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

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 22:10pm UTC, wrote Dear Valentin, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/6/13 at 0:18am UTC, wrote Dear Valentin, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Akinbo Ojo: on 7/31/13 at 14:45pm UTC, wrote Hello Valentin, Just to encourage you and wish you the best in the essay...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 7/26/13 at 15:08pm UTC, wrote Hello Valentin, I invite you to visit my forum. Best regards, Vladimir

Than Tin: on 7/26/13 at 3:54am UTC, wrote Hello Valentin Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech ...

Héctor Gianni: on 7/15/13 at 20:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Valentin Koulikov: I am an old...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 7/10/13 at 18:35pm UTC, wrote Hello Valentin. I read all of your articles and essays again. Excellent...

Valentin Koulikov: on 7/10/13 at 16:03pm UTC, wrote Jim, thank you and wish you good luck in all that. Valentin


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "It's difficult for the acrobats to see each other. I want a 3rd party..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
August 24, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Information Relativity: Times Stored in Spaces by Valentin Koulikov [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Valentin Koulikov wrote on Apr. 26, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Essay Abstract

A new observation relativity principle is hereby suggested and followed strictly to the end. It is shown that this principle directly implies an assumption of all of the physical processes going back and forth in time which leads us to a unified interpretation of the fundamental phenomena of quantum and relativity physics. It very well may become what John Archibald Wheeler has put as: “...an utterly simple idea that demands the quantum”. A clear and new understanding of the meanings and interconnections of the concepts of time, space, causality, quantum, energy, observation and information could be reached by using this approach. “It from Bit and Bit from It” is a short description of the new fundamental dynamic symmetry and the brand name for what may be termed as “time interaction”.

Author Bio

Dr. Valentin Koulikov studied phys/math/chem/ and obtained a MSc in quantum physics (nonlinear optics) at MIEM, Russia, and subsequently researched plasma processes and quantum gravity at IZMIRAN of Acad.Sci.Russia, then at MITXT (University), Russia. PhD Phys&Math (IZMIRAN, 1986). Over a hundred publications in quantum physics, geophysics, quantum relativity and constructed languages. Last 13 years worked as IT specialist, Boston, USA.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 17:00 GMT
This is a very confusing essay to read.

“a. Events and quanta surrounding us in space only exist in the past. Not in the present, not in the future. In the past. One may say that space “lies” wholly in the past. Time on the other hand, “goes” toward the future.”

“b. All quanta (elementary particles) of the same type are absolutely, fundamentally identical to each other, physically indistinguishable.”

a. As I patiently explained in my essay, BITTERS, the Universe can only be occurring absolutely here and now. While imaginative human speculations about perfect abstract events only happening in an abstract past are entertaining, they have nothing to do with reality.

b. While all (abstract) quanta (elementary particles) of the same type may be abstractly perfectly identical to each other, no two real snowflakes of the trillions that have fallen have ever been found to be identical.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Apr. 29, 2013 @ 15:01 GMT
Joe, I agree, my essay can be very confusing, but it is because of the real complexity of the universe. In some way I also agree with the idea that the universe "occur" only "here and now". In my essay I actually postulate that all quanta (including the one that is our universe) "are here and now". Simply because it is the one and single one quantum.

I disagree though that our views on the universe are "pure speculations". That's where the concept of the reference frame (measuring device) or subject appear. Our views on the universe are real but relative, they depend upon how exactly we look at the universe (and how we interact with it).

Regarding the difference of snowflakes: it is the different, never duplicated combinations of identical quanta in snowflakes make them different. World is a kaleidoscopic fractal.

Bookmark and Share



Jacek Safuta wrote on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 17:54 GMT
Hi Valentin,

Your essay is very interesting and one of my favorites.

You noticed that …the world physics turned to all kinds of formal approaches, of “quantization”, trying to substitute pure mathematics for a real understanding of the nature of things… I agree absolutely. And not only me. If I can't picture it, I can't understand it - that is the statement attributed to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Apr. 29, 2013 @ 15:26 GMT
Hi Jacek,

thank you for your interest in my essay. In my concept space-time is the fabric, not the background for events. Actual events (or quanta) form this fabric, they are the space-time out of universal change process that we call time. If one can see, this process of time is also self-interacting (self-acting), which is reflected by our "selecting" one of the possible objects and making it a measuring device (material reference frame) or subject. This "selection" is not arbitrary at all, it is the result of actual historic process of natural selection, resulted in us as human beings and our experimental devices. Nature is self-acting on itself through us now - but before that it has self-acted through other increasingly more and more primitive subjects up to the very Big Bang.

Bookmark and Share


Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Apr. 29, 2013 @ 15:57 GMT
Jacek,

you asked me to suggest some experiment to test the observation relativity principle. The best way to do this, I think, is to demonstrate experimental time travel, for example, to send some primitive atom clock back in time. According to the theory, presented in my essay (see references there) it is very much possible when one use reference frames based on BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate).

Also, regarding Penrose's triad "It-Reality-Bit": from my point of view, mathematical (platonic) world is not the separate world, it is one of the objects in material world which is used as our tool. This tool is somewhat closer to us (our consciousness) than our material experimental devices and therefore it may taken as a part of our subject. But as one can see from the essay, even the difference between subject and object is also relative, depends upon the circumstances.

Bookmark and Share


Jacek Safuta replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 21:35 GMT
Dear Valentin,

In Penrose's and also my view the Platonic world is not quite separate but in a sense partly overlapping with the other two. But from the very definition Platonic is immaterial. And it is not my idea but just a definition taken by Penrose and his predecessors.

Regarding the time travel my question is how do you want to send the primitive atom clock back in time? That is interesting but I cannot imagine technical possibility.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 08:16 GMT
Valentin

“Einstein has shown that the information we rely on, our observations of events in time and space depend on our choice of reference frame, i.e. on rulers and clocks as measurement tools.”

Problem is, he was wrong. Because timing and spatial devices only ‘tell’ the time/distance, they are not the time/distance. That is a conceptual reference. Think about it, why do we synchronise timing devices, and produce rulers to a quality that resists ‘interference’ (for example heat).

Existence is only in the present, there is only a present, ie realities which occurred at different times do not co-exist. We become aware of reality later. Time is the rate of turnover of these realities.

Light is what enables sentient organisms with the function of sight to be aware of existence, its speed of travel is irrelevant to the physical circumstance, that just determines how much later is later.

There are 3 dimensions of space because that is the minimum number which at the highest level of conceptualisation remains ontologically valid, in reality there are far more.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 15:43 GMT
There can only be one real infinate dimension. Width, height and depth are humanly contrived abstract aspects of figuritive dimensions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 29, 2013 @ 12:33 GMT
Joe

Not so

When establishing what constitutes distance, space or dimension, the reference is a conceptual matrix of spatial positions, which is imposed on any given physical reality to ‘divide’ it up spatially. To ‘locate’ this matrix, it must be associated with any given constituent physically existent state of that physical reality. Consistency of reference must be maintained in order to ensure comparability of subsequent measurements.

The dimension/size/shape (ie spatial footprint) of any constituent physically existent state is defined in terms of spatial positions ‘occupied’ on this matrix. ‘Mapping’ other existent states would reveal their comparability with each other. Distance is usually measured between the two nearest dimensions of the existent states, but could involve any combination of dimensions. And depending on the spatial relationship of the states, it could revolve around separation, or one within another.

Dimension is a specific aspect of spatial footprint, relating to the distance along any possible axis of that ‘occupation’. So, three is the minimum number of spatial dimensions that is ontologically correct at the highest level of conceptualisation (ie up/down, back/forth, side/side). But that is not what is physically existent. At the existential level, the number of possible dimensions is half the number of possible directions that the substance with the smallest spatial footprint could travel from any single spatial point on the spatial matrix.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Apr. 29, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
Paul,

I agree, measuring devices are not "time and space" that's why I said about "our observations of events in time and space". Observation is not time or space.

And yes, "we become aware of reality later", that is why I suggest the space to represent past time (anti-time).

Further, the speed of light is considered equal to the fundamental speed, a barrier (horizon) between space and time. The fact of this equality can as well be coincidental, but it is not discussed in the essay.

Bookmark and Share



Charles wrote on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 09:38 GMT
Valentin,

thank you for such unusual essay.

QM paradoxes had led to Multiverse hypotheses. How does your picture fit this hypotheses? Could only one universe be enough for you?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 14:05 GMT
Charles,

yes, in my picture all the multiverse is in one single universe: each and every quantum in it IS the same universe, seen from different "point of view", observed in a unique reference frame based on this particular quantum. One may say that each quantum here resembles a drop of water in which the whole universe is reflected in a unique way. The other way of seeing it is that each quantum is the kind of black hole, or wormhole that goes not to some other universe, but to the same (our) single universe, just to some distant point in it (that is how coordinates appear in this picture, by the way).

This picture is totally defined by the "links" between "drops", i.e. defined by the particular way how one "drop" is "reflected" in other. These "links", as you can imagine, can be quite unstable and observable picture can change abruptly exactly like the picture changes each time we turn the tube of the kaleidoscope.

If you take in consideration all these event horizons appearing between the "drops" (quanta) and preventing the flow of information, you'll get the picture almost identical to what we have in multiverse - but "embedded" into the single universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 14:07 GMT
Charles, the previous anonymous post was actually mine. Sorry for inconvenience :-)

Bookmark and Share



Ann Leigh wrote on May. 1, 2013 @ 19:16 GMT
Some researches are inclined to recognize the appearance of abnormal correlations or order structures in time-space continuum at low statistics (“macro fluctuations”). Could your theory say something in connection with the possibility of such effects?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on May. 1, 2013 @ 22:34 GMT
Thank you Ann for such an interesting question.

The answer is positive due to the obvious symmetry between micro and macro in this theory (the whole universe is one quantum). This fact makes us rethink the very concept of statistics though - and this is the one really exciting field to research on. Probabilities become relative. Macro fluctuations will occur despite their low probability (or even low statistics) calculated in a standard way "from the bottom up".

I mean that some even almost improbable events here may still occur, like well known example of mathematical dot (size=0) dropped onto the surface. Probability of hitting any preselected dot on the surface is precisely zero, still the event occurs each time we try it.

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 2, 2013 @ 00:40 GMT
Valentin,

One of the most fascinating essays I've seen in any of the FQXi contests.

There is too much to comment on at once so I will ask three questions:

1. You begin by implying that observable local effects of gravity can be nullified. The only real observable local effect of gravity (as distinguished from acceleration) is the tidal force. How do you nullify this?

2. You say your theory explains exactly why elementary particles of the same type are absolutely identical. But why in a theory of 'one particle' executing time loops is there more than one type of particle?

3. Is the time travel experiment you discuss with Jacek a condition of the BEC that you simply *interpret* as time travel, or do you propose that some event should occur a measurable time before it is triggered in the lab (in the 'future')?

Once again, a fascinating essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on May. 2, 2013 @ 16:34 GMT
Thank you, Edwin for your interest in my essay,

1. Actually I postulate possible nullifying of observable effects not of the gravity only, but of all objective changes, i.e. all "natural forces", etc. It is a pretty bold (crazy enough?) statement, of course. The very possibility of that is based on this vague concept of "subject" , that can actually be any part of the universe, even be...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Valentin Koulikov replied on May. 2, 2013 @ 18:50 GMT
Also Edwin,

if you are the author of this book on consciousness (sorry, did not read it yet), you may be interested in the concept of consciousness as a loop (thought-memory-thought) in subjective space-time developed in my other article (unfortunately they are currently experiencing problems with LaTex engine, I apologize for them):

http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=
226

The theory and equations there actually follow closely the "Times Rest in Spaces" ideology.

As you know, founding fathers of modern physics always thought that the future theory would include consciousness. So here we have one more point to test if this theory is crazy enough.

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 2, 2013 @ 19:47 GMT
Valentin,

Thanks for your answers. I'm glad you agree gravitational tidal forces cannot be nullified, and that you propose a real test of time travel not a simple labeling of a BEC state. I did not quite understand your answer about the particle types but I'll try to read the links you provide.

I have written about consciousness and have an FQXi essay, Fundamental Physics of Consciousness that you may find interesting. My other FQXi essays expand on the non-consciousness aspects of the theory. You may also find Marcel LeBel's essay on logic and time interesting. Whereas I fully agree that the nature of the universe is self-interacting, I tend posit gravity as the root substance from which all (self-)evolves. I plan to submit an essay that I hope you will find interesting.

Good luck in the contest,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on May. 6, 2013 @ 07:15 GMT
Consciousness, or more generally the entire subsequent processing by sensory system/brain of physical input received, can have no effect on the physical circumstance. Because:

1 The physical circumstance occurred previously, so physical effect is impossible as the existent sequence order precludes that.

2 The physical interaction does not involve the existential sequence anyway, but an existent representation thereof. So apart from the fact that what is being considered has already existed and now ceased to be in existence, what interaction there is, is not with that. Physically, all that happens is that the existent representation ceases to exist in the form received. This applies whatever the circumstance of the interaction, ie whether for example it included a brick or an eye.

3 It is not a physical process, but involves the conversion of a physical input to a perception thereof.

4 The resulting perception can have no physical effect on the future, because the future does not physically exist, and is therefore not available to be so affected.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on May. 9, 2013 @ 15:02 GMT
Paul,

I don't think that my essay is anything about consciousness, so this is not a place to discuss it. Also your post look like a bunch of statements, not questions to discuss.

Anyway I decided to say at least something on these statements of yours :

1. Consciousness subjective process is based on information written on the objective physical carrier (brains, circuits, etc.), so nothing occurs previously to anything. Just physical interaction, nothing more, objectively speaking.

2. See above.

3. There is no "conversion" of physical input to perception; according to my approach perception is physical process taken from a particular "subjective" point of view, i.e. in subjective reference frame.

4. Again, in my approach past and future both physically exist in the present, only their existence is different than the existence of the present itself. Past physical existence is represented by forms of space and energy, future physical existence is a little more complicated and is represented by so-called "key", "triggering" states of the matter (this is far far away from the matter of the essay itself)

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on May. 10, 2013 @ 04:24 GMT
Valentin

I did not say your essay was about consciousness. I just picked up an indication that it was considered that the subsequent processing of physical input received by the sensory systems/brain had some effect on the physical circumstance. Which it does not, it determines the perception thereof, which is not physics. And listed a number of reasons why this must be so, what you...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 18:56 GMT
Valentin,

Dense but a good read. Do you see your findings also reinforcing/complementing Bohm/Hiley's concept/notion of an 'Undivided Universe'?

Thank you sir and take care!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 15:25 GMT
Yes John,

it resembles Bohm concept, but it is really different from it, too. What is the same is that the Universe is really "undivided".

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 22:38 GMT
Hello Valentin,

I've only had time for a quick scan of your essay this evening, but will look more thoroughly over the weekend.

I like your conclusion that the truth, more likely lies in “It from Bit and Bit from It”. Please take a look at my essay and consider if we have and common ground, as the conclusion suggests we might have.

I look forward to reading your essay in more detail - it certainly has caught my attention.

Best Wishes

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 15:27 GMT
Hello Antony,

thank you for your interest, I will read your essay asap too.

Valentin

Bookmark and Share



William Amos Carine wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 23:58 GMT
Dear V. Koulikov,

I think your statement listed after k. is of the most physical importance to the fundamental questions in the physics community today. Your finding, or creation, of this new principle may indeed be of some value to those who believe in physical unification as a route. It seems evident that the scale of future contemplation must be smaller than what has been in the thinkers...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear William,

thank you for your interest, but I am not sure which particular statement were you talking about...

The new principle, as I see it, is an advanced relativity, no less and no more. I believe I follow the steps of Einstein here.

Valentin

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 02:02 GMT
Dear Valentin

Your essay is very interesting and unique, the only regret is the lack of accurate conclusions.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 15:34 GMT
Dear Hoang,

thank you for your interest; for much more detail please check References for my essay. I think you will agree that It is difficult to put everything into such a short essay.

Valentin

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 03:49 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

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 15:54 GMT
Hai,

I believe we all will find common ground to live together happily too :-)

Thank you for your helpful comments.

Valentin

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 12:08 GMT
Hi, Dear Valentin,

I have read your essay but it is difficult to well understand your work (perhaps because of my poor English!) Meantime I have find there main important thing that is in your conclusion:

,,All of what has been written in this essay tells us that the phrase “It from Bit or Bit from It” is a wrong dilemma"!

I think the same that you can see on the top of my essay (in bold)



Essay

Please find time to open it, I hope we can find common points.

Pishite mne ottuda, pojalusta.

Sincerely,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 15:56 GMT
Thank you, George,

I will read you essay and hope we will find common points too.

Valentin

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 08:38 GMT
Hello, Valentin!

Great idea: "Times Stored in Spaces"! Est li u Vas esse na russkom yazyke i drugie raboty? Ne smog nayti vashu stranitsu v seti i vashu pochtu...Moya pochta v moem esse, S uvazheniem, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 16:01 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

Thank you for the interest to my essay; related works in English are listed in References to the essay. You may search for other articles by my name in Philica also. Unfortunately I don't have any published work on this matter in Russian. I will read your essay and make comments.

Valentin

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 18:35 GMT
Hello Valentin.

I read all of your articles and essays again. Excellent result: «Times go back and forth and rest in spaces. ». The highest score. Regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 15:08 GMT
Hello Valentin,

I invite you to visit my forum. Best regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 11:24 GMT
Hi Valentin,

No problem - I thought I'd read most of the essays & was about to go back over any I'd missed or just scanned. Now I see 10 more. Huge task - but very enjoyable!

All the best,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 16:02 GMT
Thank you Antony,

Valentin

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:32 GMT
Valentin,

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.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Valentin Koulikov replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 16:03 GMT
Jim,

thank you and wish you good luck in all that.

Valentin

Bookmark and Share



Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 20:05 GMT
Dear Valentin Koulikov:

I am an old physician, and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, but after the common people your discipline is the one that uses more the so called “time” than any other. About the demand of a clear and new understanding of the meanings and interconnections of the concepts of time, space,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 03:54 GMT
Hello Valentin

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 14:45 GMT
Hello Valentin,

Just to encourage you and wish you the best in the essay contest.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 00:18 GMT
Dear Valentin,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:10 GMT
Dear Valentin,

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


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.