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

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/8/13 at 3:08am UTC, wrote Hello again Zoran, I did read and enjoy. I rated your essay, and will...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 22:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Zoran, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/6/13 at 0:48am UTC, wrote Dear Zoran, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Manuel Morales: on 8/3/13 at 17:44pm UTC, wrote Zoran, I found your 'hierarchical space-time' hypothesis extremely...

Sreenath N: on 8/3/13 at 9:46am UTC, wrote Dear Zoran, Can you meet me at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in regarding...

Don Limuti: on 7/26/13 at 16:57pm UTC, wrote Hi Zoran, I like your fighting philosophy with philosophy style. I am...

Zoran Mijatovic: on 7/26/13 at 0:26am UTC, wrote Hello Don, I read your essay at your invitation, and with great interest....

Don Limuti: on 7/25/13 at 14:42pm UTC, wrote Hi Zoran, I have not read your essay yet. I will get to it soon. Your...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
October 24, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Hierarchical Space-Time by Zoran Mijatovic [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 18:00 GMT
Essay Abstract

PRESENTISM speaks to the transcendental à priori intuitions of space and time, and the momentary arrangement of an actual universe; its precepts, though, are subject to impurities and to what IMMANUAEL KANT calls à posteriori intuitions. KANT uses the terms à priori and à posteriori to divide and classify aspects of sensibility and understanding; pure à priori referring to the form of intuition and conception, and à posteriori to content and matter; form being that which makes the capturing of experience possible. It should come as no surprise, then, that no form or substance is brought to mind by terms which deal with thoughts and things ethereal. Physicality underpinning cognition, being as unreachable as space and time, is given over to physics and metaphysics as different questions. Today, physics is abuzz with information theory, and the current question drawn up on the back of computer science is "It from Bit or Bit from It?"; in metaphysics it is "Form from Substance or Substance from Form?", in theology "All from One or One from All?", and last but not least "Present as Measured or Measured as Present?". Questions concerning the creation of information, the nature of space and time, gravity, and the forms and substances of cognition deserve a single hypothesis. Substances metaphysical and forms once beyond our reach are being brought into the physical domain proper, and with every addition metaphysics becomes more concrete. Continuing evolution of metaphysics, philosophy and cognitive mechanics means we are now in a position to defend unification. Defence, though, demands words which remind us that things once ethereal are being treated as real or logically certain; to that end we use the words fabric and canvas. All this, so we can present both a cogent exposition of hypothesis and defend creation's form and substance.

Author Bio

Software Engineer by profession for almost ten years; with a strong interest in artificial intelligence and the engineering of artificial neural networks. I have an interest in astronomy, physics and all things philosophical, including theology. Not shy, nor unwilling to offer an opinion.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 12:00 GMT
Zoran,

Great read. In my essay I end up emphasizing Information a bit more than Substance, but I must admit I am in agreement w/ a lot of what you're saying. While I give a slight edge to information (i.e. how can inert substance spontaneously create meaning w/o 'intelligence'), it is impossible to ignore the fabric of space-time (or simply 'space', or whatever else you want to call it) in the equation. Like you said, how can Information have meaning w/o an interpreter of sorts?

Take care,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 00:22 GMT
Hello John.

First of all, thank you for reading my essay, for your comments and advice, I thought you might like parts of it. But, I can't believe how quickly you got the gist of it. I was in the process of adding a short comment to your essay, but I now intend to change the gist of it so that you can understand both works from a slightly different perspective. But it's quite long, so I hope you don't mind.

Many thanks.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 16:51 GMT
Mr. Mijatovic,

I thought your essay was very interesting. I was especially impressed reading your ideas about “the void” and the “Form from Substance /Substance from Form segment.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 00:39 GMT
Hello Mr. Fisher.

Thank you for reading my essay. I will try to post a comment on you essay, if I can, but I am sure you appreciate that most essays here are beyond my technical expertise, and I should not comment on something I don't understand. That said, I point you to the comment I left for Mr. Maguire (Essay 1787), which I think you may be interested in.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 14:13 GMT
Mr. Mijatovic,

I am a decrepit old realist. I write like one. If you understand the story of Little Red Riding Hood, you will understand my essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 23:04 GMT
I understand, and I hope my comment on your essay helps to stub the toe of all those who are not looking where they're going.

Cheers.

Bookmark and Share



Paul Reed wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 17:57 GMT
Zoran

Physical existence, ie what physics is analysing, is that which is potentially knowable to us. We will never know a lot of it, but it is the potentiality which delineates it. And it is knowable because it is physically receivable (or can be validly hypothesised as being so, ie virtual sensing). There may be an alternative to what is potentially knowable to us, but since we cannot know it, that is irrelevant (this is science, not religion). We cannot transcend our own existence. The subsequent processing of what is physically received is irrelevant to the physical circumstance, as that has already occurred, that processing results in a perception of what was received.

Physical existence is purely spatial, there is no time in any given existent reality, that is concerned with the rate at which reality alters, and there is only one reality at a time (a physically existent state of whatever comprises it), in a sequence (ie the present).

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 01:31 GMT
Hello Paul.

Thank you for reading my essay, and your relevant comments. I must say, I agree with many of your comments, but I disagree with some also. For instance, I do not believe we should lay down and turn over at every dead end, and I am glad to see essays here urging us on, and others saying give it a chance; this is science, and both sides play a part. You are correct in saying that we are always one step behind what is actually happening, but with logic and real science we can make predictions and in that sense be one step ahead. In my essay I speak of the block-universe conjured up by Presentists in order to accommodate Einstein's fourth dimension, something which demands an external observer, and something which looks more like theology than science to me. I suggest we all stick to science.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 23:59 GMT
Zoran,

A simple question about time;

Does the earth travel this fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow?

Or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates relative to the sun?

Is time the basis for action, or an effect of it?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 01:06 GMT
Hello Mr. Merryman.

Thank you for reading my essay. Unfortunately I can't even try to answer your question because I do not understand it. I suggest you have another look at my essay, within which I specifically exclude the possibility of the fourth dimension. And I am sure you can appreciate that commenting on something that does not exist should be left to that exact statement, that is, that it does not exist. I hope that helps.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share


John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 04:04 GMT
Zoran,

That's my point as well. There is no 4th dimension. It is a model of sequence, like narrative. Which is ironic, because physics insists their models see beyond basic intuitive beliefs, yet time as sequence is as much an effect as the sun moving across the sky. We experience time as sequence, much as we experience the sun moving, but it is the earth and the events which are moving the other way.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 05:51 GMT
Sir,

I apologies; my first answer was based on a quick search of essays for yours. I fail to see how I missed it, and your valued insights. I would like to add something to my previous answer, I hope you don't mind. While I say that the fourth dimension (time) does not exist in actuality, there is no doubt in my mind that our insights can not exist as knowledge without the representation of time as a fourth dimension in some way; and that's the trick, to know the trick. This trick, is different to the trick which makes a simultaneity of impressions on our intuitive canvas possible, but it's a trick nonetheless, and as evolving creatures we have learned a great many tricks which we must now separate from reality.

Thank you for your post and your essay.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 03:26 GMT
Dear Zoran

It's nice, but value-laden deductive rather than actual experience.

Anyway, wish you success.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 06:29 GMT
Hello Hoang cao Hai,

Thanks for reading my eassy, and your best wishes.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 04:27 GMT
Zoran,

Hi. Nice essay! I'm not very well versed in Kant's philosophy, so a lot of your essay was over my head, but a couple of things really stood out that I agree with. I thought we'd have some agreements based on your comments at my essay. Anyways, my two comments are:

1. If I understood it correctly, you point out how all things, material and supposedly immaterial spring...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 06:23 GMT
Hi Roger,

Thanks for reading my essay, I enjoyed your essay because you're trying to get to grips with the nature of our existence. And while I can't say that something and nothing are the same thing, there are a great many things we agree on. I try to think of the void as a backdrop, and when I think of the Cosmos as a thinking thing, the backdrop is the lack of thought, and it doesn't matter whether I zoom out to imagine whatever I can imagine, or zoom in until my imagination can't imagine anything smaller, only to find room for more of those smallest things, I find it easier to imagine the space between those smallest things as a lack of thought, because if I think of it as room for more things I think of it as something. At some time in the future we may find that a lack of thought is something, but not today.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 07:28 GMT
Hello, Zoran!

I read your essay pleasures. It is good that you exacerbated concept of "space", Kant's ideas and consider how the unity of the scientific and philosophical knowledge and traditional knowledge. The problem of the structure of space in physics, its dimension, I think has arisen because absence of thorough "General theory of action" and, as a result, the ontological groundlessness of the whole system of knowledge. The key here may be the idea of Kant's concept-figure synthesis, the concept of "state" (of matter), the doctrine of the "form" and the ancient idea: "As above, so below." We also need a modern interpretation of the traditional knowledge of the whole system into account the achievements of science. I only have one question. What is more logical reasoning and in line with our intuition, experience and thousands of years of tradition: "In the Beginning was the Logos ..." or "In the Beginning was the Big Bang?" Appreciation and wishes for success! Regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 23:38 GMT
Hello Vladimir,

Thank you for reading my essay, and more especially your question. Our biggest problem in science has always been the context within which our answers must exist, and it is always this context which makes our answers unintelligible. I believe my essay is the context within which scientific questions can be answered intelligibly, and that encourages questions, and I love that. If I ask what conservation of energy is, within hierarchical space-time, I get an intelligible answer which sees the loss of entropy in one domain conserved in another, awaiting recirculation. If I ask what conservation of creation is, I get the most beautiful answer, but the fly in the ointment is singularly, it destroys the symmetry of what I see everywhere. This context allows all of us to understand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in terms Darwin would understand, in evolutionary terms. It answers the question of why some things do not know where they are, or where they're going until they get there, that is to say, they can be in two places at the same time. Things in intuitive space-time can not know where they are and where they are going at the same time, but in conceptual space-time they can know both at the same time. When you see evolution as the means to knowing where we are and where we are going at the same time, you can't help but love it. I love the context which allows me to talk science in a way that everyone can understand.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 07:14 GMT
Hello, Zoran!

Thank you for your detailed response. I appreciated your essay, happy nine. But you still have not answered me in a very important question for me (as for the lyrics, but not physics) in your model of the universe: «What is more logical reasoning and in line with our intuition, experience and thousands of years of tradition:" In the Beginning was the Logos ... "or "In the Beginning was the Big Bang?" Please look also my essay and evaluate it fairly. Appreciation and wishes for success! Regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 01:38 GMT
Hello Vladimir,

I answered your question indirectly because I didn't want to complicate matters by questioning what you meant by "Logos". Philosophers and theologians have been struggling with the word "Logos" for a long time, and this for the same reason we struggle with the word (bit) today; it means what it means according to the context within which your point, opinion or argument...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:51 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


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 01:42 GMT
Dear

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:04 GMT
Zoran,

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 Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 22:24 GMT
Hello James,

I too am serious about this subject. I have read your essay and posted a comment. But I am not sure blanket advertising, etc, is the best way to gain attention.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 08:24 GMT
Dear Zoran,

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

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 00:36 GMT
Sreenath,

I read your essay, and many of the comments posted there under. Given the scope of your essay the number of comments made by people who found something to agree is not unexpected. I do not believe you need my comments also, which would be lost among the others, but I feel your conclusions need more justification.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 12:39 GMT
Dear Zoran,

Here are my 'considerations and judgement' :)

The essay is more philosophical than actual physics. But since the old name of physics was Natural Philosophy and since common sense (see Israel and George's essays) is now deficient in today's physics your contribution welcome.

In many places, your essay touches on Geometry, e.g. "a place makes the uniqueness of it and bit possible", "It is necessary to postulate the actual existence of objects ... be subject to a pure substance... which makes places possible", "the creation of material and radiation, all of which are composed of extended pointy bits in one way or another". All quotes from your essay.

When you now compare your thoughts to those of Leibniz in his Monadology(first 8 paragraphs only), e.g. "So monads are the true atoms of Nature—the elements out of which everything is made", you will see a lot in common.

As to giving gravity, the role of the the thing which separates and aggregates, which you too admit is a contradiction, I offer 'time' as an alternative. You too acclaim time as 'a function of extension'. See my essay and I will appreciate 'reductio ad absurdum'-like criticisms of my proposals.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT
Hello Akinbo,

Thank you for reading my essay, and more especially your considered judgments. As you no doubt realize, many essays are beyond my simple arithmetic abilities, nonetheless, I try to read as many as I can. The work of Leibniz is unfamiliar to me, and if I get a chance I will follow the link you provided, but I can't follow every reference and link. I will have a look at your essay and make comments, I suspect I will have some; In the mean time you may be interested in my replies to Vladimir Rogozhin, above, as they expand on my understanding of "pointy bits" (pbits). I am yet to present my "Theory of Time and Gravity", the ace up my sleeve, but I can say that it describes time as a function of gravity, and this in a non mathematical manner.

Regards, and good luck in the competition.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 20:12 GMT
Congratulations - I think you go a long way towards 'bringing all references to substances without extension into the physical domain proper'.

You speak of 'correlations between subcellular neurophysiology and the mechanics of choice' - or how mind and cosmos are describable in a single framework.

This is in agreement with my essay, too. Your interesting insights into cognitive...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 23:22 GMT
Hello John,

Thank you for reading my essay, and your comments. I refer you first to my replies to Vladimir Rogozhin, above, as they expand on my understanding of "pointy bits" (pbits). I also reply to your comments, below, but only in general, and hope we can continue the conversation within both essays after I have had a chance to read yours.

1. I believe the four fundamental forces can be united in principle, and for that we must know how gravity behaves under different circumstances.

2. The nature of intuitions (observations/measurements) by our transcendental neural canvas, is a reflection, in principle, of the metaphysical canvas which the fabric of gravity provides, and this fabric I call metaphysical space-time because its elements (pbits), together with the primordial form I have outlined, make possible a simultaneity in time which compliments Einstein's Special Relativity without the need for the fourth dimension.

3. My understanding of cognitive mechanics is very nuts and bolts, and so I will hold off on commenting on your understanding until I have read your essay.

Regards.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 15:41 GMT
Dear Sir,

When you say: “In physics a point in time exists”, it is correct, but can be misleading. Everything exists in space and time due to mathematical reasons.

Both space and time arise out of the concept “sequence”, which implies intervals. When such intervals are ordered; then the interval between objects is called space and that between events is called time. We chose...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 23:32 GMT
Basudeba,

Thank you for reading my essay, and the lengthy lesson. I must say up front that I have been there and done that, and I have found it wanting, not all of it, but enough to force me to shake off most of these superficial indoctrinations. This is the case with many others who find physics and mathematics has taken them to a dead end with nowhere else to go, and are unable to shake...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 06:30 GMT
Dear Sir,

We understand your anguish at the direction taken by physics, as we have met many distinguished professors who felt like you. We also feel the same way. But then it is our duty to contribute whatever we can to rectify the system. The final outcome is not in our hands, though! In fact Dr. Kirakosyan wondered in our thread how we are fighting thousands of Professors.

We do...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 02:06 GMT
Hello Zoran

Nice effort, though, as an endpoint skeptic, I don't believe that metaphysics,philosophy and cognitive mechanics has evolved at all since Parmenides, so I don't think we are in a position to defend unification.

Now I think I understand why you object to the contents of my essay so strongly. I trust the items below clarify your concerns, and apologize if it damages your...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 07:07 GMT
Stephen,

I think you have misconstrued my questions and constructive criticisms as a disregard for your work, quite the contrary, if I had disregard for it I would not have made the post that I did. The objective is to help you word your ideas such that those elements which make people think there is a contradiction, when there isn't, can be ironed out. In defense of your own essay here, you show a disregard for works of philosophy in general, and this seems to have rubbed off on mine. In conclusion, I would like to point out that in my essay I make an "all or nothing" prediction, that is, that a black-hole will be too big for its boots. With the development of a virtual radio telescope the width of the earth currently in progress, and an actual and immanent measurement in prospect, my essay and my arguments may find themselves with a very big rock to stand on, or not, as the case may be.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



Salvish Goomanee wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 21:34 GMT
Dear Zoran,

I have read through your essay and I did appreciate the Kantian ideas you brought up in your essay. You did write a very interesting essay.

1) I would like to ask you what do you mean by the centripetal mode and centrifugal modes?

2) You are describing how physical principles such as the Big bang and galaxy formation, I would to know how you would use your theory to explain something more subtle like quantum electrodynamics (QED) or string theory?

3) You mentioned in the last sentence of your essay that we have now to observe a perfectly spherical cosmos. The universe is cannot be spherical because the negative energy of gravity would no more be equivalent with the positive energy of matter. This cannot be, so space must be flat and this is actually proven.

Best of luck,

Salvish

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 23:37 GMT
Hello Salvish,

Thank you for reading my essay, and your questions. When I say centripetal and centrifugal modes I mean modes of consciousness. When I link mode to moment, and moment to measurement, I am saying that a thought, whether centripetal or centrifugal, is a structured measurement. And when I speak of a structured measurement complimented by a structured abstraction I am referring...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 00:48 GMT
Dear Zoran,

First, I would say that your comments, scattered around the various essays, have been enjoyable, and often insightful.

Beginning with your abstract, which formulates the problem in different perspectives (it/bit, substance/form, All/One, present/measure) I found your essay both comprehensive and enjoyable, especially as I fully agree that "all things truly immaterial,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 08:34 GMT
Hello Mr. Klingman.

Thank you for reading my essay, and your kind observations. Given that you have put no questions I will respond to some of your observations, especially the one's which I feel need additional clarification. But first, Professor Wharton's essay is a treat, and I rate it highly, and recommend it even though I no longer subscribe to a fourth, fifth, or sixth dimension, etc,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 18:50 GMT
Hi Zoran,

I don't believe there is 100% overlap between any two essays in this contest, yet some of them are diametrically opposed! I believe that, despite the details of how you perceive gravity (I was going to say 'mistakenly', but it's so hard to convey humor in these comments, as you've found out a few times) we still see it as a key "element in the relationship between entropy,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 21:52 GMT
Hello Edwin,

I must say that I would not normally comment on a paper such as yours, for the simple reason that I feel it inappropriate to comment on something I can't fully understand. Not your fault, mine, after all I am the odd one out in this forum. As you say, the devil is in the detail, and no amount of humor can make up for misunderstanding. I will make a comment, but please give me some time, your essay requires study.

Regards.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 18:36 GMT
Dear Zoran Mijatovic:

When you said “time” is a function of space, in my opinion you are very close of reality. I would said that “time” is a function of the “field”. You would realize why I don’t make more comments on your essay. So just not to loose 30 or 60 minutes reading my essay “The deep nature of reality” I sent you a summary of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 23:23 GMT
Hello Héctor,

Thank you for reading my essay, and your observation that my essay is close to reality. I try to keep my feet on the ground, mostly, and when I must climb I climb a good tree and try to stick to solid branches, because I know I can't fly. With your extended invitation I feel compelled to make your essay the next one I read and comment on, but I will make this comment under your essay. Now, while your comment that "time" is a function of "space" correctly interprets my essay, the devil is always in the detail, so I feel compelled to reiterate that detail. As you must appreciate, I equate space with gravity, and I say that this "field" is comprised of local-signs which have extension in three dimensions. Moreover, local-signs (pbits) have attributes which compel them to self organize such that their direction is naturally centripetal. In other words they have a head and tail and their preferred orientation is head to tail. It is my opinion that oscillation and synchronization of oscillation of local-signs is the means to establishing a simultaneity of impressions on a canvas, so to speak, a simultaneity of massive things which are given their place in both space and the "same time frame". This is not something that I spelled out in the essay, but something that is spelled out in more detail on the flip side, and something that was intimated by my complimenting Einstein's Special Relativity, but not the fourth dimension.

Regards.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



Chris Granger wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 19:55 GMT
Zoran,

Quite fascinating and creatively written. Though distant from synonymic image, I note an interesting crossover with my own estimations regarding duality in information and material objects, though perhaps somewhat conceptually different in various respects. And though I cannot appreciably rectify some of the conjectures you've presented and am similarly reserved with respect to your estimation of the nature of time, I nevertheless found aspects of your essay intriguing, albeit perhaps with a greater hierarchical complexity (forgive the pun) than might be representative of existence within my own sensibilities, at least within the realm of what can be known.

Chris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 23:06 GMT
Chris,

Thank you for reading my essay, and your insights. I suspect you are not alone in your reservations, and I thank you for presenting them, but you needn't have been so delicate. Dr. Klingman says, no two essays have 100% overlap, yet I am amazed at how much crossover there is between my structured development from a philosophically derived foundation, and the conclusions of numerous physics based developments. The nature of time is the sticking point in most developments, yet it seems to me that the nature of space is inextricably linked, and if we are to say that space is discrete, then time, gravity, force and field must all be discrete, and in being discrete everything must trace its origins back to the element which constitutes the primordial substance (pbit). I don't know how Wheeler came to his own conclusion that everything is derived from immaterial bit, i.e. information, and how he imagined his participatory universe, it all seems vague to me, and I am a software engineer. But then the raw imagery I presented is not that different. In my mind the imagery is clear, and in time I hope to present imagery relating to the conservation of energy as well, but with just nine pages to work with I can understand why it's fuzzy for everyone else. I suspect you find it intriguing because it potentially opens the door to knowing things previously considered unknowable. I say only time will tell, and it is, after all, just a hypothesis which hangs its hat (bets everything) on one observation.

An open question to all: What odds do you give me?

Many Thanks.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share


Chris Granger replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 02:35 GMT
Zoran,

Actually, I find it intriguing for a somewhat different reason. Basically, by definition, that which cannot be known can never be known, since by definition, such becoming known would mean that such never was in fact that which 'cannot' be known. And as such, the definition itself refuses this as a possibility. For example from my essay, the exact decimal value of PI cannot be...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 06:52 GMT
Chris,

I should have known better than to misinterpret an absolute definition such as "That which can not be know, is unknowable!"; I now see the last sentence in your essay more clearly, thank you.

In my essay I try to avoid conceptions which rely on, or are derived directly or indirectly from infinity, singularity and simultaneity, because they can all be characterized as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 11:10 GMT
Dear Zoran,

Intelligently written and an interesting piece. Very relevant too. I like your hierarchy diagrams as well as agreeing that information can't necessarily have meaning without observation. If you get chance, please take a look at my essay. I hope you like it too.

Best wishes & congratulations on your work,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 01:35 GMT
Hello Antony,

Thank you for reading my essay, and your kind comments. I will have a look at your essay and post a comment if I can contribute to the discussion.

Regards.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 23:07 GMT
Hi Zoran,

You conclude:

"Our task now, with our combined ability to jump tall building in a single bound, is to observe a perfectly spherical Cosmos..."

In Software Cosmos I take up this task using the model of a virtual simulated world. I make a distinction between explicate views of the cosmos (which observers can label with past-present-future) and the implicate order (which is more of a spherical block-universe). A key result in my picture is that the distances we measure in the cosmos are the stereographic projection of spherical arc distances, so the cosmos is a hypersphere.

I deal mostly with the physical appearance of the cosmos, but consciousness plays a role behind the actions of the observers. Unfortunately, I did not have space to delve into a model for Mind in such a cosmos, but I did conclude with "It from Bit and Bit from Us" meaning that the information in the world ultimately comes from the minds of its participants.

I would be curious how my construction fits together (or not) with your philosophical views.

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 07:31 GMT
Hello Hugh,

Thank you for reading my essay, and your invitation to compare cosmological constructs. After reading your essay, I was struck by the number of disparate efforts to simulate theoretical physics that you referred to, especially particle physics; I had no idea. The last reasonable simulation of galactic formation that I am aware of could not be made to accommodate the apparent lack of mass necessary for a galaxy to hang on to its wandering stars. Nor could dark matter alone be made to explain this, and nothing to date has explained why galaxies are so orderly. If we extrapolate what we know of planetary formation to spiral galaxies, they should by rights be a pile up of cataclysmic collisions, or at least show evidence of it happening in the early galaxy. I suspect we will in the end need a new formulation for gravity if we are to explain the plethora of different stable galactic forms already classified. Not to mention the map of the universe we are seeing emerge as we speak, which seems to be a different story once again. Simulating my own conception where gravity is composed of discrete elements would be a task for a super computer that may never be built.

Anyway, good luck with your essay and your simulation.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 04:33 GMT
Hello Zoran,

I am enjoying your essay, but must continue in the morning as I am too fatigued. I wanted to comment while thoughts are fresh. First off; the duality of transcendent space and metaphysical space in Geometry and Physics is mirrored, to an extent, by the notion of micro and macro scale. As Tom Ray pointed out in last year's essay, an observer defines a sense of toward and away, or near and far, by the act of observation.

Since an observer is always a particular size; and regions of increasing size and distance must of needs be outside the observer's bounds; this also fixes a sensibility of great and small - all arising from the act of observing, because it is centric. What is within? The realm of the extremely small. So; in this way, there is a road to Physics description of hierarchal spacetime. As it turns out this topic is what's being discussed on the FQXi forum page.

Dimensional reduction in the sky

I would also like to make some comments about the connection of some of your ideas about presentist cognition with Korzybski's notion of time binding of fleeting ideas being the purpose of semantic symbols. More must wait 'til morning, though.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 00:44 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for reading my essay, and I too need more sleep; I also look forward to you completed comments. With regard to your comments above, and the discussion you mention, I agree that semantics helps us understand something about how the brain processes indications and how knowledge must be stored, but it can be taken to extremes, and the clues provided are insufficient in and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 07:31 GMT
Dear Zoran,

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

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 00:46 GMT
I relied to this exact same post earlier.

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 09:20 GMT
Dear Zoran,

Your essay is highly perplexing to this sort of essay contest where you find mentally physics oriented people participate and they usually no nothing about this sort of article fit to be published in philosophical journals; this is the reason your essay is currently undervalued although it deserves a very high rating. But I can understand the significance of your article,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 15:59 GMT
Dear Zoran,

I have rated your essay as promised.

Best of luck,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 22:39 GMT
Hello Sreenath,

Thank you for reading my essay, and your generous comments. I must admit that when I finished writing the draft it was more than twice the permitted size. The hardest part was condensing the presentation of concepts, but that wasn't anywhere near enough. In the end I had to decide what to leave out that would not compromise the justification for my prediction. Something had to take a hammering and it turned out to be time, entropy and the conservation of energy. I will have a look at your essay and post a comment.

Regards and best of luck.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 14:28 GMT
Zoran,

Congratulations on an excellent essay and hypothesis, fitting absolutely centrally with one I've developed the last two years here but at a higher philosophical plane. It was a pleasure to read. Well handled organized and written.

I was a little disappointed you didn't further explore the avenue where;

"the nature of consciousness, thought and the cosmos are redefined in terms where the nature of information is related to the mechanics of observation; and where the mechanics of observation allow us to differentiate between indication and information." But this was only because I do, and I wished to compare notes. With limited space you used your space very well. Worth a high score in all respects.

I hope you can read my essay, born of the hierarchical discrete field model (DFM) but this year building an ontology to test the thesis, including defining the mechanics of detection, observation and measurement.

I did look for something to criticise but failed! And we also agree a "singularity is not possible". As an astronomer whose researched them I can confirm that active galctic nuclii AGN's are not singularities or black holes as many imagine but toroidal EM fields, and indeed probably run a recycling process.

Well done, thank you, and very best of luck in the run in.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 22:58 GMT
Hello Peter,

Thank you for reading my essay, and your generous comments. I see the deadline for reading and rating essays has been extended, and that's a good idea whatever the justification. Too many essays to read and potentially rate in such a short a time; I will comment on yours shortly.

Regards and many thanks.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 04:39 GMT
Dear Zoran,

Thanks for reading my essay and expressing invaluable comments on it. I also would like to answer your doubts but a little bit later. Thanks for rating my essay with a high score.

All the best,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 04:57 GMT
Hello Zoran

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


Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 14:42 GMT
Hi Zoran,

I have not read your essay yet. I will get to it soon. Your abstract was just about good enough to rate highly all by itself. Your reference to Kant reminded me how "the thing in itself is is unknown and unknowable by the categories of the mind" gives a clear picture of information.

Will get to your essay in a day.

Great Abstract.

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 00:26 GMT
Hello Don,

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

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

Cheers!

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 16:57 GMT
Hi Zoran,

I like your fighting philosophy with philosophy style. I am surprised you did not get the Philosophy Dialog Module PDM. By the way Siri told me to give you high marks. She also remarked with great interest that the Australian versions of Siri were male. I did read your essay and found the breakdown very interesting. "It from Bit or Bit from It?" "Form from Substance or Substance from Form?" "All from One or One from All?" "Present as Measured or Measured as Present?" ("Present as Sensed or Sensed as Present?") I now have four headaches instead of one.

I believe a Hindu philosopher would add another headache to the list. "Fire as its power to burn or The power to burn as Fire".

I only investigated lambda-hopping for single particles or photons. Thanks for noting that for groups of particles lambda hopping is a traveling salesman problem. When salesmen travel in groups they do a cool trick, they get entangled (usually done over drinks) and then they can do their business in one jump. Quantum computing at its best.

Best of Luck in the contest

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 09:46 GMT
Dear Zoran,

Can you meet me at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in regarding discussion on your essay.

best,

sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 17:44 GMT
Zoran,

I found your 'hierarchical space-time' hypothesis extremely insightful and relative to the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. As such, I would like to rate your essay highly. However, before I do may I run some questions by you via email? Please let me know at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 00:48 GMT
Dear Zoran,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

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

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

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

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

Good luck to the winners,

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

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:18 GMT
Dear Zoran,

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

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

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

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

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

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 03:08 GMT
Hello again Zoran,

I did read and enjoy. I rated your essay, and will comment more when there is time.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.