should do a study/book on that annually.

All the best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 06:51 GMT
Thanks all for another stimulating essay contest!

Don Limuti

George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 03:57 GMT
Hi Don,

Dear Don! I can say definitely that you are filling the reality as it is. The proofs, logic and formulas become sometime not enough arguments for change some of harmful/powerful institutions. The humor and sarcasm become very necessary in such situations. That is why I really like your not ordinary approach to present critical situation in physics. I hope some of hard brains maybe will come a little bit ,,soft,, when they understand that their ,,high,, occupation is just funny/empty! Thank you and best wishes.


report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 04:50 GMT
Hi George,

Thanks so much for your support. I really appreciate it. Here are some quotes that I think you will find enjoyable.

"What we need is not the will to believe but the will to find out." - Bertrand Russell

Wishing you the best in the contest!

Don L.

Chidi Idika wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 06:17 GMT
Dear Don,

I made some observations above but just in case you miss it let me repeat this part:

What do you have to say about some general direction of arguments that is developing in this contest? It seems to me FQXi should do a study/book on that annually.



report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 19:12 GMT
Hi Chidi,

Very good question. It struck me that this contest brought out a trend I did not expect. That trend is the advance of physics into the turf that was formally philosophy/religion. I put the entries into these classes:

1. Information is physically real and it causes everything else.

2. Information is not physically real and is the cause of what we call reality.

3. Information is not physically real and is not the cause of reality.

3. The reality out there, is the cause of information.

4. It and Bit are always intertwined, both are always found together, but neither causes the other

5. It from Bit, or Bit from It, is an unanswerable question, a question that fundamentally cannot be asked.

It would be interesting is someone (FQXi) did keep track of these trends.

How we see the world is changing, lets keep track of it with bit :)

What do you think? Did I leave anything out?


Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 16:16 GMT
Hi Don,

I found your essay to be interesting, engaging and well written (and amusing). I think you could be onto something with lambda-hopping . I hope the experiment you describe on page 7 can be performed.

As you know, there are some similarities in the way your essay describes a particle that "never moves, but disappears and reappears" and the way my essay describes 1) laws of nature representing static information category relationships and a seemingly static system, because there is no evidence for an actual calculation infrastructure and 2) new information being injected via quantum decoherence and information category relationship.

Seemingly you'd say that a particle itself lambda-hops(with information causing the hop), and that this doesn't occur in classical objects; whereas the way I'd put it is that the information relating to a particle "jumps", and in classical objects the information jumps are effective but maybe can't easily be detected. That is, we seem to come to similar conclusions from different directions or mechanisms.

Best of luck in the essay contest, I will give your essay a good rating.


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 19:58 GMT
Hi Lorraine,

Thank you, It is nice to get votes, after all it is a contest. But it is much nicer to be understood. You can see why I liked your essay immediately. Since you mentioned decoherence I will add the following:

A few posts back, Cristi asked me how does the electron stop? I would translate that question as how does the electron appear? The answer is that if no energy (or object) is near the electron it just keeps hopping along with the same wavelength. This is similar to Newton's law that says a object in motion tends to stay in motion. An electron changes its motion by absorbing or emitting a photon. There is no physical thing added to or eliminated from the electron. The electron simply changes its wavelength and thus its speed when it absorbs or emits a photon.

So lets say you have an electron hopping along and you get it to absorb a photon. This electron will appear just a little bit sooner than normal and have a new shorter hopping wavelength. This is essentially "decoherence".

Classical objects (anything above the Planck mass) are collections of particles. The object itself can have zero velocity and a constant presence (no hopping) but its particle substratum is still hopping (appearing and disappearing).

It is a wish of mine to have a FQXi member perform an experiment to see if this concept of Lambda-hopping has any merit. Maybe they could even get a grant?

I appreciate your visit very much,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:29 GMT
Dear Don,

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

Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 10:10 GMT
Dear Don,

Your essay was an interesting read and I have rated it accordingly.

One doesn't see the dialogue style that often, but it gives your essay a nice pace. The only recent physics paper that I know of in that style is "a dialogue on quantum gravity" by Rovelli. Was that paper your inspiration to use this style?

Your lambda-hopping bears some resemblance with the concept of stepwise motion that I have developed in my own work; if you are interested, see my papers in Annalen der Physik (2010 and 2011). The central point is that rest-mass-having constituents (electrons, protons, etc.) alternate between a particlelike state of rest and a wavelike state of motion.

I agree with you that the concept of motion is one of the most important features of a fundamental physics theory. And like you, I do not believe that quantum theory is the final answer regarding the workings of the universe.

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 15:06 GMT
Hi Marcoen,

I wish I had a more organized approach to reading these essays. I almost missed yours on the Higgs boson. It actually provided information as opposed to bits. I rate your work very highly, and do not feel quite so alone.

Thanks for mentioning Rovelli's paper, I wish I would have seen it, my effort would have benefited greatly.

I will check out you two papers and Rovelli's.


Don L.

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:50 GMT
Dear Don,

Extremely interesting and profound philosophical essay with original identity and current answers to the main questions of the contest. I am happy to read it! Beautiful deep dialectic! Dialogue provides an answer-which way to go. The main concept - "state". Excellent rating.

Thank you very much again! You made me very happy. Look also to my philosophical ideas.

Good luck in the contest,

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 12:41 GMT
Sorry Don, was mistaken for logging into the portal ...

report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 15:15 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for visiting. Appreciate your succinct review. Your essay was one that I liked from the very beginning. I gave it the highest ratting. I have to admit I had to check out a few philosophical terms I had forgotten from school.

Best of luck,

Don L.

Helmut Hansen wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 04:52 GMT
Dear Don,

thank you very much for visiting my FQXI-page and leaving a comment.

I agree with you that IT and BIT are the two sides of the same coin. The qualitative core of this coin is the Aristolean relationship between FORM and SUBSTANCE. Thus, BIT is the measure of form. The more complex a thing is the more information is needed to describe it.

The most important question to me in this regard is: What is the most fundamental thing of reality? Is it a BIT? I don't think so, because a thing defined by two states of equal propability is a dead thing that will never change.

That's the reason why your explorations of the Planck-World are highly important - and that's the reason why I rated your paper high - very high.

All the Best for You


report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 05:50 GMT

Thanks for your extreme vote of confidence. Anything on my website is open, if you like anything run with it. Anyone who attempts the "the taming of the one" has my admiration.

"On this path effort never goes to waste"

Don L.

Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:12 GMT
Dear Don,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 23:50 GMT
So glad you could make it, Oh exalted One!

Best of luck in the finals Don! Your essay this year was tops.

See you in the winner's circle (I hope).

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 19:34 GMT
Thanks Don, (in reply to your comment on my page)

I guess you should be told Penrose didn't make it to FFP11 either. But his paper appears in the Proceedings anyhow. So who would know?

I'm glad you decided to give it a try. Once those muses take hold, they will have their way and my oh my - a fine essay from you Sir.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 19:38 GMT
And by the way,

FFP conferences are not always in Paris. This year an interim conference will be held in Hyderabad, but I don't know the details. The previous one FFP12 was in Udine, but I could not go to Italy that year. So like yourself with FFP11; I must be content with knowing my name appears in the list and on the schedule, as a presenter.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti wrote on Aug. 16, 2013 @ 19:42 GMT
City College of New York is rated #1

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.