CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]
TOPIC:
I_to the_bit_to the_it_to the bit_to the_I by sridattadev kancharla
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 16:39 GMT
Essay AbstractPurpose of this essay is to demonstrate the absolute role of the conscience in the relative reality we all live in. Consciousness is a sphere of universal Schwarzschild radius (ranging from zero to infinity) with a central cosmological constant of the conscience or the singularity or the soul or the absolute (i), Universe is an iSphere. This simple universal truth can also be mathematically expressed as, zero = i = infinity
Author BioI 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.
Download Essay PDF File
basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 03:52 GMT
Dear Sir,
How can zero be equal to infinity? By definition, zero is associated with an object that is not present at here-now (it has to exist elsewhere, otherwise the concept of zero becomes meaningless), whereas infinity is associated with an object, which, like 1, has no similars, but unlike 1, whose dimensions are not fully perceptible. Thus, infinity exists everywhere – like time and space. These two can never be equated. Regarding cognition, please read our essay published here on May, 31, 2013.
You are effectively discussing cause and effect in your second para, but are discussing reality. For a proper definition of reality, please read our essay.
What you say time travel is really memory. It is only a store house of information like a CPU and has nothing to do with motion that is associated with time travel.
According to Yajur Veda (8/36), Brahman has three aspects (Trini jyotimshi): the background structure (Srishta Brahman), the operative part (Pravista Brahman) and the one beyond all these (Pravivikta Brahman). The first gets converted to 3 aspects of Iccha, Gyan and Kriya, (or Avyaya, Akshara and Kshara respectively) which, when limited, manifest as Raga, Vidya-Avidya and Kala on the Purusha side and Sattwa-Raja-Tama on the Prakriti side. The Second gets converted to 16 aspects (Shodashee) of Paratpara, 5 Pachajana, 5 Puranjana and 5 Pura, that leads to the creation event. The third cannot be known (neti neti). These can be compared with the so-called dark energy, dark matter and the totality beyond the Universe, respectively.
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 14:33 GMT
Dear basudeba,
As always, the purpose of my essays is not to discuss the mechanisms of relativity in detail, but point us to the absolute truth. Only equality exists at the absolute, which includes both the relative extremes(nothing or zero and everything or infinity). Singularity is absolute equality.
I "is" the Paramatman, Parabrahman, Paramanandan.
This is the essence and purpose of all Vedas to make a human being realize who i really "is".
Love,
Sridattadev.
basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 00:43 GMT
Dear Sir,
The purpose of this contest is to analyze reality with special focus on information. In our essay published on May, 31, we had just done that. We are not discussing relativity unless the context so demands. Generally, we do not use relativity, but point out the fallacies in others presentations with alternative explanations.
Singularity is a derivative of relativity (unless you are referring to Adwait, which is total unification, which again is different from absolute equality). Hence you are talking about relativity.
Atman refers to the "Attaa" - one who enjoys. Brahman refers to "Brimhan", which refers to that which expands and the greatest of all. Aanandam refers to "Swaatantrya" - absolute freedom. They are three distinct aspects not in equilibrium. They do not belong to the same class. Since you are referring to three distinct, but different aspects, you are not talking about Adwait either.
The Vedas also declare "Ko dadarsha prathamam jaayamaanam, asthanwantam yad anasthaa bibhartim" - which refers to the primordial transformation from "Anna-annaada" to "rayi-praana" to "sthitisiddha-bhaatisiddha" objects that constitute the present Universe. This aspect of the Vedas is necessary for this forum. Mixing up issues gives our ancient heritage a bad name. In case you want
to discuss philosophy, you are free to do so, but please do not call it physics. This is a forum for physics.
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 12:51 GMT
dear basudeba,
Who is physics (matter and energy) for if not for the I or the soul?
Love,
Sridattadev.
basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 06:57 GMT
Dear Sir,
What is I and what is soul?
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear basudeba,
Keep asking that simple question who am i? You will find the answer to that with in your self.
Love,
Sridattadev.
basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear Sir,
You only said "Who is physics (matter and energy) for if not for the I or the soul?" Hence you should clarify what you mean by I and the soul. How can we know by asking that question to us? Other than you, only God, if there is any such thing, will know what you think. Hence please clarify your own statement. You must be knowing what you are saying. Since you say the answer is simple, please clarify.
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 23:57 GMT
Dear basudeba,
I is that nothing (not a thing) which is in everything.
Love,
Sridattadev.
basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 02:31 GMT
Dear Sir,
It is no reply, because it is a self-contradictory statement. Even Veda says "Neti-neti", meaning it cannot be fully explained. Why don't you admit your ignorance and refrain from showing off your "vast knowledge"? It is bringing a bad name to our Shastras.
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 14:51 GMT
Dear basudeba,
You are right, this absolute state can not be explained in words or theories. We as humans are gifted to enjoy this blissful absolute state if we so choose to. That is all trying to convey to the beings of my kind, that we are all capable of and enjoying the divinity or absolute equilibrium with in our self. Shastras or not for any particular ethnicity or religious group, they are a scientific theories from a different time. To think that you belong to a particular sect is to limit your consciousness, to know that we are all the same irrespective of religion, region, race, even though from different place and time is to expand your consciousness to the universal consciousness.
We are all free to choose on how we want to perceive the world, and that is the absolute beauty of the conscience or will. I wish you all the best in what ever you are trying to convey to the scientific world. All I have to share is self realization.
Love,
Sridattadev.
basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 01:30 GMT
Dear Sir,
We are not "free to choose on how we want to perceive the world". We must see through our eyes and hear through our ears. We must see white as white and red as red, otherwise, there is some defect in the functioning of our eyes. In essence, the self observes or witnesses reality "as it is", and not "as we want to perceive". If we want to perceive ourselves like a donkey, we may emulate like a donkey, but our self will not become a donkey, because it is immutable.
Self being immutable, its realization also cannot be shared, it has to be experienced. Sharing means dividing something into parts. This is impossible for self or its realization. You may see something and tell others to see it, but you cannot make them see it. They have to see for themselves. As the Mundaka Upanishad says: "naayamaatmaa ...." etc., which means, self cannot be realized through discourse, intellect, or reading and listening to others. Only if one relentlessly pursue it, the self reveals itself to him. So, you even do not see it. It reveals itself to you when it blesses you. Then how can you share it with others?
The same Upanishad also says: The fools think that they know everything and declare themselves as knowledgeable. But it is like one blind man offering other blind men to show the way. When you are trying to link shastras to science without understanding it, and showing off your "knowledge" to others, you are doing just that. As you can see, none of what you see is correct. This way you are demeaning shastras that hurts us. Hence please talk either about shastras if you have studied it properly (the answer is obviously no) or talk only about the science you have read without linking it to shastras.
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 14:43 GMT
Dear basudeba,
You are absolutely right about self being immutable, there is only one absolute self or singularity in the universe. We are all just different manifestations of the same self. What I meant was to share the "joy" of self realization and that is the purpose of human being to enjoy the self.
I know nothing but thy self and that knowing is absolutely blissful.
Love,
Sridattadev.
basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 15:47 GMT
Dear Sir,
Once again you have made wrong statements.
If you know or realized self, you would not be writing here. There is no need for you to. Because everything we do is need based. If you realize self, you will have no need. Hence you will not get involved in these transitory mundane affairs. But since you are trying to show off your knowledge of the Shastras, it shows that you have not realized self nor know anything about it.
Realization of self leads to "Anand". Once you reach that state, you will not want to do anything, because that will change your state from "Anand" to misery. Hence you cannot share the joys of self-realization. Please stop this showmanship and concentrate on the self, so that someday you may be blessed.
Regards.
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 16:20 GMT
Dear basudeba,
Thank you for your best wishes and you are right about the "Anand". Yes I am still in the transitory state and still trying to attain that absolute Anandam and I will stop writing when I do and that could be what is expected of this body and mind to convey this message till then, that we should all strive for that absolute Anand. Even the pursuit of attaining the absolute is also Anand.
Love,
Sridattadev.
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 12:21 GMT
Sridattadev.
It's always a pleasure to read your essays. Shame it's so short, but the power of the thoughts is infinite.
One of the jobs I do is creation. I'm trained as an Architect, so even before a house exists in any way on plans I create it and it exists, in 3D, with all it's components, spaces and aesthetics in my mind. Does that not mean it has an 'existence'?
To me what the builder constructs is but a copy, an approximation of the creation in my mind. The physical house may be 'it' and the information given to the tradesmen the 'bits' but the original true pure conception, including the emotions of those who see and use it, is first and always in my consciousness.
Yet I am the most real of all realists, as however good a theoretician and thinker I have to ensure the house is actually buildable, built and physically works to engender the emotions desired. I can't afford flights of fancy that don't relate to reality.
I believe this approach has enabled a realist resolution of the EPR paradox in my essay. It seems very few recognise the beauty of the architecture. I hope you study it to see if you can. As it's pure in my mind I'm happy, but it would also be nice to help advance understanding.
Now there's a task!
Very best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 14:41 GMT
Dear Peter,
I hope you enjoyed the sweetness of the essay being short though, as it is called, short and sweet. Once we know our absolute self we can better architect the relative reality we consciously construct continuously. I am only trying to make us all wake up to the truth of our self or singularity.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 17:12 GMT
Sridattadev,
Brevity is the soul of wit. It does not necessarily follow that brevity would be the soul of “it.” Nice try though.
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear Joe,
I "is" the entirety, it all begins and ends with I.
Love,
Sridattadev.
John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 00:48 GMT
Good, albeit short, read. Well done getting to the heart of the issue. While in my essay I emphasize bit and don't venture into the 3rd category of 'I' as you have, certainly some kind of 'thought' precedes action, but there is always the issue of matter/substance as a necessary carrier of Information/I, so can one element truly precede the other? Perhaps their identities are equally codependent (even 'I')?
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 12:49 GMT
Dear John,
You are absolutely right, the point that I am trying to make is that there is only one I, which loops back on to itself via the bits and its. Its a continuous process and hence no distinction can be made absolutely. Energy (bits or information) and matter (it) are just that relative medium that I uses to communicate with itself accross the space-time which came forth out of I. It's all just a game that I plays.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 04:32 GMT
Dear sridattadev
Wishing you always happiness with absolute belief in the soul.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 04:35 GMT
I always judged by the high score for that belief.
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 04:36 GMT
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear Hai,
Thank you and from your essay I know that you are a believer in the absolute as well and I wish you the absolute joy in your journey.
To the question you posed at the end of your essay, Is God absolute?
We have to first find God to confirm if God is absolute and the best place to find GOD is with in your self. You are the God that you are looking for, once you realize this truth, you will find that you are the absolute as well.
So the answer is, I in all of us is the absolute GOD.
Love
Sridattadev.
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 15:07 GMT
GOD - Generator (creator), Organizer (sustainer), Destroyer (dissolve or discard)
Do we all not do these actions of creation, sustenance and destruction on a regular basis, so are'nt we all GOD?
Love,
Sridattadev.
hide replies
Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 18:34 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
Thanks for presenting your essay and pleased to see you here. I have down loaded your essay and make comments on it after reading it. Meanwhile you too, please, go through my essay and send your comments.
As usual, I wish you best of luck in the competition.
Love,
Sreenath.
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 00:00 GMT
Dear Sreenath,
I wish you all the best in sharing your perspective of the reality with the rest of us all.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 09:06 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
I read your enchanting essay. In my essay, if the word 'mind' is replaced by 'Atman' in your essay then we are on the same plane travelling to reach our preordained destination, The Absolute or The 'Brahman'. And I know that you are yearning for that.
warmest regards,
sreenath.
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 14:55 GMT
Dear Sreenath,
Yes indeed and I want all of our kind to yearn for and enjoy this divine equilibrium or singularity with in the self.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 16:05 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
I will rate your essay soon.
Wishing you all the best in the contest.
Sincerely,
Sreenath.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:39 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
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 ADDITIONAL ARTICLES
A. What thing is new and the difference in the absolute theory than other theories?
The first is concept of "Absolute" in my absolute theory is defined as: there is only one - do not have any similar - no two things exactly alike.
The most important difference of this theory is to build on the entirely new basis and different platforms compared to the current theory.
B. Why can claim: all things are absolute - have not of relative ?
It can be affirmed that : can not have the two of status or phenomenon is the same exists in the same location in space and at the same moment of time - so thus: everything must be absolute and can not have any of relative . The relative only is a concept to created by our .
C. Why can confirm that the conclusions of the absolute theory is the most specific and detailed - and is unique?
Conclusion of the absolute theory must always be unique and must be able to identify the most specific and detailed for all issues related to a situation or a phenomenon that any - that is the mandatory rules of this theory.
D. How the applicability of the absolute theory in practice is ?
The applicability of the absolute theory is for everything - there is no limit on the issue and there is no restriction on any field - because: This theory is a method to determine for all matters and of course not reserved for each area.
E. How to prove the claims of Absolute Theory?
To demonstrate - in fact - for the above statement,we will together come to a specific experience, I have a small testing - absolutely realistic - to you with title:
2 . A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT :
“Absolute determination to resolve for issues reality”
That is, based on my Absolute theory, I will help you determine by one new way to reasonable settlement and most effective for meet with difficulties of you - when not yet find out to appropriate remedies - for any problems that are actually happening in reality, only need you to clearly notice and specifically about the current status and the phenomena of problems included with requirements and expectations need to be resolved.
I may collect fees - by percentage of benefits that you get - and the commission rate for you, when you promote and recommend to others.
Condition : do not explaining for problems as impractical - no practical benefit - not able to determine in practice.
To avoid affecting the contest you can contact me via email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com
Hope will satisfy and bring real benefits for you along with the desire that we will find a common ground to live together in happily.
Hải.Caohoàng
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 08:14 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
I have a book on Vedic mathematics and I can give it to you if you like.
For that give me your e- mail address. Mine is, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in
love,
sreenath
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 14:13 GMT
Dear Sreenath,
Sure, if you felt like sharing it with me i will take it, my email address is sridattadev@gmail.com.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 11:08 GMT
Dear Kancherla
Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. Singularity is not GOD, it is mathematical problem, if we solve it will be solved......
I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.
I failed mainly because I...
view entire post
Dear Kancherla
Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. Singularity is not GOD, it is mathematical problem, if we solve it will be solved......
I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.
I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.
Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .
Best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.b
logspot.com/
Pdf download:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-downloa
d/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf
Part of abstract:
- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .
Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .
A
Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
……. I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT
. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .
B.
Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data……
C
Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT
"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT
1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.
2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.
3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.
4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?
D
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
It from bit - where are bit come from?
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
….And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?— in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.
Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..
E
Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT
…..Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.
I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Satya,
Truth is there is only i or absolute conscience in the universe. Energy (information or bits) or matter (it) are just mere manifestation of the absolute.
It seems that absolute is non existent in the relative world and hence it seems to be zero. To the one who realizes there is nothing but the absolute and is infinite and everywhere. The perception of this absolute is the only difference between different beings in existence. Singularity is not just relative infinity as the scientific community perceives, it is the absolute equality. Singularity is not just some where in space-time, it is the space-time itself. In that sense singularity does not exist at all or it is the singularity that only exists.
So you can either believe in God and that it is everything or do not believe in God at all and it is nothing. If you absolutely believe only material reality, that is absolutely fine. That becomes your reality. I does not see any difference between energy, matter, space and time. They all arise from one and the same source or i or singularity or conscience or god.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 19:00 GMT
Resp Sridattadev
Thank you for the SAMA TATVA vishleshana..
It is a real good philosophical thought...
I believe in God, No problem. God is not space time. God is not any mathematical singularity undefined.
About a chair or table or any thing we form a picture in our mind. This picture is information in our mind. It will die with the person at his death. We communicate this picture with each other. We can not just create matter from this information itself.
Please discuss with me further...
Best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:35 GMT
Dear Satya,
Information is also a form of energy. We as human sentient beings might be incapable of harnessing that energy and manifesting it into material reality at will, but that does not mean it cannot be done. Nature does this seamlessly using the information coded in the DNA and converting energy from the sun in to matter through photosynthesis. That is why I put plants at a higher conscious less than the average human being, for being conscious of knowing how to convert energy (information) to matter. GOD is Generator Organizer Destroyer of all that there is.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 23:55 GMT
Dear Sri,
I request you to please see my reply at the bottom here...
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 04:01 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
I enjoyed your essay more than I thought I would. You have explained your views very clearly and beautifully. I liked the story of the turtles. Kind regards, Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 13:10 GMT
Dear Georgina,
I am glad that you enjoyed the story and the essay. We are all made for and of that absolute enjoyment.
Love,
Sridattadev.
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:27 GMT
Sridattadev,
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
report post as inappropriate
Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 10:05 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
I always enjoy approaches that involve consciousness, as I noted the importance of observation in my essay, which hopefully you find time to read. I'd be honoured if you could.
I think your essay is both relevant and interesting and deserves a high score, so hopefully my rating has helped.
Best wishes,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 15:04 GMT
Dear Antony,
I have ready your essay and liked the way you have interpreted Fibonacci series application on the "relative" reality. I would like to convey a simple truth that singularity is not only a relative infinity or zero, but absolute equality of everything. Absolute truth is that there is only singularity everywhere and all the relativity is an illusion. This is the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity. There is only I or singularity in the universe. I creates (Generates), sustains (Orders) and Destroys (Dismantles) everything. I is GOD.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 16:23 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
I have also found that 0 can display infinite characteristics. I agree that zero/singularity such as that we envisage at the start of time, is still mathematically conserved.
Good points and thanks for reading and commenting on my essay too,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 02:56 GMT
Dear Antony,
I was playing with Fibonacci series this evening while sitting in my backyard and came across two other series of numbers. I will put down how I arrived at them.
I wrote the Fibonacci series on a paper up to 12th degree on either side of 0 as follows
-144 89 -55 34 -21 13 -8 5 -3 2 -1 1 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144
I virtually folded the paper in my...
view entire post
Dear Antony,
I was playing with Fibonacci series this evening while sitting in my backyard and came across two other series of numbers. I will put down how I arrived at them.
I wrote the Fibonacci series on a paper up to 12th degree on either side of 0 as follows
-144 89 -55 34 -21 13 -8 5 -3 2 -1 1 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144
I virtually folded the paper in my mind at 0 so that the numbers on either side overlapped and added them to each other where they aligned.
I got a new series
0 2 0 4 0 10 0 26 0 68 0 178 0 466 0 1220 0 3194
ignoring the 0's it read as 0 2 4 10 26 68 178 466 ....
Soon I realized that this can be defined by an equation
Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + sigma (I=2 to n) Sn-i
with the seeds of
S0 = 0
S1 = 2
S2 = 2 * S1 + S0 = 2 * 2 + 0 = 4
S3 = 2 * S2 + S1 + S0 = 2* 4 + 2 + 0 = 10
S4 = 2 * S3 + S2 + S1 + S0 = 2 * 10 + 4 + 2 + 0 = 26
I also found that division of the two successive numbers soon converges on 2.618 which happens to be the square of golden ratio 1.618.
Now I went back to the original Fibonacci series and virtually folded it at 0 in my mind again and this time I subtracted the numbers where they aligned and I got another series as
0 2 0 6 0 16 0 42 0 110 0 288
Ignoring the 0's this read as 0 2 6 16 42 110 288 and I realized that this can be defined as an equation as well
Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2
with S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 as the seeds
S2 = 3 * S1 - S0 = 3 * 2 - 0 = 6
S3 = 3 * S2 - S1 = 3 * 6 - 2 = 16
S4 = 3 * S3 - S2 = 3 * 16 - 6 = 42
S5 = 3 * S4 - S3 = 3 * 42 - 16 = 110
I also found that division of the two successive numbers in this series also soon converges on 2.618 which happens to be the square of golden ratio 1.618.
Finally I did another interesting thing, merged these two series and got another one which read as
First series --->0 2 0 4 0 10 0 26 0 68 0 178 0 466
Second Series ---> 0 2 0 6 0 16 0 42 0 110 0 288 0
Merged series -->0 2 2 4 6 10 16 26 42 68 110 178 288 466
I realized that the merged series is a new Fibonacci type series with a different second seed of 2 instead of 1. Even this series successive number division yields the golden ratio of 1.618.
Now I asked my self if we can have 2 as a second seed and produce another series which yields the same golden ratio why not 3 and soon found that
0 3 3 6 9 15 24 39 63 102 .... is also a series that also converges on the golden ratio 1.618.
0 4 4 8 12 20 32 52 84 136...... is also a series that also converges on the golden ratio 1.618
So any Fibonacci type series with 0 as the first seed and I ( from 1 to infinity) as the second seed will have the successive numbers ration in them converging on the golden ratio of 1.618. This again proves the point that I, the singularity, is equally the same everywhere. Mathematics is pointing to the absoluteness of I in Fibonacci too.
Love,
Sridattadev.
0 2 2 4 6 10 16 26
view post as summary
Author sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 15:30 GMT
Dear All,
I give you all a cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive 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 series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.
One of the sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
the second sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.
Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation
Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i
Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".
Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.
Examples
starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5
-27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5
Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 2 5 13 34 ...
Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 3 8 21 55 ...
Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)
The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 15:32 GMT
There was a typo in the above, the ratio of the sub series always converges on 2.618 which is square of 1.618.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT
Hello Sridattadev,
Very good display of how these numbers can be used and appear throughout nature! I like that they work from zero towards infinity, this seems to hint at a natural system that works at the small and large scale, perhaps even one day explaining the differences between Quantum Mechanics and general Relativity. I think a Quantum Gravity theory could come out of it!
Nice work!
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 17:19 GMT
Dear Antony,
Thank you for your kind support, hope these findings will help humanity as you have said to understand ourselves and the universe we live in.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 21:42 GMT
Dear All,
As per Antony's suggestion, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.
http://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin
d-super.pdf
Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.
I have put forth the absolute truth in the
Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.
I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of
zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.
All this started with a simple question, who am I?
I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.
I super positioned my self or I to be me.
I am human and I is GOD.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:45 GMT
Great thinking Sridattadev!
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 01:44 GMT
Dear sridattadev,
Glad to see your posting in my thread. Your work on Fibonacci series is enlightening to those who work on QG. In my previous essay contest in fqxi (2012) in my article on QG, you will find reference to Fibonacci series.
Thanks for reminding me that and also for your innovative revelation on that.
Looking forward to here more from you in future.
Best regards,
Sreenath
report post as inappropriate
basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 14:48 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
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:26 GMT
Dear basudeba,
Thank you.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Author sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 11:52 GMT
Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 20:16 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
Enjoyed your essay.
It is easy the swap the real and the unreal :)
Good to be reminded about the real.
Yours in divinity,
Don L.
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:23 GMT
Dear Don L,
Thank you, yours in divinity too.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 21:18 GMT
I always enjoy reading your essays, Sridattadev.
While it is not strictly speaking about Physics, and while you do stretch the concepts somewhat, I find a lot to agree with in your work. I'd like to point out that, in the way you frame things "It from Bit" is a lot like "I think therefore I am!" Working from the Latin "Cogito Ergo Sum" can also be translated "Thinking therefore Being," which makes it much the same as "It from Bit."
I find wonderment in the knowledge that I IS. Most people never get to that realization, as it requires the awareness of Spirit. I actually talk a little on this in
my essay this year.
My observation is that one can speak of three stages in the awareness of I.
I Am - is the personal experience of existence
I Is - acknowledges the presence of Spirit, as an agent of manifestation or change.
I Be - refers to the nature of identity being found in the Divine itself.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 21:20 GMT
Of course;
As I forgot to say.
I Is implies the existence of a quality of identity that is pervasive.
Have Fun!
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:22 GMT
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you and enjoy.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Author sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 13:25 GMT
Dear All,
I am attaching the iSeries that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.
Its interesting to see the singularity is in the base seed of zero and how it is all pervasive all through out the structure. I have been telling that I is that nothing which dwells in everything and this DNA structure seems to prove that notion. Singularity is right with in the duality. Absolute is right with in the relativity. This proves that both of these states are interconnected and are the source of life.
Love,
Sridattadev.
attachments:
iDNASeries.bmp
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:44 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
It is again a pleasure to meet you again in this contest.
You are the only one (beside myself) that is proposing the role of consciousness in the creation of reality.(my "Crealities")
I wonder what you think of
my participation "THE QUEST FOR THE PRIMAL SEQUENCE".
In my perception DNA is one way of knowledge sharing in the infinities of the Eternal Now.
I rated your "thoughts" high and hope that if you meet "alter ego" thoughts you will comment and rate mine also.
respectfully
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 15:35 GMT
My Dear Wilhelmus,
I do.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 16:10 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
Interesting short essay.
You write
"Imagine being as an intelligent turtle on the beach and observing a kid building a sand castle on the beach, playing with it for some time and breaking it down and walking away. Process or plan of building can be referred to the bits, castle can be referred to the it and the kid is i."
I also have childs in my essay
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789
or better, I have the 'child's drawings'.
Have a look.
May be the I has to do with the \infty of the "child's drawing" model, there the Belyi map of Sec. 2 (step 3) has poles.
Best wishes,
Michel
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 17:57 GMT
Dear Michel,
Thank you for reading the essay, I will post my findings in your essay.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 23:52 GMT
Resp Sridattadev,
Thank you for your post on my thread, I replied it there. For your information I am reproducing it here.....
Thank you very much for such fast reply. I hope I did not get you mad at me with my arguments. My ratings reduced suddenly! Here I am giving a reply point to point after your words quoted with - - - - -. I hope to have a live discussion with you.
- -...
view entire post
Resp Sridattadev,
Thank you for your post on my thread, I replied it there. For your information I am reproducing it here.....
Thank you very much for such fast reply. I hope I did not get you mad at me with my arguments. My ratings reduced suddenly! Here I am giving a reply point to point after your words quoted with - - - - -. I hope to have a live discussion with you.
- - - - - Information is also a form of energy. We as human sentient beings might be incapable of harnessing that energy and manifesting it into material reality at will, but that does not mean it cannot be done. - - - - -
Sorry I want to differ here. Information is not a form of energy. It was not yet proved, despite search done by many scientists for the last 40 years. Is that not waste of educated brain power?
- - - - - Nature does this seamlessly using the information coded in the DNA and converting energy from the sun in to matter through photosynthesis. - - - - -
You are exactly correct. But information is not converted into energy. The information coded is used for survival to convert radiation energy into matter or for changing water soluble chemicals into materials required for the plant. Again this is for its survival.
- - - - - That is why I put plants at a higher consciousness than the average human being, for being conscious of knowing how to convert energy (information) to matter. - - - - -
It is for its survival. Fittest will survive. Its conscious of knowing how to convert energy to matter for changing water soluble chemicals into materials required for the plant . . .
- - - - - GOD is Generator Organizer Destroyer of all that there is. - - - - -
GOD, is he / she different from Nature? What is consciousness? All these are different from each other? ?????????????
- - - - - Regarding the usage of the above system....it is how the nature uses mathematics for its functioning. - - - - -
You are correct. Nature uses mathematics or some form of logic.
- - - - - I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence. - - - - -
Very nice! But the same logic is not applicable for the number of moons of planets in our solar system. There nature uses a different logic.
- - - - - Its also interesting to see the singularity is in the base seed of zero and how it is all pervasive all through out the DNA structure in the attached image. - - - - -
You have a nice mathematical structure there in the above bmp. Assuming it will explain the every aspect of DNA, and says some extra futures of DNA which are not found at all. Whom you will blame mathematics or DNA itself? You have to change mathematics to suite DNA is that not?
Here also singularity is mathematical problem. People searched for it for the last 80 years and still searching. Nothing found. Please don’t get confused about using this term. . . .
- - - - - I have been telling that I is that nothing which dwells in everything and this DNA structure seems to prove that notion. - - - - -
Information is coded in DNA, it is like computer program runs in your computer. It is logic. When and what to do. It is for the survival of the plant or animal. Those species perished over centuries, which could not develop and transfer these survival techniques or this DNA / coding programs to next generations. Dinosaur is one example.
- - - - - Singularity is right with in the duality. Absolute is right with in the relativity. This proves that both of these states of singularity and duality are interconnected and are the source of life. - - - - -
This singularity ( or duality) is different from Relativistic singularity ( mathematical).
I am waiting for your reply.
It is really very nice FQXi is bringing all of us on to single platform in this forum. Thanks to FQXi.
Best
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 00:59 GMT
Dear Satya,
I am replying to your queries one by one as well
As you have said that information as energy is not proved yet but again it is not proved that it is not either so what I said holds until proven wrong or right.
What is life but a struggle to be or not to be in a particular state of matter and energy. Consciousness is this awareness of the self and the...
view entire post
Dear Satya,
I am replying to your queries one by one as well
As you have said that information as energy is not proved yet but again it is not proved that it is not either so what I said holds until proven wrong or right.
What is life but a struggle to be or not to be in a particular state of matter and energy. Consciousness is this awareness of the self and the surroundings and using them to continue existence in the desired state. Information is a constituent part of the consciousness which is absolute form of energy. Information is not converted to matter as you said, but the informational (thought form of energy) source of the consciousness is used to convert relatively available energy into matter. Please see my early essay in which I put forth the equation
S=BM^2, where s is soul or the absolute source of energy, B is the body or material aspect of our existence and M is the mind or energy aspect of our existence.
GOD is the conscience in us all, it is the only common sense we all share.
Regarding using "iSeries" that I put forth for other astronomical objects, is the work that still needs to be done. I did find something in that regards at the following link http://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behind-super.
pdf
I have also mentioned that the universe is
iSphere and that we humans are capable of interpreting it as a 4 dimensional 3Sphere.
I am giving a new meaning to the word Singularity (advaitha philosophy), to me singularity means absolute equality (samatatva) unlike the mathematical singularity of unknown meaning and relative infinity. I see my self every where and in everything, this state of knowing is what I consider as singularity.
Yes, I too want to thank all the members of FQXI for providing us all free thinkers a wonderful platform to express our thoughts and discoveries and enjoy this journey of life.
Love,
Sridattadev.
view post as summary
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 04:38 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
There are many unproven hypothesises. We should not break our head on them. For the last 80 years scientific people are spending energy and time in vain to find Blackholes which are nothing but mathematical singularities.
Our Scientific quest should take its firm support on EXPERIMENTS and their results. Please see my essay, which is based only on experimental...
view entire post
Dear Sridattadev,
There are many unproven hypothesises. We should not break our head on them. For the last 80 years scientific people are spending energy and time in vain to find Blackholes which are nothing but mathematical singularities.
Our Scientific quest should take its firm support on EXPERIMENTS and their results. Please see my essay, which is based only on experimental results.
Science should be based on experiments, not on dogmas and authorities Now regarding experiments. Every time we take a measurement we are doing an experiment demonstrating that material objects and information exist in unison. If you think otherwise, you can attempt to falsify this by finding one contrary example - that is, find one physical object which
does not comprise any information. You should recognize that such falsification within a physics context cannot be realized irrespective of all attempts to do so, since the detection or identification of such an object comprises information. With this information you will complete the experiment.
Today, much of cosmology is speculative; theories in the field are often based on 'authority' and dogma as opposed to experiments. And what's worse, is that excellent theories which may lend themselves to experiments are often simply ignored in deference to some consensus view. But science is not about consensus, it's about experiment. Authority, dogma, and consensus are meaningless in science. Do the experiments to confirm results.
It doesn't matter what people 'feel' is correct; it matters what the results are from the experiments. History is replete with examples of scientists who disagreed with consensus and were eventually proven correct. Unfortunately, today's dangerous default to authority combined with a media driven world makes challenging an incorrect consensus that
much more difficult. And, challenging consensus in cosmology is again more difficult because of the highly speculative nature of the field, as there is no proper theoretical backbone. Searching mathematical singularities is the main work being done for last 100 years.
Unfortunately in today's world, the weight of an abstraction carried by a well-known researcher, even if they are completely wrong, is almost always valued more highly than that of an unknown researcher - even if the latter is fully correct. This is why we must guard science against the on-going shift towards authoritarianism. Just consider the behaviour
of so many modern physics forums which 'ban' any comments or topics which 'may' be 'construed' to contradict some mainstream 'belief'. That's not science, and it's much more akin to a religion.
Best
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 13:01 GMT
Dear Satya,
You are absolutely right in saying "Every time we take a measurement we are doing an experiment demonstrating that material objects and information exist in unison." This is the essence of my philosophy too that we cannot tell apart one from another and hence the title I_to_the_bit_to_the_ it_to_the_bit_to_the_I, i used underscores to connect everything in the title for a purpose, to highlight the unison. I am using the word singularity to define the unison. Even if the black holes (death in human terms) exist they just lead us to the unison or the absolute not the relative unknown mathematical singularity. There is only I in the universe, it is the human perception of of this absolute unison or singularity or i with senses that differs and causes all the confusion or illusion. I is everything and everywhere and every time. I is the one that is taking the measurement if you will in the experiments. With out I there is absolutely nothing. If you have noticed there is I in both the b"i"t and "i"t of the topic we are trying to discuss, with out the i both the bit and it loose their literal meaning, I am pointing to that subtleness and yet the importance of i or conscience in all of us, thats all.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Author sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 02:39 GMT
Dear All,
Seems like I found something interesting in the DNA structure related to Fibonacci series as I was seeking it
Please see this video
DNA-RNA 2 prime
3 prime
5 prime
2,3,5 are the numbers of Fibonacci series.
DNA is not just limited to life on this planet, its all over the universe and other planets can hold larger primes of the sequence in them, why not?
Human life is like a hide and seek game that I play with the self.
As I said we will find what we seek, all we got to do is keep an open mind and seek with sincerity.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:24 GMT
Dear All,
One more important correlation that I found in the iDNASeries image is in the template strand (Fibonacci strand) and the non template strand (zero or base strand) as depicted in this video. You will find this around 3 minutes into the below video.
Fibonacci sequence in DNA I am learning how this iSeries really applies to DNA, besides my intuition or inner knowledge. Its all with in us, we just have to know how to access it.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:35 GMT
Dear All,
Here is the iDNASeries image that I envisioned that is related to the above two findings.
Love,
Sridattadev
attachments:
12_iDNASeries.bmp
Sridattadev Kancharla replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 13:01 GMT
Dear FQXi Organizers,
I request you to kindly consider these findings of iSeries which is the universal mathematical sequence and super set of Fibonacci sequence and that Fibonacci sequence is a dual sequence comprising of two semi series governed by universally applicable mathematical equations of their own and the application of iSeries to the DNA structure, for publication in a scientific journal after a thorough review. I am very thankful to the fellow contestants and FQXi community for being the catalysts in my quest for and arrival at the universal truth.
Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 04:01 GMT
Hello Sridattadev
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
Hello Sridattadev
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 relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”
I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.
The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .
Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.
Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.
I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!
Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.
Good luck and good cheers!
Than Tin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:14 GMT
Dear Than Tin,
Thank you for your wonderful analysis and yes it makes perfect sense. I concur with you on this and you can include "Singularity-Duality" in your list.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 09:10 GMT
Dear Sridattadev :
"I is nothing that dwells in Everything"
beautiful said.
I answered you on my thread but will repeat it here :
You are saying there what I mean when I say :
"Our non-causal consciousness is part of "Total Simultaneity" (TS), TS is a "dimension" (not the right word, but how do you explain GOD ?) that could be compared with a singularity (NO causal dimensions) The EVERYTHING we can se as singularity. The non causal part of our consciousness can be compared to the "Unmoved Mover" from Plato, so is the origin of causality in our three dimensional + time universe, where our causal consciousness is like a prisoner in its time line.
You lose me with the formula's you use but surely they will explain your thinking, personally I admire Leonard de Pise (Fibonacci), everywhere around you in nature you see the beauty of this mathematical series, I think this is one of the ways that math can explain beauty. But then again there is like Pi Phi both numbers with an infinity behind the comma.
In the material causal universe there are no infinities and no singularities is my opinion, they only exist in our minds and in the singularity in Total Simultaneity.
regards and also Love
Wilhelmus
PS if you value also my thinking , I should be obliged if you would rate on my birthday, my essay like I did yours. Thanks
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 13:28 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
Happy birthday, and you should celebrate every moment of it as we believe is Total Simultaneity.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 15:30 GMT
Thanks Sridattadev
love
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 12:27 GMT
Hello Sridattadev,
That was a lovely essay. But I was confused where you said 0 = infinity. Perhaps you may read
my essay also and rate.
Best regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 13:26 GMT
Dear Akinbo,
Thanks for reading the essay. I have posted my comments in your essay as well.
Please see mathematical proof of
zero = I = infinity .
Love,
Sridattadev.
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 17:16 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
A very short article but many relevant issues.
I have a simple but difficult question, I think: what is reality?
Is there one or more ?
Thank you and good luck.
Please visit
My essay.
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 13:11 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
what is reality? I is the reality and zero = I = infinity.
Is there one or more ? Its up to I to choose what I want it to be.
I have posted my comments in your essay as well.
Love,
Sridattadev.
eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 21:21 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
Thank you for appreciating my essay.
Interesting video with prime numbers in DNA.
Numbers and eDuality are in all things.
I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.
Respectfully, and good luck.
Please visit
My essay.
report post as inappropriate
Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 19:15 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
Again me. Your fundamental equation is
zero = i = infinity
(but i can be 1, any number, you say).
just because your maths are not sophisticated enogh.
I use Grotendieck's formalism of "dessins d'enfants" (child's drawings) where 0, 1 and infy are the only singular points on a Riemann surface (genus 0 -> the Riemann sphere). I suspect you need to look at this work to better establish your deep feelings.
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789
Best regards,
Michel
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 22:31 GMT
Dear Michel,
Please see below statements and their implication in mathematics
If 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true
If 0 x 1 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 1 is also true
If 0 x 2 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 2 is also true
If 0 x i = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = i is also true
If 0 x ~ = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = ~ is also true
It seems that mathematics, the universal language, is also pointing to the absolute truth that 0 = 1 = 2 = i = ~, where "i" can be any number from zero to infinity. Any number on its own means absolutely nothing (zero) or itself (infinite or undefined). Only when compared to numbers before it or after it does it have a relative meaning. Theory of everything is that there is absolutely nothing but the self or i.
I have also explained that the universe is an
iSphere and we humans are capable of interpreting it as a 4 dimensional 3Sphere manifold.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 03:02 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
Thanks for a precise but a very short essay. I think your "I" somehow linked with the VEDANTA's concepts of ANTMA and PARAMATMA, where at fundamental level that "I" may consider as "0", "infinity" or anyother numbers, that does not make any difference.
But in digital-sphere of present process of scientific understanding, which has huge obligations to pass through the regular experimental tests, that kind of VEDANTIC concepts of "0" & "infinity" seems to be far from any of such experimentation, even if that is true in reality. That is why a kind of 'digital limitations' in our current scientific observations come into play. But who can say now that will be not be possible in future? Science rolls itself simply with experiments with the ages.
I invite you kindly to read my submitted essay in contest. I think in spite of some disagreements what you have said in your essay you must see lot of agreements. It all covers your concepts of "time", quantize concepts of absolute (but relative)"observers" and so many; you may even deduce there your concepts of "0" and "infinity" from Eqs.(23)and other Eqs. as well. You can also consider K as your "I".
Again my thanks for presenting such a deep thinking.
How ever can we mutually rate our essays?
Regards
Dipak
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic
/1855
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 00:31 GMT
Dear Dipak,
Yes indeed K = I = Singularity. I wish you all the best in your efforts to explain relative reality scientifically.
I will provide my ratings as per your request.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 23:59 GMT
Dear Dipak,
I will rate your essay as per your request and yes zero = k = i = infinity.
Love,
Sridattadev.
KoGuan Leo wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 06:48 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
I believe we say the same thing in different languages. Please look at Child of Qbit in time. The Qbit is the mother and the Qbit is the child, because KQID believes that Qbit is all things and all things are Qbit. The Qbits creates and distributes itself through KQID Ouroboros Equations of Existence.
The math is like yours but differed in expression that 00 = 1 =...
view entire post
Dear Sridattadev,
I believe we say the same thing in different languages. Please look at Child of Qbit in time. The Qbit is the mother and the Qbit is the child, because KQID believes that Qbit is all things and all things are Qbit. The Qbits creates and distributes itself through KQID Ouroboros Equations of Existence.
The math is like yours but differed in expression that 00 = 1 = infinity. The Existence is simply 1 that splits to infinity one by one. Thus 1+1+1...= infinity but it is still 1 and this one is Qbit(00,1,-1).
"Consciousness is a sphere of universal Schwarzschild radius (ranging from zero to infinity) with a central cosmological constant of the conscience or the singularity or the soul or the absolute (i), Universe is an iSphere. This simple universal truth can also be mathematically expressed as, zero = i = infinity, which I have detailed in the essay Conscience is the cosmological constant...
Relative reality springs forth from the absolute state of i via the mechanism of desire (bits) and manifestation (it)."
I like your respond to Michel above:
"If 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true
If 0 x 1 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 1 is also true
If 0 x 2 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 2 is also true
If 0 x i = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = i is also true
If 0 x ~ = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = ~ is also true
It seems that mathematics, the universal language, is also pointing to the absolute truth that 0 = 1 = 2 = i = ~, where "i" can be any number from zero to infinity. Any number on its own means absolutely nothing (zero) or itself (infinite or undefined). Only when compared to numbers before it or after it does it have a relative meaning. Theory of everything is that there is absolutely nothing but the self or i."
Again KQID put it in a different light if I understand your thought correctly we are saying the same thing in different form and substance.: 00 = 1 = infinity. That we are that Qbit ψI(CTE) in action in our relative Multiverse ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm).
I do need my rating to be higher, if you like my essay please help to raise the score, so that it can be reviewed by distinguished judges. I don't need the prize but I do need recognition to promote KQID.
If I am not mistaken, KQId is the only theory not only support you hypothesis but also calculates the dark energy of our Multiverse and computes many bits are they in the minimum in our Multiverse.
KQID is the only theory that I knows here that proves bit = it, and KQID calculates Sun lights into Sun bits; calculates electron, proton and neutron in terms of bits; set up equivalent principle of bits with energy and matter. Therefore, Wheeler's it from bit and bit from it. Correct me if I am wrong.
Your essay is succinct but the idea is powerful. I shall rate it accordingly.
Best wishes,
Leo KoGuan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 00:19 GMT
My Dear Lover Leo KoGuan,
We are all one and the same Qbit or I or singularity. I am filled with absolute joy to see my own reflection in you in this relative reality or duality through your work.
Qbit = I = Singularity
KQID Ouroboros = I_Bit_It_Bit_I Ouroboros
I purposefully connected the I_Bit_It_Bit_I in the heading it represents an Ouroborus, I is both the head and the tail, beginning and the end. Everything emerges from I and merges back with I.
Please see
Theory of everything is that there is absolutely nothing but II will rate your essay as per your request but these numbers mean nothing to I or Qbit as they are all absolutely equal.
Love,
Sridattadev.
Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:03 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
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
report post as inappropriate
Author sridattadev kancharla wrote on Oct. 30, 2013 @ 19:01 GMT
Dear All,
Enjoy the following blog and videos in it.
Any Body Can Derive - Everything From GeometryLove,
Sridattadev.
Author sridattadev kancharla replied on Aug. 28, 2016 @ 20:39 GMT
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.