Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Joe Fisher: on 8/11/13 at 15:57pm UTC, wrote Guo Chenxi, I truly appreciate your taking the time to read my essay and...

Chenxi Guo: on 8/11/13 at 9:20am UTC, wrote Dear Joe, Although the competition is over, But I think it is the most...

Joe Fisher: on 8/8/13 at 15:58pm UTC, wrote Dr. Borrill, Thank you for reading my essay and for taking the trouble to...

Joe Fisher: on 8/8/13 at 15:52pm UTC, wrote Gene, Thank you for reading my essay and for taking the trouble to comment...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 20:45pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Gene Barbee: on 8/7/13 at 19:56pm UTC, wrote Hi joe, your essay and posts suggests some skepticism about theory. I...

Joe Fisher: on 8/6/13 at 15:44pm UTC, wrote Peter, Thank you ever so much. I wonder what happened to Paul? Joe

Joe Fisher: on 8/6/13 at 15:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Margriet, Thank you ever so much for taking the time to read my essay...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Jorma Seppaenen: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 25, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: BITTERS by Joe Fisher [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 10:10 GMT
Essay Abstract

Hans Christian Anderson, the Danish author would have made an excellent reliable physicist for Hans was always careful to start one of his fascinating fairy tales with the phrase: “Once upon a time.” Actually, as is adroitly pointed out in the Bitters essay, all real and imagined events only occur once. Unfortunately, all information is of an abstract nature and as such, all information is completely unrealistic, principally because all abstract information is supposedly perfectly reproducible far more than once. Mathematicians ignore the real law of once by re-using the same numbers and functions over and over again. Everybody keeps using what they believe to be the same information the same way. Because of this habitual use of abstract information, the human conceptual grasp of realty has almost disappeared from the face of the earth.

Author Bio

Self taut (thinking makes me tense) realist. My latest folly can be round at http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/200405371/joes-theory-of
-1-once till May 1, 2013. After that date you can request my friendship at the Joe Fisher Benson, NC Facebook page.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 18:52 GMT
Joe, this is a nice easy read with some interesting points. I agree that there is no absolute certainty. I think that is what quantum theory tells us but only for the first level when there are actually multiple layers of uncertainty.

I like the idea that reality is a simple as a game of paper-scissors-stone and that we are just over-complicating it with our theories. I hope we can reach the point where we can see it that way one day.

What is the meaning of your title "BITTERS"? I did not really get that.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 21:20 GMT
Thank you for your positive remarks. Now that you have mentioned it, I have no idea what I meant by my title, BITTERS. I tire rather easily, and I was probably thinking about having a pint of bitter. Or maybe I was bitter about something or other.

Bookmark and Share



Paul Reed wrote on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 05:03 GMT
Joe

“the only way I could have done so would have been by taking my shoes and socks off and by looking at one of my real toes. Real toes are unique. I presently possess a set of real toes no other person who has ever lived”

Indeed, everything is different. But it goes further than that. We tend to, for somewhat obvious reasons, conceptualise existence in terms of ‘things’. However, in reality there is no toe. What we are doing is defining existence at a higher level than how it actually occurs, by identifying certain superficial physical attributes and deeming them to constitute a ‘thing’, which we then believe continues to exist so long as these attributes are manifest. Indeed, we still talk of the same ‘thing’ when it has altered in some way. Which is a contradiction, it cannot be the same if something has altered.

Your toe is a sequence of physically existent states (realities), each one being different.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 13:36 GMT
Dear Paul, My toe is not “a sequence of physically existent states (realities), each one being different.” Uniqueness cannot be sequenced for uniqueness only occurs once. There is only one state of existence that only occurs once. There is only one reality that only occurs once. Different people’s realities are not different. Each person’s reality is unique and only happens once. Only information is comparative and sequenced and subjectively collectable.

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
Joe

It is not uniqueness that is being sequenced. The concept of existent toe, White House, Andromeda Galaxy, etc, etc is physically incorrect. That is a representation of what is actually existent at a higher level of conception than what occurs. At the physical level, there is a sequence of unique physcally existent states. However, the degree of differentiation is such, ie so minimal, that it appears that the entity (ie toe) persists in the same physical form over time.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Leo Vuyk wrote on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 16:09 GMT
Dear Joe,

Very nice essay!

You wrote:

The Universe is not all that difficult to understand. If you are familiar with the Rock, Paper Scissors hand gesture selection game, you have already acquired all of the information you will ever need in order to understand how the Universe actually operates.

AND:

But there is only one real Universe once and there is only one real or imagined event once.

I agree with the first statement.

But the second could be wrong if we have absolute symmetry starting with the big bang.

In that case we live in a mirror universe or multiverse, where no only me but also a second anti material me plays Rock Paper scissors.

See perhaps:

Wavefunction Collapse and Human Choice-Making Inside an Entangled Mirror Symmetrical Multiverse.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0015v1.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 14:15 GMT
Leo,

Thank you so much for your extremely kind comments. Physicists have no idea how reality actually works. For instance, there are about a billion cars on the road worldwide. On any given day, about 3,000 cars are involved in accidents. For argument’s sake, let us assume that there are two trillion stars in the firmament. If stars had the ability to collide in a Super Nova, we could expect to be able to see with our Hubble Telescope, at least one Super Nova about every other month. Light is stationary and cannot be penetrated by any other light. Stars cannot physically approach each other, because, like DUH, if a star’s light cannot penetrate another star’s light, any star’s physical approach to any other star is impossible.

There was never a big bang. After an initial outburst, a light becomes stationary. The Universe is not expanding or shrinking or looking into a mirror. The Universe is occurring.

Bookmark and Share


Leo Vuyk replied on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
Rock Paper scissors: you win!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Blanche wrote on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 22:17 GMT
Very interesting read, Joe. Everyone is a 1 since we all have our own, unique realities. And since all of these uniquenesses exist on one planet, somehow we are still here to realize our own, unique realities. I have no idea what I just said. LOL.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 14:22 GMT
Dear Blanche,

You wrote the most truthful words that will ever appear on this page. May God bless you and love you for all of your days.

Bookmark and Share



George Rajna wrote on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 11:47 GMT
Excellent!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jacek Safuta wrote on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 11:27 GMT
Hi Joe, thanks for your essay.

At the beginning it was a lot of Google search.

But eventually I have found this: “Universe consists of three inseparable aspects of a single real element. Light, matter and space are aspects of human singular apprehensible reality.”

That is similar in some aspect to my view that everything emerges out of the conformally flat spacetime so everything we perceive is an illusion, a region of spacetime but deformed in a specific way. Our perception (thanks to light waves mediation) gives us a possibility to create an image of that everything and we call it reality.

My simple and short essay would give you more details. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1609

However your statement “the scientists have only succeeded in complicating the easiest of natural human comprehension to make, and made it naturally chaotically unobtainable” seems to be offending irrespective of the fact that for me personally the complexity level of modern science is too high to comprehend. It does not mean that the level is absolutely too high but maybe my abilities are not good enough. Think about it, please. Einstein said: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler”. And finally addressing mathematics: as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 14:12 GMT
Dear Jacek,

Thank you for your comments.

Bookmark and Share



Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 07:56 GMT
Joe, a good and humorous read! You bring the point home nicely.

One must distinguish between information, observation and representation. Bits are representation to store the masses of observations human kind has made. Real information is few and far in between

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on May. 5, 2013 @ 14:42 GMT
Anton,

Thank you for your extremely kind comment about my essay.

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on May. 6, 2013 @ 01:54 GMT
Hi Joe,

I am just doing a quick of the abstracts.

Yours is the first sane one I've encountered.

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 7, 2013 @ 15:18 GMT
Don,

Thank you ever so much for your comment on my essay.

Bookmark and Share



Wesley Wayne Hansen wrote on May. 6, 2013 @ 14:30 GMT
I appreciate your humor but I appreciate your conclusion, "I have never really been interested in logic," a great deal more. It makes all of your baseless assumptions understandable! For instance, "But there is only one real Universe once and there is only one real or imagined event once." Prove it!

"All information is abstract codswallop that has nothing to do with reality [...]...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on May. 7, 2013 @ 15:13 GMT
Wesley,

Thank you ever so much for your appreciation of my fine essay. My only regret is that I could not bring myself to be equally complimentary to your essay. Then again, I was under the impression that this was an essay contest and not a contest exclusively for the display of pretty designs of computer generated graphics. As I thoughtfully explained in my essay, each snowflake is unique. Your relentless, remorseless repeated reproduction of seemingly identical circles, squares and lines implying that this was how the scaled Universe was arranged was somewhat ludicrous.

Bookmark and Share


Wesley Wayne Hansen replied on May. 8, 2013 @ 14:14 GMT
Mr. Jabberwock,

I believe you mistakenly viewed someone else's essay; there is not one single graphic in mine! And why the vitriol? Did my gentle and humorous critique make you question your manhood?

With regards,

Wes Hansen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 9, 2013 @ 12:21 GMT
You are correct. I apologize for my error.

Bookmark and Share



Francis wrote on May. 10, 2013 @ 15:19 GMT
Joe:

I read your essay and agree with the aspect that we tend to think of whats abstract as real.

Your essay if judged outside the ideas we are familiar with sounds good.

If judged from physics of our current understanding then there are big contradictions.

An example of the speed of light - FTL faster than light exists at

3.4818 x 10^12 m/s

However within the paradigm of your approach I have no disagreement.

At the end of the day as we move from this life to the next round - all that matters is - love

The technical game is just a trap if we cannot share and play to win and aggrandize.

Kind Regards

Francis V Fernandes

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on May. 10, 2013 @ 16:25 GMT
Francis,

Thank you ever so much for your gracious comments about my splendid essay.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on May. 23, 2013 @ 04:42 GMT
Joe

I enjoyed your refreshingly original essay; your unique examples and insights certainly illuminate the question about what makes up the physical universe, about information and the uniqueness of individual things and events. Your abstract mentions Hans Christian Andersen - if I had to choose a character from one of his stories to describe your way of thinking it would be the kid in the Emperor's New Clothes. Only he was honest enough to say it like it was. Bravo.

Hmmm.

Some reservations: our physical laws such as E=mc^2 are unique absolute logical and mathematical constructs. And according to you every event in the universe is also absolute. Why should'nt the laws apply absolutely each time? Are you speaking of experimental errors?

I found the title BITTERS interesting because it contains both IT and BIT.

Cheers

Good luck!

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on May. 23, 2013 @ 15:10 GMT
Vladimir,

Thank you for reading my essay and more importantly, for grasping what I was trying to sensibly state. Unique does not have a law for unique can only occur once. “Some reservations: our physical laws such as E=mc^2 are unique absolute logical and mathematical constructs.” Nature only produces unique whole, once. No mathematical construct or system of logic could ever be an absolute.

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on May. 27, 2013 @ 01:10 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your essay is very interesting and thought provoking. We will like to add some constructive suggestions.

You are right that “all real actions are unique”. But it is not “because GOOGLE is constantly updating all of its information garnered from all over the world”, as there is the universe besides GOOGLE. When you talk in general terms, you should use universal...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 15:20 GMT
Reality is real.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 16:14 GMT
Joe,

More praise here too. Your essay sums up the primary foundational point of my own essay, as you noticed on my string, with beautiful direct clarity. I think what I then go on to do is prove that thesis scientifically, and evidentially including by showing it's consequential resolving power. But about yours; my most favourite line was;

"A real toe is not made up of a binary code."

I'm struggling to explain that to Basudeba on my blog. The reactionary forces will not fold easily! I got a community 2 score almost the minute the essay appeared, probably from the abstract alone! I suspect yours will get a top score from me, including for my other favourite lines like;

"Real snowflakes are unique. Real toes are unique. I presently possess a set of real toes no other person who has ever lived, who is presently alive, or who will ever live anywhere in the future, had, has, or will ever come to possess."

"It seems to have escaped everyone's attention that the Universe and everything real and imagined in it is unique."

"Mathematicians totally ignore the reality of once.

Also your comment to Christi above; "

"The real Universe is not mathematical. Each real snowflake is unique once, therefore, each real particle of matter must be unique once. Abstract mathematics pays no attention to the reality of the unique, once."

Great essay. I wish I'd keep mine a bit simpler!

Best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 07:34 GMT
Peter

Hmm, but as I explained to Joe some time back, neither is a toe a toe. Existentially, it exists as a sequence of discrete definitive physically existent states. That is what is unique

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 16:56 GMT
Peter,

I cannot thank you enough for your review. I am afraid that you are having the same problem with Basudeba that I had with him. I lived in a part of the Egyptian desert for 14 months and I never saw a mirage of an oasis. I have never met anybody who has ever actually seen a mirage of an oasis. There seems to be a lot of explanations on the Internet of how mirages of an oasis could occur, but there seem to be no sane first person eyewitnesses’ accounts by anyone ever actually having seen one

Paul,

I have not attempted to pay the chap listed above you a compliment in order to deprive you of one. I think that there is a difference between me existing and you making every attempt to faithfully practice your own version of existentialism.

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 06:33 GMT
Joe

It is not a 'version'. As I said in my original comment, fundamentally your point about uniqueness is correct, but you do not follow it through to its logical conclusion. Your toe alters, you know that. So there is no existent, unique, 'thing' toe, but whatever physically existent state it is in at any given time. That is what is unique.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 15:21 GMT
Paul.

The uniqueness of my toe is not dependent upon my pointing it out. The Universe and everything in the Universe real and imagined is unique once. There is no sensible way I could elaborate on uniqueness. My real toe is unique once. Only real unique alteration could happen to my real unique toe once. Although your version of existentialism seems to rely heavily on your believing some mystifying definitions of abstract conditions such as fundamental proposition and logical conclusion, you will never convince me that I do not know what I am writing about. A committed realist like me is only capable of understanding real unique realism once.

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 06:53 GMT
Joe

"My real toe is unique once"

Not so. Your toe, as defined does not exist. It is a sequence of physically existent states, which, from a superficial level give the appearance of the same thing.

"Although your version of existentialism..."

As I said, it is not a version. There is uniqueness so there is only one form of existentialism that is correct. The issue is to resolve how existence (which is unique) and difference (which is another unique) both occur. And the answer is sequence.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 14:54 GMT
Have you checked out this place and how does it align with your ideas?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


james r. akerlund wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 03:01 GMT
Hi Joe,

I just read your submission and I am amused. That is not what I was expecting. It is your last sentence that is the most profound. "I have never really been interested in logic." It reminds me of an ancient greek discussion in logic that starts off with this statement; "I am Cretean, and all Creteans are liars". There were connundrums all over your submission. Here is another example; "Light cannot move through light." Yet I am sure you have seen two flashlights cross beams. Here is another example; "The Universe is not all that difficult to understand. If you are familiar with the Rock, Paper Scissors hand gesture selection game, you have already acquired all of the information you will ever need in order to understand how the Universe actually operates." But I am sure you know that if we really understood how the the universe operates then we could solve the issue of death. I am not seeing the issue of death being resolved in the rock, paper, scissors game. Here is another example; "However, as the snowflake studies and the DNA and fingerprints studies have shown, there is only one of anything real or imagined once." Yet you use the number 2 as if there were a second snowflake, or second fingerprint, or second DNA. It is stated in the scienfic literure that all of your cells contain indentical copies of your DNA except for you sex cells. That is identical in relationship to the information that the DNA contains not in the exact atomic configurations. I reserve the best one for last. "All information is abstract codswallop." Was I informed by your "abstract codswallop"

Anyway, it is good to see you still kicking.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 14:20 GMT
Jim,

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Bookmark and Share



Paul Reed wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 05:50 GMT
Joe

“Paul,

Because you lost the argument on my blog, I am going to respond here. I have never “conceived” of my toe. You apparently do not know the difference between conception and perception, just as your version of existentialism has prevented you from understanding what the word last actually means.”

Perception is conception. You speak of a unique state. But what you are referring to is not a physically unique state. It is how we perceive/conceive reality, for fairly obvious reasons, ie we need to get on with life.

What is existent, ie determines the reality at that time, is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it. Objects ‘exist’, in the sense of what we think are objects, in a sequence of discrete definitive physically existent states. You know this. Take any object, and you know it does not continue to exist in the same state. The bush is unique, there is only one bush, it is different from other bushes, the garden wall, birds in the garden, etc. But in terms of physical existence, bush is ontologically incorrect. It just looks as if it is the same thing physically, because we are defining bush on the basis of superficial physical characteristics.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 14:50 GMT
Paul

1. per•cep•tion

/pərˈsepSHən/

Noun

1. The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses. (unique reality)

2. The state of being or process of becoming aware of something in such a way. (unique realty)

Synonyms Realization-understanding-comprehension (Of unique reality)

1. con•cep•tion

/kənˈsepSHən/

Noun

1. The action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived.

2. The forming or devising of a plan or idea. (Common abstraction)

Synonyms (all common abstractions)

idea - notion - concept – apprehension

last 1 (l st)

adj.

1. Being, coming, or placed after all others; final: the last game of the season.

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 07:50 GMT
Joe

The point is about what constitutes uniqueness in existence.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 15:25 GMT
Paul,

Uniqueness is not constituted. Uniqueness is not located in existence, existence is unique.

Joe

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 05:57 GMT
Joe

Indeed, as I keep saying. But the question is, what is unique? What we refer to as St Pauls (or any other such thing) is not unique over time. What is unique is its physically existent state at any given time. So what we know of as St Pauls, or any other thing, does not physically exist. A sequence of physically existent states is what occurs, which, at a higher level of conception give the appearance of continuation.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 03:43 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher

It's great to know opinion for the absolute of you, I appreciate the thorough analysis and focus in your essay, but why do you think :"Information is not real. All information is abstract codswallop." - while you have to believe in the absolute value.

Thank you very much for your comments to my essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 15:21 GMT
Dear Hoang,

Thank you for reading my essay. There can only be one reality, therefore, information must be unrealistic.

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 20:15 GMT
Joe,

Your comment, "All information is abstract codswallop." I find has indeed some truth to it since without knowing what cause such information we can only guess what is real and what is not. Excellent entry!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 14:15 GMT
Manuel,

Thank you for your extremely kind comment about my essay.

Bookmark and Share


Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 02:56 GMT
Your welcome... and now finally rate your essay a 10 as my way of saying thanks for being the first to rate my essay.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hon Jia Koh wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 07:53 GMT
BITTERS, nice essay title. Straight forward.

IT from bIT or bIT from IT. Are we bitters trying to bit it or get bitter about it?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 14:19 GMT
Hon Jia Koh,

Thank for reading my essay. I am glad you liked my title.

Bookmark and Share



Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 23:07 GMT
Mr. Fisher,

I loved your essay, and I would rate it an A in contradistinction to all those Z's trapped in binary space. Yours is recommended reading for all those assimilated, and who are one with one, or one with zero, and unable to switch between the two. Yours is a breath of fresh air that should bring all those wannabe Z's back to R, i.e. reality. By the way, if you ever type in "thumb" I would be interested in knowing what reference you find most interesting.

Cheers.

Zoran

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 14:34 GMT
Zoran,

Thank you ever so much for your praise of my essay. I did as you requested and I typed the word “thumb” into the GOOGLE Search Engine. There were only 1,740,000,000 results for thumb. Please allow me a bit more time to do some meaningful research. I will get back to you and report which I thought was the most interesting after I have checked them all out.

Bookmark and Share


Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 01:16 GMT
Joe,

I typed in "God's thumb" and Google returned only 12,500 results. Fancy that, I was expecting a lot more.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 09:32 GMT
Joe Fisher,

Thanks for your comments. As you have pointed out, it is not the age of our galaxy which is 4.5 billion years but it is the age of our earth which is 4.5 billion years. You have obviously confused. Age of our galaxy is about 13.8 billion years. So there is no exaggeration in the time scale for life to have existed on earth as it is supposed to be of the order of about 3- 3.5 billion years.

I will go through your essay and post my comments soon.

good luck,

sreenath.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 15:02 GMT
sreenath.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 22:17 GMT
Joe,

Advocates of the Anthropic Principle (AP) speak of the subatomic world which they can't see and quite often attribute the same subatomic attributes to the macro world. Not being a mathematician or a real scientist,I tend to agree with your thinking of uniqueness but are you just speaking of the macro world?

Being a humanities guy and a late science enthusiast, I attribute AP beliefs to man's anthropomorphic nature.

I enjoyed your essay, especially the passion of your beliefs.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 14:45 GMT
Jim,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and understanding it. The real Universe is unique, once. Nobody (including me) fully understands unique, once. But whether it is a macro galaxy or an invisible particle, it can only be unique, once. I know it sounds nuts, but unique is not relative. Nature only delivers whole unique units such as a whole unique elephant or a whole unique star. Why man concentrates on the repeatable commonality of mathematics to try to define a unique system beats me.

Joe

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 13:29 GMT
Hi Joe,

I agree that the Universe should happen once in one way. Rather than parallel Universes making a Multiverse I think ours must be infinitely large with finite observation points - which of course are all also unique.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 03:38 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
Dear Joe,

You have write interesting essay in specific style. For my more important also that you want to be realist. As we known it is not so welcomed by majority of ultramodern scientists. But truth is not depend from quantity of adherents!

Check my work and you will find one supporter to your approach. I believe we can have many common points and we will cooperate.http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1804

ESSAY

Best wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 06:00 GMT
Joe,

My Dear, you didn't respond.

In worse case you can just tell - "sorry no time"!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 14:26 GMT
George,

I posted my response on your essay's page. Please check there.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Andrej Rehak wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 20:09 GMT
Dear Joe

Original approach, nicely written and pleasant to read. However, it does not resolve issues like clock synchronisation on satellites :). Your principle of one is actually the true statement by which I started (1=1) deriving principles of motion. Reading them you might recognize the underlying principle of infinite uniqueness, you write about, of elusive one, now and here, the dynamic space-time position in which all scalar operations are unchanged and reflected. The position where 1=1/1 (by any convention of writing, 1v=1s/1t), i.e. the dynamic position in which altered space, over the, for the same amount altered time measures unaltered speed of light, thus measuring linear flow of time and linear propagation of space (1=1n/1n).

Btw, I have toes as well, which are infinitely different from yours... but at the same time, I hope you’ll agree with me, they are infinitely similar. I guess it make sense to search for the matrix of what makes toes - toes (yours or mine).

My essay is at the address

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1876

It would be nice to read your comment

best regards

Andrej

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 15:59 GMT
Jeo

Now its my turn to comment on you: every 'it' & 'bits' have single occurrences too!

Thanks

Dipak

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 13:17 GMT
Dipak,

You are correct. The real Universe is simple. One it, once, one bit, once.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



KoGuan Leo wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 03:41 GMT
Dear Joe,

I do agree with you that everything happens only once, although I derive this conclusion from KQID worldview that Existence including us, our God/s and our Multiverse happens only once every absolute digital time T ≤ 10^-1000 seconds. I do think that Information as bits are fiction but real. Fiction because we make it up, and it is real because as Landauer and experimentally proven that any deletion of bits produce heat or entropy. Thus, information is physical. I enjoyed reading your unconventional essay BITTERS and original creative idea. We are all the seekers of the truth, we shall discover it no matter where it is hiding, if necessary as usual we fictionalize it according to our own image as Protogoras's measurement. Please comment on my essay and rank it if you desire. Best wishes, Leo KoGuan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

KoGuan Leo replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 00:34 GMT
Dear Joe, you have a unique style, only happened once. I believe I do have a mechanism that shows how our Existence happens once, never repeat itself. I know that you are busy with other things so if I may I bring it up to your attention that cited you with my comment to our kind and erudite fellow contestant Jonathan, and I wrote to him: "... We are living inside the long dead great man's...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

KoGuan Leo replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 21:55 GMT
Since I know you are busy, repost my answer to you also on your thread here.

Dear Joe,

I tried to relate KQID with your idea that everything happens once. At the bottom, everything is simple. We all know that even a simple living system like an amoeba or even our own cell is a complex piece of work that has evolved for billions of years on earth and if KQID is correct that it has...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

KoGuan Leo replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 06:38 GMT
Post it here from my website.

Dear Joe,

If I may use the great Carlo Rovelli's metaphor from Democritus atom below( see my post to Carlo below): "To go back to Democritus metaphor: atoms are like an alphabet, but an immense alphabet so rich to be capable of reading itself and thinking itself." That what I envision of our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit is as the immensely infinite alphabet Qbit...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 17:46 GMT
Your "only once" theory reminds me a bit of how chaos theorists tend to approach physics -- it reminds me a bit of Smolin's idea that physical laws merely arrive from repetitions of similar events. Good luck in the competition and thank you for reading my essay, I appreciate that you've given this a lot of thought and I will re-read again.

"Reality is always observable, objective and obvious, once" -- strikes me--is this how you resolve the measurement problem?

Cheers and good luck!

Jennifer

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Salvish Goomanee wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 22:42 GMT
Dear Joe,

I liked your essay, very interesting.

I will have to read your essay again and post further comments about it. You said that reality is always observable, objective and obvious,once. I am not sure what to think about this but you did produce a nice article.

Beat of luck,

Salvish

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 16:15 GMT
Salvish,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your very gracious comment.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 03:44 GMT
Hello Joe

How do you know your toe is not just part of a dream, or that you are caught in The Matrix with a digital toe? As such, the essay lacks foundation.

Stephen Anastasi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 14:24 GMT
Stephen Anastasi

Reality does not need a foundation. Abstraction always need an abstract foundation. I know my toe is real and not a part of a dream because when I stub it against something solid, it hurts. I know it cannot be in a matrix because a matrix cannot replicate uniqueness. It can only obey a program.

Reality cannot be programmed.

Thank you for reading my essay and for leaving a comment.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 04:17 GMT
Hi Joe,

I have downloaded your essay, and I hope to get to it soon. Thanks for the kind comments on my page.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 16:20 GMT
Hi Joe,

I still have not gotten to your essay, but your comments on my page prompt me to say more here. I acknowledge and agree with your uniqueness principle, insofar as we are talking about life in the world made of protons, neutrons, and electrons - the same basic stuff we are made of. While we may call other kinds exotic matter, to some extent 'normal' fermionic matter is more 'exotic' when considering the whole of the universe, as Physics now understands it.

But uniqueness and oneness are not the only archetypes that matter. I would say that uniqueness is absolutely necessary, and it is of course uniquely powerful among all the archetypes of form, but it does not tell the whole story - maybe something important that is often overlooked, but not everything. If we allow that in addition to uniqueness, completeness, nothingness, and enoughness or sufficiency are preserved, we can build a conceptual hierarchy to hold the fundamental forces of Physics. See my essay, from an earlier contest

In relation to this contest; it is especially important to see the role of a fifth quality or archetype which we can call agreement or equality, because this property is what maps information to form, or vice versa. I'm just observing that your main point is sort of like saying we can learn everything about Physics by studying Gravitation. Now if we really deeply understood Gravity, a lot of Physics we don't understand might fall into place, but studying the other forces is hardly a waste of time.

That's all for now, but I will comment once I get to read your essay.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
Jonathan,

Thank you for your extensive comment. I think we must distinguish here the difference between natural and humanly fabricated material. One real unique Universe can only do one real thing, once. There is no such real thing as basic, or fundamental condition. Just because man can make particles, it does not follow that everything must be made out of particles. The only things that are made out of particles are particles. It would be very odd if certain mental particles only freely assembled in the brains of physicists in order for them to be able to build technology that could produce particles. I do not see how physicists could pretend to know more about reality than a piece of lettuce or a duck-billed platypus could.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 01:54 GMT
Dear Joe. 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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 15:11 GMT
Vladimir,

I left a comment on your essay at on May 23, 2013 at 14:56 GMT. The comment read: “This is an interesting essay to read. I found the frank admission in the “Absolute Reality and Relative Observers” segment that abstract scientific information is only glorified unrealistic guesswork truly refreshing. As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, the Universe can only deal in absolutes. One (1) real Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real “speed” of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.

An abstract human brain may have abstractly evolved over abstract millions of abstractly counted years from abstract primitive cells made of abstract molecules that were abstractly identical to those making up the rest of the abstract universe, my real unique brain only knows unique once. If I only know unique once, you can only know unique once. Unique cannot evolve. Unique cannot be primitive or fundamental or teachable or purchasable. Unique can only ever be unique once.

I did rate your essay at that time.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 19:28 GMT
Hello Joe,

I have rated you well already so this does not really apply to you. But I know I can count on you to give your answers to 4 bitter and unique questions...

As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there…

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

KoGuan Leo replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 22:15 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

I found your questions to Joe are very intriguing, I will wait also for his answers. You always ask deep questions. I will find your essay and read it. Thanks.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 14:33 GMT
Akinbo and Professor KoGuan,

As I have tried to explain in my essay, one real Universe can only do one unique thing, once.

Although you claim that your four questions are simple, they are not for only reality is simple. Your four abstract questions are unreal, therefore, they are complex. I think that you meant that the yes/no answers to your questions would be simple. Here again, if the question is complex, even a yes or no answer is not going to unravel the complexity, it will only lead to further questions.

Each time one dips one’s real hand into one’s real pocket, one will either detect some real thing that is in there, or one will find that one’s pocket is empty. It is impossible to elicit information for all information is abstract. Therefore, my answer to question 1 is No.

Question 2 No. Not because it seems obvious that information can only be detected if a detection device is employed, only unique is real and it is by its singular nature, undetectable by any means. Question 3 is also a No for the presence or absence of anything at any time is inevitable, not informational.

The answer to question 4 is 0 (No) Reality has nothing to do with binary codes.

Is the real Universe simple? Yes.

Is the abstract universe simple? No.

Is unique, once simple? Yes.

Is binary 0 1 simple? No.

Joe

Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 19:49 GMT
Thanks Joe for at least graciously answering those questions without taking offence. Your 0-0-0-0 answer is simple and unique once! I love it. Have a nice day.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 02:16 GMT
Joe,

I like your essay - it's funny too. I think what you say in your essay about your real toe is a much needed antidote to the picture of reality put forward in some other essays. The "official view" seems to be that the underlying reality is like a computer, or a horrific mathematical wasteland. Anyone whose essay disagrees is likely to have his head chopped off.

Thanks for a good read. Best wishes,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 17:30 GMT
Lorraine

Thank you ever so much for your extremely gracious comment.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 21:37 GMT
Hi Joe,

I enjoyed your essay greatly, but I had to laugh as I think you convincingly undid yourself. Except you did it in reverse. You see; when you talked about the utter uniqueness of the snowflakes in their individual journey to their once and only once existence; I thought it was the most elegant argument possible that each snowflake stores all of the information about its unique journey. The neat thing is that scientists can actually unravel part of that story, after the fact.

So thank you for your wonderful metaphor and insight. Although it contradicts what you said on the following page about the non-existence of information, that gem was definitely worth the effort to read your fine essay, and it stands alone as a great principle to remember. I look forward to reading your reply.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 23:20 GMT
I wanted to add this..

If some of your ideas were phrased in academic terms, they might be more appealing to academics. For example; you seem to have an objection to the idea that numbers just sit there, so they are repeatedly the same, and don't evolve with time. But that's just the Reals; if you consider quaternion and octonion numbers they DO display a sort of dynamism or time evolution. So in Math terms; one of your statements becomes "We can't assume that all quantities are like the so-called real numbers, as real quantities are sometimes non-commutative or non-associative, and they change over time."

Similarly; you seem to be making a strong case for the Heuristic method, and the idea that perhaps all knowledge is really heuristic in method. That is; it only applies for the unique conditions under study, and may not be applicable beyond a narrow spectrum of conditions. That again becomes a way to phrase things that makes your point more eloquently. By and large; I enjoyed your essay, but I think you went off the deep end a few times Joe. I still wish you luck in the contest.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 23:24 GMT
That should be;

"perhaps all knowledge is heuristic in nature" This seems to be one of your main points, rephrased in terms familiar to academic thinkers.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


adel sadeq wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 04:43 GMT
Hi Joe,

To tell you the truth I came up with this theory only by chance(luck), so I don't know about "perspicacious". However my many years of solving tough problems in engineering, computer and business does help to sharpen ones problem solving ability.

In some sense my theory does say that reality is only once, because it is a mathematical structure. It is not useful to enumerate all triangles(their leg lengths). It suffice to say there is such a thing as a triangle.

Also, If you are implying there is no multi-verse, my theory tends to support your position. However, it is too early to be sure.

I gave you good grade for your spirit of discovery.

Adel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 14:41 GMT
Adel

Thank you for reading my essay and for grading it.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 05:44 GMT
Hi Joe!

Thank you for pointing out on Maria's blog that I missed Carolyn Devereux -- her essay turned out my favorite by far (out of just under 60 entries that I have read).

Finally I got to see your essay too and I love its title -- it shows you have a good sense of humor. I also saw your somewhat boorish comments on some blogs lol. You got your point: everything in nature is unique and occurs just once. I believe you will find this thought adequately reflected in my essay where I suggest that reality is continuously generated anew. Hope you will like it -- and even if not, I'm looking for your sincere comment on it in my blog.

-Marina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Richard N. Shand wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 04:03 GMT
Joe,

You're such an iconoclast but you speak words of truth. What is real for me is the unique moment now as I type this. You reading this comment is your unique moment. We cannot hold on to these moments except as memory traces because events, ourselves and the universe move on.

Ultimately, all we each really have is our ongoing experience of the world (which is as real as it gets) and our explantations of our experience (which is "codswallop"). I know you are not interested in logic but there is a contraction here: "He who says does not know, and he who knows does not say". (This would include your essay, my essay and this aphorism.)

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 15:58 GMT
Richard,

Thank you for reading my essay, and for the positive comments you made about it.

It is going to take more than one decrepit old iconoclast to return a scrap of realism into the minds of quantum theory and string theory believers.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 13:59 GMT
Hi Joe,

I know you will have some unique answers to my question which I appreciate:

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?

You can reply me here. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 15:34 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

I am afraid I cannot answer your question for I am not a physicist; I am a decrepit old realist.

I have been relentlessly told that about three fifths of the planet earth consists of water. I have also been relentlessly taught that each human body contains about 60%-65% of water. Although there are reputed to be about 7 billion humans presently living on earth, there are many more insects, blades of grass and drops of water. Each human, each insect, each blade of grass and each droplet of water is unique, once.

Thankfully, there are only a few thousand theoretical physicists pretending that they know how the universe started and how superior intellectually they are. How on earth could a theoretical physicist “know” any more about reality than a blade of grass or a drop of water could when “the law of averages” clearly indicates that the theoretical physicists must “know” considerably less for there are so few of them?

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 02:47 GMT
Hi Joe,

I was expecting something different, having read your previous essays, and was not disappointed. I was amused by your Google searches culminating in the realization that real unique toes are only sock removal away.

You seem very hard on poor old information.It has its uses, one of which was how to build a unique human being (now named Joe Fisher).

Have you come across the game rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock? (As played on 'The big bang theory' ) Lizard is the hand made into a simple lizard head shape with the fingers as the top jaw and the thumb the bottom jaw and Spock is the live long and prosper salute. With that, even more obscure analogy, it would be possible to have matter, information, 'visualization', space and energy. I've noticed that a few of the other essays mention the important role of energy and/or forces.

You have succeeded in getting across your point about the uniqueness of material things in a very enjoyable way. Thanks for sharing it with us. Good luck, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 14:49 GMT
Georgina,

Thank you for taking the time to read and understand my essay. I have never watched The big bang theory.

Nature automatically provides the right amount of energy for the real Universe to operate as it does. Nature provides each form of life enough reality to sustain it. Man is the only animal that crazily believes in transmitting energy and transmitting information about reality is superior to natural circumstance.

In all seriousness, if a man does not know about any matter that is not present, how on earth could such a man invent and perfect a device that could know what the man cannot know?

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 04:19 GMT
Hello Joe

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 04:34 GMT
Dear Joe,

Information of unique object is observational as information continuum that indicates the plausibility of string-matter continuum nature of matters, in that information is the transfer of matter with energy. Uniqueness of an object is expressional as discrete, in that I agree ‘1’ is absolute for every unique object, while ‘1’ is real in discrete but not as continuum that is non-zero.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 15:14 GMT
Jayakar,

I am glad you agree with me. Now if I can only convince the other 125 essay contributors, I am sure I will become a more pleasant person.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 15:23 GMT
Jayakar,

There are actually 182 essays.

Joe

Bookmark and Share


Jayakar Johnson Joseph replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 05:39 GMT
Thank you dear Joe

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 05:35 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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 16:55 GMT
Dear Than Tin,

Thank you for leaving such a thoughtful and beautifully written comment about my essay.

I think that the most important facet of unique is its completeness and the fact that it can only happens, once. This actually allows for more freedom of choice than one might expect. Instead of having to try to remember strings of facts and laws, one can relax knowing that whatever situation one is dealing with it will only happen once.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 01:02 GMT
Hi Joe from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder

Wow - I so love dissidents !!! folk who go against the mainstream!! A big thumbs up from me !! And yes the way in which 'information' is characterized these days is, I concur, pure 'codswallop' !!! But, hey, you don't win friends & influence people by calling them - or their work - names !!!

And very much to my own credit (false modesty has...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Margriet,

Thank you ever so much for taking the time to read my essay and for taking the trouble to leave such an enormously helpful comment about it. I thought your essay was extremely well crafted and astonishingly relevant as to the Bit from it or It from bit competition topic.

I followed your advice and watched one of Bill Gaede’s lectures on physics absurdity on YouTube. I intend to watch many more. Thank you for bringing Gaede to my attention.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 15:06 GMT
Joe,

I hadn't realised you'd had to deal with such a marathon after my June 3rd post. Sorry about that. But I have some good news to make you feel bitter. I've just checked and I hadn't rated your essay. As the only other one majoring on uniqueness how can I not love it? This is a once only ever rating that will prove the magical power of numbers by levitating you seamlessly up the batting order with no accelerative effect!

Very best wishes.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 15:44 GMT
Peter,

Thank you ever so much. I wonder what happened to Paul?

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Gene H Barbee wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:56 GMT
Hi joe, your essay and posts suggests some skepticism about theory. I agree we must not confuse reality with theory but without generalizing data, there would only be one experience after another and even less understanding.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 15:52 GMT
Gene,

Thank you for reading my essay and for taking the trouble to comment on it. I contend that reality does not need a theory in order for it to be real. I also contend that life is the absolute of understanding and each supposed individual life form can only acquire only the correct amount of understanding sufficient for it to exist as it does at its maximum operational efficiency. In other words, a real ant will always understand that it is a real ant and will always act accordingly. It is impossible for a real man to behave like a real man for every man only believes in the difference of abstraction. Man is the only animal that believes that having the ability to transmit and receive abstract information is more important than actually living.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:45 GMT
Dear Joe,

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

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

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

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

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 15:58 GMT
Dr. Borrill,

Thank you for reading my essay and for taking the trouble to leave a comment about it.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Chenxi Guo wrote on Aug. 11, 2013 @ 09:20 GMT
Dear Joe,

Although the competition is over, But I think it is the most important to exchange our ideas.

I appreciate your point: "Information is always selective, subjective and sequential. Reality is not and cannot ever be selective subjective and sequential."

Best wishes,

Guo Chenxi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 11, 2013 @ 15:57 GMT
Guo Chenxi,

I truly appreciate your taking the time to read my essay and also for making such a positive comment about it.

Joe

Bookmark and Share



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.