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

basudeba mishra: on 8/8/13 at 1:46am UTC, wrote Dear Madam, Thank you for your gracious remarks. Modern science has...

Margriet O'Regan: on 8/7/13 at 15:10pm UTC, wrote Hellow Basudeba from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder ! I enjoyed & agreed...

basudeba mishra: on 8/7/13 at 0:45am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, Nature of communication language appears continuum though...

Jayakar Joseph: on 8/6/13 at 19:40pm UTC, wrote Dear Basudeba Mishra, I have replayed for your post on Aug. 4, 2013 @...

basudeba: on 8/6/13 at 2:32am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, Information is always ‘about something’. Thus, it has to be...

Jayakar Joseph: on 8/5/13 at 4:47am UTC, wrote Dear Basudeba Mishra, Thanks for your replay. As ‘information’ is...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/4/13 at 19:47pm UTC, wrote Dear Basudeba, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

basudeba mishra: on 8/4/13 at 1:41am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, You have pointed out to a very important aspect, which needs to...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "Hello all, I liked these fuzzballs and this artcile,congratulations to Mrs..." in Fuzzballs v Black Holes

John Taylor: "Tell me what you think of this thought experiment: How significant are..." in Quickfire Quantum Qs

Edwin Pole II: "Sorry for elementary question. Trying to understand quantum theory. Basic..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...

John Taylor: "Tell me what you think of this thought experiment: How significant are..." in Physics of the Observer...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello all, Congratulations to winners and thanks to FQXi for this..." in What Is Fundamental? –...

Hector Zenil: "Thanks. Yes, that link shows the prerequisites. I can add that at times..." in New Online Course:...

Laverne Klein: "Nice one" in FQXi's New Large Grant...

Yahoo support: "I actually did not understand the blog what the author wants to convey, so..." in Co-Travelers


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion
Einstein’s relativity pushes physicists towards a picture of the universe as a block, in which the past, present, and future all exist on the same footing; but maybe that shift in thinking has gone too far.

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

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


FQXi FORUM
May 26, 2018

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author basudeba mishra wrote on May. 31, 2013 @ 13:06 GMT
Essay Abstract

Why of all the number systems in use, binary systems dominate the information sector? What reality stands for? How virtual particles pop out and vanish in the so-called vacuum states? By which mechanism information (thought) pops out of memory in response to some external stimuli and vanishes again? What is an electron or a photon? What will happen if proton or neutron is used in the double slit experiment? Does Big bang imply ex-nihilo? What is nothingness? Is there an all encompassing background structure? Can energy be non-interacting (dark)? Here we try to harmonize the generalities of communication and concepts with temporal evolution and background structure of the Universe. Dark energy and the phenomenon of receding galaxies are also discussed. The first part dominates by generalities, the middle by information theory and the last part by physics.

Author Bio

A retired Government Officer interested in harmonizing the generalities of the macro world with those of the micro world. We claim, there is macro equivalent for every micro phenomenon. There is no weird quantum world, but only weird ideas that need to be discarded. We discuss only the concepts leaving the detailed work out to the Engineers.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Robert Bennett wrote on May. 31, 2013 @ 18:10 GMT
Basudeba,

Tell us more about this statement:

"All experiments conducted to prove time dilation are defective.

Data from the first experiment available in US naval archives proves that it was fudged."

What supporting evidence or reference source can you cite?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author basudeba mishra wrote on May. 31, 2013 @ 21:51 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you for the response.

Hafele and Keating (1972) carried out experiments that purported to confirm the Theory of Special Relativity and Time Dilation. The evidence provided was derived from the differences in time recorded by cesium clocks transported in aero-planes. They were sent first Eastwards for 65.4 hours with 13 landings and take-offs. Then sent westwards for...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 06:34 GMT
Basudeba/Robert

There is a much simpler way of answering the underlying point here. Time is not the timing devices, it is a conceptual constant rate of change. That is why devices are synchronised, ie they just 'tell' the time. Time cannot be altered, because it is a reflection of the rate at which change occurs. That could be altered, ie in different circumstances something might alter at a different rate.

Basudeba has quoted enough from Einstein to demonstrate where his fault lay. It is with Poincare's incorrect concept of simultaneity. The clocks were already synchronised, otherwise they are useless. There is no need to translate the 'local time' to a 'common time'. Either things occurred at the same time, or they did not. The perception of that is irrelevant to that fact. What is relevant is the timing of the receipt of the light representing that occurrence. Which will be different depending on spatial relationships. But Einstein had no observers, because there was no observational light. Just a ray of light (later it was lightening), which was actually just a constant used to calibrate duration and distance. He could have used any constant. Declaring entities to be observers does not make them observers, unless they have light to observe with. Stating the second postulate is irrelevant if what then happens does not use it in the way defined. One only needs to read 1905 section 1, part 1 (Simultaneity) to realise that the concept of relativity in existence is incorrect. The relativity is in the receipt of light.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 07:06 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you for the support. We are on the same wave-length.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



Paul Reed wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 06:17 GMT
Basudeba

“All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states”

If any given state is unknown, how do you ‘combine’ it? Given that a state must be definitive, we just may or may not know it, what is the purpose of calculating all the alternatives to that state which could have occurred, but did not?

“Hence there is an uncertainty inherent in it”

Not so, existence cannot occur in an uncertain mode. The uncertainty is a reflection of our inability to discern precisely, at the existential level, what is happening.

“In perception, the concept remains in a superposition of states and collapses in response to some stimuli.”

Perception is irrelevant to the physical circumstance. Everything alters as a function of stimuli, this is the very essence of cause and effect. But what occurred before that is not affected. And what occurred subsequently is not affected either, because it was not pre-existent. Any given stimuli just causes an effect, that effect being different from what would have otherwise occurred had there been a different stimuli, but there wasn’t.

“Hence something can be described both as a wave and a particle only at a point”

So it cannot be described as a wave, because as you correctly point out, there are only discrete occurrences. By definition then, the concept of wave involves many different occurrences over time.

“The passenger on the train will not notice any length contraction.”

If any given entity does alter in length as a function of its speed of travel, then it des so. Whether different people in different spatial relationships with this entity perceive that is irrelevant.

I will stop at that stage, otherwise there will be too many comments.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 10:37 GMT
Hello Basudeba and hi Paul,

RE: "In communication, length contraction or time dilation has no direct bearing on the final outcome"

The meaning of the cliche, 'light velocity is a constant (irrespective of the motion of the observer)' is the origin of the concept of time dilation and length contraction. What it means is that knowing your distance from a light source you cannot hasten the light's arrival time by moving towards an already in-flight and incoming light wave/photon due to time dilation, neither can you delay the arrival time due to length contraction. That is what Special Relativity postulates and that is the meaning of the cliche, although some have removed the words in bracket.

The postulate originates from the outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment which showed that receptor motion had no effect on light arrival times (i.e. resultant velocity). Other experiments like those of (1) Sagnac and (2)the effect of receptor motion on arrival times of signals from the GPS satellite are worth considering to get a complete picture.

Regards.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 14:48 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for raising some very important questions. We will try to explain.

When you say: “light velocity is a constant (irrespective of the motion of the observer)”, you are right, but must remember the limitations of this statement. Firstly, Signals in fibre optic cables move slower than radio signals by a factor equal to the refractive index of the glass, which is within 1.1 and 3. This shows that speed is light is the same within a medium, but varies inversely with the density of the medium. Thus, when light travels between mediums of different density like those outside the atmosphere of Earth and within it, there will be a difference in the average speed from its constant speed in a medium – it will actually slow down not due to length contraction, but due to density variation of the mediums.

Secondly, even within the same medium, an observer at rest, an inertia observer, and an accelerating observer will see a constantly moving object differently. Let us assume three persons, one standing, one circling on a bike moving at uniform speed, and another similarly circling on a bike, but accelerating at a uniform rate in the opposite direction, start from one spot and after 5 minutes of synchronized time, fire three identical pistols, which release the bullets at the same speed. To all observers the actual distance traveled and the angle of release of the bullets from the initial point (from where the bikers started), will be different because the point of release of the bullets are different. Now, let us assume that all three are positioned on a giant rotating platform. They fire the bullets at the same position from where they fired earlier. There will be a time difference between them, as they will reach those positions either earlier or later depending upon their orientation, as they would have to travel different distances. This effect is shown in the Sagnac Interferometers. The rest – specifically relating to the matter-wave interferometer (because historically that was the starting point), is explained as follows:

Sagnac published two papers in French titled “The existence of luminiferous ether demonstrated” and “On the proof of the luminiferous ether”. This was against the backdrop of the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment. It must be remembered that Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the naïve ether theory, whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the naïve ether theory but inconsistent with the ballistic theory. This is because the inference drawn from the MM experiment was faulty ab initio. We have already discussed this and repeating again.

Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as such. All transverse waves are background invariant by its very definition. Since light is propagated in transverse waves, Maxwell used a transverse wave and aether fluid model for his equations. Feynman has shown that Lorentz transformation and invariance of speed of light follows from Maxwell’s equations. Einstein’s causal analysis in SR is based on Lorentz’s motional theory where a propagation medium is essential to solve the wave equation. Einstein’s ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell’s Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (aether) based. Thus, the non-observance of aether drag (as observed in Michelson-Morley experiments) cannot serve to ultimately disprove the aether model. The equations describing spacetime, based on Einstein’s theories of relativity, are mathematically identical to the equations describing ordinary fluid and solid systems. Yet, it is paradoxical that physicists have denied aether model while using the formalism derived from it. They don’t realize that Maxwell used transverse wave model, whereas aether drag considers longitudinal waves. Thus, the notion that Einstein’s work is based on “aether-less model” is a myth. All along he used the aether model, while claiming the very opposite.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 07:02 GMT
Dear Sir,

You are right that the state is definitive and we just may or may not know it. But we can know after we perceive only after we get the result of measurement. Since measurement reports the state at a time t, which is already in the past by the time we perceive that state, and since all objects are evolving in time without our being explicitly conscious about their state, we cannot...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 05:42 GMT
Basudeba

“we cannot know the state at moments other than when the measurement was taken. Thus, all others states combined are referred to as superposition of states”.

So according to what you have written, based on the establishment of a state, obviously at the time that investigation relates to, we can then calculate the probable succeeding and preceding states, or what? What...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear Sir,

You are right that “The waves are in a sequence of cause and effect determined by the physics of the circumstance”. Everything evolves in that way in a continuing chain of events independent of our observation. But if we look for a particular chain; how to describe it? It has evolved further so that it cannot be described as it was. It is not non-existent, because it still...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 06:28 GMT
Basudeba

“It has evolved further so that it cannot be described as it was”

By definition we can only observe/measure it as it was at an earlier point in time. But, if we know how the sequence works, and especially if we have several timed observations, then we can make a estimate as to what it was at any other time.

“It is not non-existent, because it still exists in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

Unlike the inappropriate comments you posted on my essay BITTERS, I found reading your essay quite an interesting experience. It would have been an even better read had you made use of the first person singular to expound your ideas.

Each real blade of grass is unique once. By that statement I mean that the tint of green of any real blade of grass will always differ from every real blade of grass that has ever existed, presently exists, or that will ever exist anywhere in the Universe in the so-called future. Each real blade of grass is textured minutely differently than every other blade of grass is or was. And each real blade of grass will have a unique duration regardless of its location in a fertile lawn or whether it is located in a garbage dump.

Everything in the real Universe can only be unique once. Humanly contrived abstract ideas, information and fabrications are supposedly repeatedly identical. Time neither dilates, conflates, nor exacerbates. Each instrumental measurement of time is just as unique once as each blade of grass is.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 16:06 GMT
Dear Sir,

The very fact that we both agree on the salient features of this essay justifies the plurality and thus universality of knowledge and information.

Thanks for your kind words,

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



Jacek Safuta wrote on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 08:57 GMT
Hi Basudeba,

One of the essay contest’s goal is to discuss and obtain a counterpart comments. That includes a criticism. So am I waiting also for your comments.

At the beginning I agree that we should start from the perception of reality to understand a physical reality essence. However your perception notion (similar to Hoffman’s interface theory of perception) I would...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your question shows the depth of your knowledge. Your invitation shows your confidence and quest for truth. Hats off to you Sir! We will try to satisfy you.

Newton said both the apple and the Earth are stationary. Gravity pulls the apple to Earth. This itself is debatable, as nothing can be physically “pulled”. It is always a push from the opposite direction. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 02:23 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your thought experiment replicates the arguments of a nineteenth century fiction called “FLAT LANDS”, which inhibited 2-D creatures and the account of one of them after a visit to Earth. This has misguided everyone till date. Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the “internal structural space” from the “external relational space”. Since such...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 08:59 GMT
Dear Sir,

This is with reference to the points raised by you in Dr. Peter Jackson's thread.

Your statement on reality echos the ancient Indian Philosophy of Vedanta. It was proposed to resolve the seemingly differences between various texts dealing with consciousness. Since the mechanism of perception, which is associated with consciousness (as in the statement “I know this”), is same in all cases to all persons at all times, the ultimate reality is one and immutable and cannot be directly accessed. But when we come to the physical world, the position is different.

It is true that everything is ever changing. But change is ever present. And that is real. The question is: in an ever-changing world, how do we define reality? The only possibility is by accepting the “representations thereof, if they correspond with existence as knowable to us” – as per your statement. This correspondence is done by assigning an invariant concept to each object and giving it a name. This is nothing but information. Thus, information has three components: the transmitter, the receiver and the message. The link is perception. Unless the receiver decodes and perceives the message, it is meaningless. Since transmission is subject to interference from the ever changing environment, we have to take into account of that also.

Hence we define reality as the invariant aspect associated with all objects and consistent with other universal physical laws (existence), that can be perceived as a concept (knowability) and expressed through a language (communicability). Since the three aspects are related, anything showing these characteristics is real.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 17:58 GMT
Basudeba,

After your comments on my own thread I was very pleased to find you in wide agreement with the 'Discrete Field Model' foundations discussed at length in the NPA dissidents blog in the last few years including the Hafele results, time dilation, particle shocks, etc. (also discussed in detail in my last 3 essays here).

Considering this and your agreement that "The validity of a physical theory is judged by its correspondence to reality" I surmise that it was only misunderstanding of my point regarding correspondence that let you to suggest it was false.

I note particularly that you suggest the delayed choice results are false, but don't address why. Again I've given a precise description as to why, but it is clear that that your misunderstanding of my point about the limitations of the statistical approach used has prevented you seeing the resolution.

My point is that an additional parameter subset is needed to allow the information to emerge, demonstrating that Wheelers starting assumption was incorrect. Why he accepted paradox and did not go back to test other assumption is quite beyond me, as I suspect it will be for you.

Finally; You confirm you do agree with my actual thesis in saying;

"But there is difference between Reality and its simulation,". Yet you don't identify the implications of this difference or suggest how it should be parametrised. This is what I have done, which you have not yet recognised the full importance of as it's mostly trivial (as Chaitin). If you have a better way of distinguishing I'm very glad to discuss.

Final questions; Without 'time', is a wave continuous? and, admitting time, would you consider a helix continuous or discrete?

I'm very glad it seems I may prove able to score your essay more highly than your comments made me anticipate.

best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 03:54 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your post is an excellent example of showing that most of our misunderstandings are caused by our own indiscretion or non-application of mind (in addition of course to our other limitations, such as ignorance, arrogance, etc). We note that you have gone through our Essay fully paying attention to its implications at each stage. Few people do it now-a-days. Thanks.

We could...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 04:11 GMT
Dear Sir, (Dr. Peter Jackson)

We have replied to your points on the excluded middle, many valued functions and fuzzy logic above. Here is some more clarification regarding Maxwell's theories.

The wave function is determined by solving Schrödinger’s differential equation: d2ψ/dx2 + 8π2m/h2 [E-V(x)]ψ = 0. By using a suitable energy operator term, the equation is written as Hψ = Eψ. The way the equation has been written, it appears to be an equation in one dimension, but in reality it is a second order equation signifying a two dimensional field, as the original equation and the energy operator contain a term x2. The method of the generalization of the said Schrödinger equation to the three spatial dimensions does not stand mathematical scrutiny. A third order equation implies volume. Addition of three areas does not generate volume and neither x+y+z ≠ (x.y.z) nor x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z). Thus, there is no wonder that it has failed to explain spectra other than hydrogen. The so-called success in the case of helium and lithium spectra gives results widely divergent from observation. The probability calculations, squaring of a complex variable, mathematical operations involving infinity, brute force approach, etc are un-mathematical manipulation in the name of mathematics. There are many such aberrations.

Sorry to disappoint you, but we do not accept anything without being satisfied by its authenticity. Name dropping does not influence us. We may be wrong. If someone points out our mistakes, we get an opportunity of re-evaluating ourselves. Hence kindly excuse us.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 11:55 GMT
Basudeba,

I was very pleased to read your analysis od all points universally consistent with mine, though I'd not gone back beyond Leibniz Law and Russel so Adwaita was new to me, thank you.

Also true of Maxwell and Schrodinger, but then you again say; "sorry to disappoint" which I find very confusing, and can only assume means again that you have not understood my points. That's very easy with limited space and time! Perhaps what is needed is to read my previous two essays which are background and precursors, leading to a great fundamental new truth you haven't yet gleaned from my ontology.

In terms of my ontological construction as an elephant I feel you are 'attacking' the elephants ears, trunk and knees but are describing them perfectly and consistently with the elephant you have not yet seen, which unifies all of physics. It is a kinetic relation as truth function and modal logic, of infinitely nested hierarchical inertial systems starting from a single non-zero particle, which does have a structure. You should have the capacity to see this if you step back further as Wittgenstein specified and take an overview using evolution of interactions.

Best wishes.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 03:55 GMT
Dear Sir, (Dr. Klingman)

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

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

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 05:54 GMT
Basudeba

Observation does not create physical existence, it is independent thereof. And there is only ever A, all physical existence is unique. I am not entirely sure what Edwin means by ‘consciousness’. Matter (or whatever) quite obviously does not have consciousness, in the ordinary sense of the word. However, the basic rules of how existence functions could be superficially equated to an effective consciousness of sorts.

Apart from that, the physical statements you make could be correct, just keep to the physics on order to explain the physical circumstance (with the important caveat: as is potentially knowable to us, ie not what we can dream up).

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear Sir,

We fully endorse your views and never disputed that "Observation does not create physical existence, it is independent thereof." All along we have held that observer only reports the state of the observable. If there is no observer, there cannot be any observation and the existence of the observable would be meaningless. Hence we have to accept observer (consciousness), observable (physical world), and their relationship - observation (concept or knowledge). Even quantum theory cannot ignore the observer, which has a special status.

We would appreciate your comments on our interpretation of the four fundamental forces of Nature.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 06:01 GMT
Basudeba

“If there is no observer, there cannot be any observation and the existence of the observable would be meaningless”

It is not meaningless, it is just not sensed by any sentient organism. It still exists. If all sentient capability was eradicated, existence would still contine, there would just be no awareness of it.

“Hence we have to accept observer (consciousness), observable (physical world), and their relationship - observation (concept or knowledge)”

There is no physical relationship. Existence occurs independently of sensing, which just outputs a perception of it.

“Even quantum theory cannot ignore the observer”

Every theory about the physical circumstance can, and must, ignore the sensing thereof, in terms of explaining that physical circumstance, because sensing is not part of the physical circumstance.

“We would appreciate…”

I have no idea.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 02:27 GMT
Reply to Dr. Willard Mittelman,

Dear Sir,

We have discussed Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment in our essay published on May 31, 2013 to show that the measurement process and the conclusions derived from it are incorrect. Yet, when you say: “measurements made today can determine the past history of the universe”, you are correct. Measurement is always taken a time t, and the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 02:32 GMT
Dear Sir, (Dr. Anton Biermans)

You have started off very well – asking the right questions. That is the sign of a seeker for truth. But somehow, you have mixed up many things into a knot that need to be untangled. We begin with your egg example, as it reflects the universal creation mechanism for massive structures.



We had actually seen an egg being delivered by a hen from...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 11:43 GMT
Dear Sir, (Dr. JAMES R. AKERLUND)

Wheeler’s definition of “It” as “apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits” has to be read with “registering of equipment-evoked responses”. The binary unit, or bit, is a message representing one of two choices: 1 or 0 – on or off – yes or no. The ‘on’s are coded (written in programming language) with 1...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


james r. akerlund replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 00:07 GMT
Hi Basudeba,

My time is limited by a thunderstorm that I just heard as I was about to respond to this post. Lightning tends to destroy computers. I am not a Doctor, my mom is, but not me. I responded to the above post in the comments section for my submission. I was here to actually read your submission. I am not going to repost what I have already said concerning the above post. I am strange that way, in that I want to talk about my submission only on the comments page of my submission and I only want to talk about your submission on the comments page of your submission. I do not want to carry on a cross conversation on both submissions on both comments pages. The skies are dark above my house and I am right now hearing the second strike of thunder, so it is time for me to go. The storm seems slow and I can't tell if the lightning is cloud to cloud or cloud to ground. One requires greater action then the other.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 00:47 GMT
Dear Sir,

Since you were here, instead of weather, you should have discussed our essay. What a waste of time!

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share


james r. akerlund replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 20:40 GMT
Hi Basudeba,

As of a few moments ago I have finally read your submission. There was one sentence in your submission that made me wonder if we have had a converstaion before. I will quote the suspected sentence for you. "Number is a perceived property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars."

So, after I read you submission, I looked for our previous conservation. And it did indeed occur on February 4-5 of 2011 for the FQXi contest "Is Reality Digital or Analog?". I see that if you are repeating the quote in 2013 that you didn't take my advice in 2011. If you had you might have altered your definition of number. My advice in 2011 still stands.

On the whole I liked your submission for 2013. I just have two problems with it. You point out a lot of important ideas, some I would like to look up myself, but your submission has no references, so I can't do any independent research. The other problem is more along the lines of a question. What is pseudo code?

Good luck in the contest.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Willard Mittelman wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 13:01 GMT
Hi Basudeba,

As I indicated in comments at my paper, I now aggre with you. Thank you for helping me to see the error of my ways. There is no need for you to make any comments, since I am going away and will not be coming back.

Regards,

Willard Mittelman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 07:54 GMT
Hello, Basudeba!

Good analytical essays, read with pleasure, as well many of your comments on the forums. I agree completely with your conclusions: «Both space and time co-exist like the fundamental forces of Nature .... Energy is perceived only through its interactions. Hence it cannot be dark (non-interacting). Similarly, information cannot be dark (without answers). It shines in full glory blinding us. We should have the eyes to see it.»

Good luck! Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 20:12 GMT
Dear Basudeba

The reality has always existed is: light always go with shadows.

So we have to see both in the same issues - that's mandatory.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 09:11 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

Thanks for your lengthy but healthy comments. It is good to see that we both agree on some fundamental points. I will go through your essay and post my comments soon.

Best regards,

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:21 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 basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 12:22 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your idea about absoluteness of the theory is correct though it can have various interpretations.

Regarding the TEST, we will be glad to cooperate with you.

Regarding fees, we do not believe in selling knowledge. Hence we are not interested in the monetary part. But we can help you or anyone else in any manner we can. Our email id is: mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 10:29 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

The subject matter of the essay you have written, I feel, is as a result of build up of your thought for over a period of more than two decades. So you have better grip over what you have written. In the beginning of the essay itself you have made it clear that Reality = Answer and also that it sits at the center of every question. It is true that we often ask a question to know the reality hiding behind it. Your idea of quantum weirdness as due to observer's inefficiency may not be appealing to all but yet it could be right individually. You have analyzed both classical and quantum worlds from the point of view of a classical physicist. Your classification of 'information' in to different categories is interesting. Your idea on the motion of galaxies and dark energy is worth noting.

For the enormous strain you have taken in writing this essay, I would like to rate it highly.

Sincerely,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 12:01 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you for the gracious comments. But the credit goes to our ancestors, whose ideas we only presented in our language. Most of what we have written are contained in the first chapter of Maha Bhashya of Patanjali. The rest are from Shatapatha Brahman, as interpreted by our fore-fathers and received by us from traditional sources. It is a pity that there is not a single book that interprets the texts correctly. Those like Raja Ramanna or presently Sridattadev Kanchrla have tried to show off their knowledge of Vedanta in a wholly inappropriate manner. In any case, they have not understood what they are talking about.

We find that the Westerners are more interested to secretly study our ancient works and publish whatever they understood as their original work or at best Buddhist thoughts to misguide others. But since they have not understood it properly, they are often misled. This creates the confusion. For example, string theory was developed on the basis of "vayurvai tat sootram". But the Vayu here has 11 pairs of subdivisions unknown to them. Thus, they are talking about 11-dimensions in vain. In various threads here we have shown that dimension can only be three. It is a pity that scientists and Sanskrit Pundits in our country shun our work equally. Scientists due to bias and Sanskrit Pundits to hide their ignorance.

We have published a book on Vaidic Theory of Numbers, which discusses many subjects of physics apart from Number theory. The book is free of cost. In case you want a copy, you can send your postal address to: mbasudeba@gmail.com,

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share


Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 16:03 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

If you are talking of Maha Bhashya of Patanjali and Shatapatha Brahman, then you have a very good knowledge of Sanskrit. Sanskrit is such good language that it is very rich in vocabulary, literature and grammar. But it is almost forgotten in modern India. I am moved by your courtesy to send me a copy of your book by post. For that I will send my postal address later to you.

Thanking you and best of luck in the contest.

sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 04:23 GMT
Thank you Sir,

The title of our essay is the translation of the Yajur Veda dictum "Hirnmayena paatrena satyasyapihitam mukham". We had drawn some inference from Yajur Veda also. You can refer to our blog: basudeba.blogspot.com

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:47 GMT
Basudeba,

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 basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 00:13 GMT
Dear Sir,

So is our essay. We will certainly evaluate your essay and expect you to return the favor.

Regards,

basudeba.

Bookmark and Share


Author basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 12:49 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your essay is a good analysis of various prevailing thoughts – most of them fiction than science. Till date we have not come across a precise definition of “what” an electron is – Bohr’s description of an enigma notwithstanding. In our essay, we have attempted to do just that. You are recommended to go through it.

In one previous essay “Is Reality Digital or...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Hon Jia Koh wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 09:38 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

Thanks for the comment on my essay. There are many interesting and resonating points condensed into your essay and I will attempt to discuss a few of them which resonated.

"...since density of space is the minimum, the velocity of photon in space is maximum." "Particles are nothing but locally confined fields of densities." "The interval between objects is space and that between events is time"

One way is to treat 'density' as the overall remnants/effects of the state of motion of particles or more precisely the state of location and displacement of particles from the prior and next state (analogous to one frame after another in a video). For a photon, which is not a localized or confined particle (sort of spread out in comparison), it will navigate with greater ease in a less dense (less particle perturbation) environment.

"There is a continual pressure starting from the creation event to achieve complete knowledge."

The way I treat it is that once ‘density’ and information come into existence, it has already set the stage for moving towards the ultimate event where the ‘overall density’ is at its ‘optimum’.

Regards,

Hon Jia

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 10:54 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thanks for your comments. We fully agree with your first comment, which can be further extended.

Regarding your second comment, we must differentiate between 'density', which is a state and 'information', which is the description of the state in a 'language'. Knowledge is the perception of the contents of this language. Description or reporting is action. The content is perceived only after this action. Hence it is not action. It is compared with the stored concept in memory. Thus, ultimate knowledge is the ultimate store house of all concepts.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 02:07 GMT
Dear Basudeba

Many thanks for your opinion, but it seems you do not understand my purpose.

We do not sell the knowledge that it is the expression of the practical application of knowledge. Get real income will shows that a knowledge be have valuable on the fact or not - that is the most accurate assessment.

We do not research to pass the time or to satisfy for the demands unrealizable - as a literary movement - we do that because we feel : the problem is still not acceptable.

Hopefully we will have an effective collaboration.

Hải.Caohoàng

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 11:28 GMT
Thank you Sir,

But we are not interested in making money. While money is important, we consider excess money as a disease. We do research for our self satisfaction.

You will get many people to collaborate with you. You can try them.

Thanks for the offer.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 15:59 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

You have put a ,,strange,, task - ,,harmonizing the generalities of the macro world with those of the micro world,, from viewpoint of modern ideology,adopted in the oficial physics as indisputable principle! I mean there finitelly are accepted - our macroworld has its own rules (that is the cause-effect relations)- and thre are the microworld, which controled by brobable-statistical own relations (i.e. by quantum laws.) So, how you can dared to go against to thousands professors, uncountable quantity of courses and handbooks? You puting also laffulness questions - what is photon? What is the electron? Who give you permission to put such eretical questions?

Dear Basudeba! You are on very right way! I welcome your work and hope you can find some answers of your right questions from my work ESSAY(after you need check the referenses there)I am inclined to high rate your work, and hope to listening your opinion about our common points in my forum.

All the Best,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 18:38 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you for your gracious comments.

Modern physics is at cross roads and needs to be saved by independent research. In this forum itself, we have received monetary offers and offers to mutually vote high, which we have declined.

We can give our independent views because we are not running after any prize or recognition, but we want to understand Nature for our own satisfaction. We do not accept the 'established theories' blindly, because that is superstition. We accept only those that stand scientific scrutiny based on latest observations and experiments. Additionally we try to link similar principles in different fields like the Doppler effect or inverse square law were used in different fields in the last century. We do not fantasize with physics and follow strict mathematical principles.

We will surely visit your site and comment on it.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 21:00 GMT
basudeba,

"Quantum states give only probabilities, which aredetermined by observation.

The probability is related to the observer’s inefficiency to control the environment and not to the way the quantum world behaves"

A lot of pearls of wisdom like the above and a lots of good unanswered questions. As your assessment indicates, We share a number of concepts and questions.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Salvish Goomanee wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 21:28 GMT
Dear Basubeda,

I have read through your essay and I have noticed that you are only describing some of the most fundamental principle in physics and you are trying to be philosophical about the subject - unfortunately you are not doing it the right way. I do not understand how the Essay title "it from bit or bit from it" is related to your writings.

Firstly I do not see how the water...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 07:43 GMT
Dear Sir,

You have justified our addressing you Sir, because you have shown real inquisitiveness to know. We are pleased with your questions, but since space is a constraint, we will reply a few points briefly. You can read other comments in other threads or write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

If you read the original Essay announcement, you will realize that, our essay is one of the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 04:06 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

The first part of my post is a joke only! (Maybe it is not successfully because of my imperfect English) I hope listening your comments to my work.

Regards,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 08:07 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I am glad to find with you many common views on how must be seen

the science based on objective principles but not on the subjectivism,

which mainly find place in disputable sections of physics.

Caming to your detailed interpretation of Schredinger equation, I must tell you

sorry, because I have my own approach to this very intriquing problem

(you know already whit this question mostly has conditioned the origin of

quantum representation). If you have enogh time (I mean after this battle!)

just open ref. [9] from my work. I hope my explanation will deserved your

attention. There you can find also my viewpoint about relation of matematics,

logic and physical reality.

My Best wishes to you,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 12:36 GMT
Dear Sir,

We surely will follow it up.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 01:22 GMT
Dear All,

It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

iSeries always yields two sub semi...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 12:05 GMT
Dear Basudeba and All,

Enjoy the absolute truth of the self. Thou art that.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear Sir,

We have refuted your equating zero with infinity in our first post. We avoided replying to that telling that you do not want to discuss relativity. Then why are you continuing with such weird ideas?

In your Author bio-data, you have said "I am your alter ego. We are one and the same i or the singularity or the conscience or the soul or the absolute or the god." I is discrete (consciousness is not) and alter ego suggests duality. Then how can both be same?

What is the rationale of your writing or post to the topic at hand? It is beyond us! You are advocating 'pravritti' path, which only tempts the sense organs to go more for it (material enjoyment) and away from salvation. Of course it is your choice.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Basudeba -

It is interesting in this contest to see how disparate thinkers start from such different perspectives and draw near to a concept of the Cosmos that can, I sense, accommodate a grand synthesis of their views.

Simply put, we're all questioning the established parameters, as has occurred throughout history - and we're doing so for the same reason as always: so that we...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 17:01 GMT
Dear Sir,

We fully agree with your opening remark. We are sorry for over-looking your essay till now. Our views are very similar, though from different perspectives; so that it will take some time to finalize the common language. Due to space constraint we may not be able to express our views fully here and we will like to continue our interaction beyond this forum. We are also going to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


john stephan selye replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 17:33 GMT
Dear Basudeba -

Thank-you for this very detailed exposition of some very important points. I just saw your message, and am grateful that you will presently be reading and assessing my paper.

I very much look forward to your verdict!

Best Regards,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 05:23 GMT
Basudeva

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


Author basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:24 GMT
This is our letter to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 23:58 GMT
Basudeba - I had a hard time reviewing your essay. The reference to Jesus in the first paragraph presented the first cognitive dissonance, this was followed by many jumbled up concepts that I found it difficult to follow your logic. Furthermore, many of your points appear to have already been published by Backhoum [1] (and references therein).

However, after having said that, I slept on my initial judgements and read it again today. It is clearer to me now that you have a conceptual view of reality that certainly contains some elements of insight, and that perhaps it might be only your presentation skills that were leaving me with such a negative impression. I rated your essay more highly today than I would have after reading it only once yesterday.

I offer these comments in the spirit of constructive criticism. I would like to encourage you to (a) write your essays with fewer concepts and more of a “story” and logic connecting one point to another and (b) to explicitly include references that confirm the “facts” you quote or would like to claim.

[1] Bakhoum, E. G. “On the Relativistic Principle of Time Dilation.” Apeiron 16, no. 3 (2009): 455.

Good luck in the competition.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 02:46 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you for your comments. We apologize for our clumsy presentation, because we do not subscribe to reductionism. We start from the creation event and come down to explain everything from a common source unlike others, who do the opposite. Thus, to others, our paper may seem like jumbled up. Space constraint also forced us to squeeze. We did not give any reference because there is no scientific paper in our knowledge, which talks about these issues from the same perspective. For example, several persons have questioned time dilation. But our views are distinctly different from others. It contained in a book written by us on 30-06-2005. But it is much more clumsy.

After your post we read the paper of Dr. Bakhoum, E. G. He says: ‘the process of “observing” a photon necessarily means its destruction, and hence the “observation” of the event will be carried out in the moving frame S’ only’. In our essay, we do not accept that the process of observation affects reality. In fact, in one of the threads here, we had quoted from a ninth century book to refute it. In some other threads we have explained the GPS result as due to changing refractive index of the Earth’s atmosphere and the outer space. Regarding photon, we have explained in our essay that it is the motion of the intersection of the electric field and the magnetic field. Thus, it is ever changing. In open space, it must have the maximum velocity.

Similarly, Dr. Bakhoum, E. G. says: “muons traveling with a velocity v ≈ c are observed to survive longer than muons that travel with velocities that are much less than c”. We explain it by pointing out to the cause of such slower motion. It must the changing refractive index due to differential density. This would generate higher friction, so that the muon dies down early.

We are going to read your essay and rate it soon.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share



Author basudeba mishra wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 02:27 GMT
This is our response to Dr. Paul Borrill, which got deleted.

We have replied to you in our thread. Before we comment on your essay, we must clarify that we do not assume or consider anything or any theory as given. We examine everything from empirical perspective using precise definitions. Thus, our views are usually different from others. We are confused after reading your essay. Kindly...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 20:13 GMT
Dear Basudeba Mishra,

Information from a source is binary whereas it is not binary at the observer; while the observational information is continuum in nature. In particle scenario, information from a source at space-time locality denotes the occurrence of an action or not at that locality, whereas in string-matter continuum scenario, it is the conjunction or disjunction of a string-segment in space.

In particle scenario, observation of information from that source is probabilistic rather than realistic that is causal for the information paradox and uncertainty that exists in this scenario in that the information is hided from the source to the observer.

To resolve this paradox a generic wave mechanics is ascribed in string-matter continuum scenario and there is inclusion of Ternary numeral system with the Binary numeral system to define an Information unit for measuring the observational information continuum in near-reality approximations.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 01:41 GMT
Dear Sir,

You have pointed out to a very important aspect, which needs to be examined thoroughly. “Information” from a source is not binary, but it is forwarded in “binary codes”. The binary codes are interpreted by the observer to get the information. All along we hold that ‘the observational information is continuum in nature’ in the sense that once it is perceived, the same...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Jayakar Johnson Joseph replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 04:47 GMT
Dear Basudeba Mishra,

Thanks for your replay.

As ‘information’ is the transfer of energy in particle scenario, it is expressional in binary unit that declares - Is there any transfer of energy or not at a specific space-time locality.

String-matter continuum is the physical description of matters with a different perspective in that there are similarities and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 02:32 GMT
Dear Sir,

Information is always ‘about something’. Thus, it has to be perceived as such, which is a cognitive function. ‘Transfer of energy in particle scenario’ only points to the mechanism of transfer of data in a coded language that needs to be perceived to become information. It is neither information nor perception. The binary yes-no choice ‘Is there any transfer of energy or...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 19:47 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

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


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear Basudeba Mishra,

I have replayed for your post on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 15:38 GMT at my essay page.

With best regards

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 00:45 GMT
Dear Sir,

Nature of communication language appears continuum though actually it is a set of discrete functions. Any perception that is communicated as information has three distinct components:

1) It is about or concerning a physical object (matter), that is perceived as form.

2) It is expressed through a language (signal) that is perceived as sound.

3) The language...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Margriet Anne O\'Regan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 15:10 GMT
Hellow Basudeba from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder !

I enjoyed & agreed with your essay very much - I wish I had read it earlier but better late than never.

I agreed with many of your conclusions & one observation of yours I especially liked & have held the same position myself for many years is where you share your concerns on 'measurement' & how the measuring instrument affects the outcome. I remember being taught by some astute teacher many years ago that it you put a thermometer into the ocean to take its temperature then the temperature of the glass & mecury of the thermometer will either raise or lower the temperature of the ocean depending on whether your thermometer was warmer or colder than the ocean when you put your thermometer into it.

I've not only never forgotten that rather extreme example !!! but have noticed over the years that double slit investigators & quantum physicists seem to ENTIRELY FORGET THIS SIMPLE, BASIC & EVER-PRESENT phenomenon. Bravo for pointing this out finally.

Cheers,

Margriet

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 01:46 GMT
Dear Madam,

Thank you for your gracious remarks.

Modern science has become a rat race for recognition and money. Most of science has now been relegated to find the commercial use of everything by trial and error methods without considering the consequences of those applications. Thus, we are destroying our future progeny and denying them a chance to a decent life. Even in this forum, someone offered us a business proposal. We replied that while money is a necessity in life, excess of everything including money is a disease. Then many people are indulging in cross rating between themselves thereby manipulating the result. We have written to the organizers exposing some people indulging in these activities and they have promised to look into it. In our age, we can observe this rat race that is destroying science with a painful heart.

The modern education system with its over dependence on incomprehensibility, reductionism, and self-praise leading to superstition is also responsible for increasing the chaos. When politicians take over, they can only perpetuate exploitation. If it rains, they claim credit for bringing in water. And when the floods come, they exploit it also in the name of relief operations with attendant corruption. With such people in the helm of affairs, God save the Country.

We have commented on your essay in your thread and given some inputs that you can use.

Thanks once again and regards,

basudeba

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.