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

Sreenath N: on 8/9/13 at 8:05am UTC, wrote Dear Jonathan, Thanks for your compliments and I wish you too good luck in...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/9/13 at 0:41am UTC, wrote Greetings Sreenath, Good luck in the finals. Regards, Jonathan

Sreenath N: on 8/8/13 at 14:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Paul Borrill, I appreciate your kind comments on my essay. I read...

Sreenath N: on 8/8/13 at 14:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Jim, Thanks for your kind comments on my essay and I wish you too...

james akerlund: on 8/7/13 at 22:46pm UTC, wrote Hi Sreenath, Just read your submission and I liked how you involved...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 22:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Sreenath, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the...

Sreenath N: on 8/7/13 at 9:49am UTC, wrote Dear David, Thanks for your kind compliments in advance and I wish it to...

David Levan: on 8/7/13 at 9:41am UTC, wrote Best of Luck for the Magnificent Eight ! I am throught the 180 essays, all...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
May 25, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Voyage from Discovery to Invention; Information & Reality in Physics, Biology & Mathematics. by Sreenath B N [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 16:25 GMT
Essay Abstract

Exploration of the relationship between Bit & It (i.e. Information & Reality) in the fields of Physics, Biology & Mathematics (Humanities excluded), takes us on a voyage from discovery of Reality to its invention. Eventually we find that this journey is full of surprises and joy, and is endless. Consequently this provides us with limitless wisdom.

Author Bio

Independent researcher on Quantum–Gravity; interested in the fundamentals and philosophy of science. Affiliation - S N Bhat P U College of Science & Commerce, Bangalore.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Paul Reed wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 06:00 GMT
If it is not ‘out there waiting to be discovered’, then where is it? To be able to effect measurements of something, there has to be something there. QM is not saying that we ‘invent’ reality. The issue is that sensing involves the receipt of physically existent input, but that is not the existent reality, but a physically existent representation thereof (the most obvious example being light). The subsequent processing of that which results in a perception, is irrelevant to the physical circumstance, and can have no physical effect on it.

The problem with the understanding of reality in the ‘classical’ mode, is that it is wrong. It has been interpreted as what might be characterised as ‘it changes’. Which is a contradiction in itself. In other words, reality has been equated with what appears to comprise it, rather than the physically existent state of whatever comprises it. The ‘new order’, exemplified by relativity and QM, presumes some form of indefiniteness in reality, which is incorrect. We know there is existence, we know there is alteration thereof. So the proper interpretation of what is now dubbed the ‘classical’ is that reality is whatever physically existent state whatever comprises it is in at any given time.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 09:16 GMT
Paul,

Thanks for your comments. You are right when you say "QM is not saying that we ‘invent’ reality", but what QM 'implies' is that we 'invent' reality in the quantum world whenever we make measurements, because each time you make a measurement you are likely to get different result and thereby changing the form of reality each time. This is because there is no 'The Reality' in the quantum world as it is quantum probabilistic in nature and changes its 'form' countless times if you make measurements countless times. This is nothing but saying that each time we make a measurement in the quantum world, we 'invent' reality in it rather than discovering it as it doesn't exist in a 'preordained' form as it is supposed to exist in the classical world.

You make your stand clear on the concept of 'reality' and then only can I answer other points raised by you.

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 05:25 GMT
Indeed, the assertion being that sensing/measuring in some way affects reality. Which it does not, because that has already occurred. This incorrect assertion leads to another, ie that effectively physical existence has some form of indefiniteness. In other words, having made a basic false presumption, the theory then has to invoke other incorrect rationalisations in order to 'work'. Whereas, quite obviously, physical existence exists in a discrete, independent, definitive, form.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 08:12 GMT
Paul,

In the quantum world, it is 'only' after a measurement is performed you will come to know of the form of reality and not otherwise. So measurement has to occur before the corresponding reality is determined. The fact that similar kinds of measurements give different kinds of readings suggests that the quantum reality, or what you call physical existence, definitely has some form of indefiniteness because it is probabilistic in nature. This is what QM asserts repeatedly. It is true that quantum reality, or what you call physical existence, exists in a discrete form in the quantum world but this doesn't mean that it is independent of quantum measurement nor is it having a definitive form before the measurement is performed. What you say applies to classical reality in the classical world but not to quantum reality in the quantum world. So, please, don't confuse between the two worlds.

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jacek Safuta wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 10:58 GMT
Hi Sreenath,

In your essay’s conclusion you say: “Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit. Thus the relationship between them is triangular and so all three are equally essential for knowledge to coexist.”

You can find similar triangular approach in my essay: 3 worlds: Bit, It, Reality. You are welcome to criticize.

Best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 16:26 GMT
Hi Jacek,

Thanks for going through my essay. I will comment on your essay after I go through it.

Best wishes,

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share


Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 09:30 GMT
Dear Jacek,

I went through your short but lucid essay with enthusiasm. As you have said in your post, it is true that we agree in our final analysis on the triangular nature of reality. You have also talked of 'New quantum geometrodynamics with a new universal metric' and such a metric you may find in my 2012 fqxi essay contest in my paper on QG.

I will soon rate your essay.

Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 19:49 GMT
Sreenath B N

Your essay was certainly entertaining. Some of its assertions conflicted with some information about the universe I had already been notified about. For instance according to the NASA website, our galaxy did not exist 4.5 billion years ago. Your claim that organisms were sort of frisking about on earth billions of years ago might be considered over exaggeration by people fussier than I.

In my essay BITTERS, now is the absolute of time. Space is not an absolute. The only thing space does is modify material motion so that material motion can never become absolute.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, one real Universe can never become a probability. Only a unique Universe could have become inevitable.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 07:29 GMT
Joe Fisher,

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

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

good luck,

sreenath

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 14:36 GMT
Sreenath B N

Actually, nobody knows the age of the real Milky-Way Galaxy. Depending on which website’s one visits, the estimates run from 800 million up to over 13 billion. There is no rational way you could determine what did or did not exist before anything else existed.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 15:23 GMT
Joe Fisher,

I am sorry for your knowledge on the age of our galaxy. How can it be 800 million years when the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. Please check the data properly.

sreenath.

Bookmark and Share



sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 01:04 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Beautiful essay explaining different perspectives of the same underlying reality.

A simple mathematical equation to represent the absolute truth is

zero = I = infinity. A fully self aware mind is the equivalent of the soul or singularity or I. I is the only reality and it is the third component in your triangulation, that is usually not studied as much as the bits or its in scientific community.

Every atom in this universe has a singularity or i at it's heart, all the phenomenon of QM are due to this simple and absolute singularity. I dwells in all the hearts. I is that nothing (not a thing, zero) which is in everything (infinity)

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 09:00 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.

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 01:50 GMT
Dear Sir,

You have correctly pointed out that “Reality is mind dependent” (perception dependent) and space and time form the background entity. We have described it in our essay “Information Hides in the Glare of Reality” published on May 31, where we have linked perception to the fundamental forces of Nature.

Reality must be invariant under similar conditions at all times....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 07:40 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

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

Best regards,

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share


Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 10:26 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

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

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

Sincerely,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 14:54 GMT
Sreenath,

Excellent and most insightful essay! You have made numerous noteworthy comments but my favorite is this:

"So if a mathematical theory devised to explain the Reality of Nature, succeeds in comprehending it from all aspects then it becomes the successful scientific theory. Like an artist who is having a blurred vision of Reality when he starts drawing his sketches and envisions it fully when he completes his drawings, a mathematician too will have a blurred vision of Reality and frames axioms to deduce mathematically from them the Reality which he is after and realizes it completely when his mission is accomplished."

I believe you will find the graphs I have created to explain how this art we call mathematics can be used to help unify gravity with the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministc force. I invite you to rate my essay when you get the chance: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Good luck with your entry of which I have rated highly.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 07:07 GMT
Manuel,

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

Thanking you,

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share


Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Manuel,

I went through your thought provoking essay and appreciated your innovative endeavour to unify all the four forces. But have you derived the relationship between them theoretically? Your equation E = G2 is interesting and I too have a basic equation in QG and the equation is E = kg; where 'E' is quantum of energy possessed by a particle in the field of QG, g = gravity or acceleration and 'k'= QG constant. You will find it in my previous fqxi essay contest of 2012 and my article is on QG.

Can you, please, give me the details (website) of the Tempt Destiny experiment?

I will shortly give my score on your essay and I will rate it highly.

Best regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 15:55 GMT
Dear Sreenath

Methods of solving your problem is very interesting, unfortunately the conclusion of you have created a sense of "ill-defined" than before reading it.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 07:12 GMT
Dear Hoang,

Thanks for going through my essay. Can you, please, explain me how my conclusion is 'ill defined'?

I will read your essay and soon post my comments.

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share


Hoang cao Hai replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 12:10 GMT
Dear Sreenath

Sorry if bother you, because I use the automatic translation of Google, "ill-defined" you can interim understand that is : "Difficult to determine" - mean: feel the problem more confusing after read your conclusion.

If anything is unclear, please remind me, sometimes there are some unfortunate problem is due to differences in language and grammar like that.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 09:26 GMT
Dear Hoàngcao,

I read your short but imposing essay with care. You are right when you say that ‘an absolute frame of reference’ is needed when we assess the reality of the physical world. This we find in classical as well as in quantum physics. Shortly I will rate your essay.

Sincerely,

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 11:26 GMT
Dear Sri Sreenath

I enjoyed your sane and clear-headed survey of physics, biology and mathematics from the points of view of Information and Reality. If I disagree with some things it is your overly trusting faith that GR, SR and QM correctly describe Reality. Yes they make corrrect predictions that have been tested experimentally. But is that Reality? It will take too long to explain here why I think these theories reach the correct results through wrong premises - please read my last year's "Fix Physics" fqxi contest paper.

I was surprised by your statement "the idea that the Information of the whole universe can be stored in an area smaller than the size of an atom shows us what power the quantum computer technology has got". It is poetically true, like William Blake's "...universe in a grain of sand, eternity in an hour" but quite wrong as informatics! For one thing the atom itself is part of the Universe so it will have to hold all of its own information in itself - and so on ad absurdium - a logical paradox! I think such a paradox was discussed by Godel in the last century about an all-knowing computer.

I liked your triangular conclusions that Mind understands Reality through Information.

Well done.

Vladimkir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 17:02 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for going through my essay. When a scientific theory has the power to clearly explain all facts concerning a physical phenomenon and even predict some hitherto unknown facts and these are subsequently verified, is it not describing reality? But then what is reality according to you. If a theory is constructed adhoc and can explain only a limited number of facts connected to a phenomenon then you are right in rejecting it; but if it has the above mentioned power, you got to accept it as long as it contradicts no known fact. It is true that reality is having many facets and it is the task of science to find them. If GR and QM have succeeded in their task, why can't we trust them?

Regarding storing information, if according to the widely accepted theory of 'big bang' the mass of the whole universe was squeezed to a dimension 25 orders of 'magnitude' smaller than that of an atom (Planck's length), why can't the information of the whole universe too be squeezed at least to the dimension of an atom? More over, information is not like mass/matter and there is no reason why it can't be stored in smaller and smaller areas as technology progresses.

I have gone through your essay once, but I want to go through it one more time before I post my comments and which I will do in a day or two.

Best of luck,

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share


Sreenath B N. replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for your inciteful essay. According to you, the object (reality or Nature) is absolute in nature and exists in itself, and it cannot be known by the subject (mind) completely as there exists 'a cloud of unknowing' between the subject and the object. I want to know, how far a subject can know about an object by squeezing this 'cloud of unknowing?' so that we can have a much better knowledge of reality. I, sincerely, hope that you know answer and I want to know it.

In the end of your essay, you are idetifying Nature with Information. Are these two views compatible? If, yes, I want to know how?

Besides yourself being a physicist and a philosopher, you are also a 'gifted artist'. Your art work is very impressive and helps in conveying your thoughts to any one with ease.

I will give you maximum score that you can expect from me.

Best of luck in the contest.

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 03:04 GMT
Dear Sreenath

In my essay I described how all our knowledge and theories are separated from Reality by a cloud of unknowing. I stressed that precisely because of the overwhelming attitude of physicists these days of accepting elements of Einstein's Relativity (flexible spacetime, fixed speed of light ) and of QM (probability) and elevating these concepts to actual unquestionable and complete physical truths about Nature. They are nothing of the sort. Yes they work in their own ways, but in other ways they not contradict each other. QM needs a vacuum structure (the Higgs field?) but Special Relativity cancelled the aether. SR assumes a fixed speed of light, but (as Einstein himself admitted) GR requires a variable speed of light. QM is full of strange, weird, magical explanations that totally contradict experience. I suggest a more realistic explanation (see below). The photon is supposed to be a point particle, but Eric Reiter showed it is not. The list can go on.

Relativity can be expressed through Lorentz transformations where clocks slow down (not time as a dimension) and measuring sticks (not space as a dimension) contracts . GM can be expressed without SR as a density gradient in space. In QM Born's probability interpretation is just that - a mathematical convenience that is not derived from actual physical observation. One can go on saying "but every QM measurement is probabilistic". True but there is another interpretation of QM where probability emerges from an exquisite crystal-like order of the Universe. I have such a theory: Beautiful Universe suggesting such an approach.

Now I understand what you meant about the Big Bang 'atom' and the information of the Universe. I thought you were talking about one single atom in AD 2013! Forgive the misunderstanding.

With best wishes,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 04:51 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

By chance, I noticed you writing "Special Relativity cancelled the aether".

Wasn't a light-carrying medium already disproved in Potsdam, 1881?

You mention "Lorentz transformations where clocks slow down (not time as a dimension) and measuring sticks (not space as a dimension) contracts".

Wasn't Lorentz trying to rescue the aether with a transformation that was called Lorentz transformation by Poincaré? I agree, time dilution and length contraction are merely fictions that can be ascribed like the simple Doppler effect to questionably referencing one physical object to an other one, e.g. to an observer. The measuring stick itself does not contract, cf. my endnotes.

Best,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 04:10 GMT
Dear Speenath,

I check your essay. You have concluded ,,Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit,, This is excellent, my Dear! This words saying everything.

Open please the reference in my article ,,Rethinking the Formal methodology ...,, and email my from there. I think we need talk seriously!

Sincerely,

George K. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1804

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 06:15 GMT
Dear George,

Thanks for your response and I will post my comments on your essay in a day or two.

Till then best of luck.

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share


Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 09:28 GMT
Dear George,

As I went through your article, I noticed your brilliant analysis of the current trend prevailing in the field of physics and exploitation by the authority. It is an eye opener for all of us.

You have rightly realized that mathematics is a ‘tool’ to derive the reality from the hypotheses and that the choice of right mathematics depends on the nature of the hypotheses. This you find in my article too. It is good to see that we both agree in the final analysis on our triangular approach to reality.

For your reference, my e-mail is bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in

I will soon rate your essay.

Best regards,

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 12:11 GMT
Dear Speenath,

I have rated your work with my Best wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 21:08 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Following your request, I read your essay, and since you summarized your view in the Conclusion, I will address it.

You state: "Although Information & Reality (Bit & It) have physical origin, without mind they are in themselves empty and blind. Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit. Thus the relationship between them is triangular and so all three are equally essential for knowledge to coexist."

In my opinion, and it appears that this was the idea of this contest, the task of science is to reduce this 'triangle' to one 'point' only. My choice of this 'point' is the 'mental'. Actually, for many non-scientists, this choice would also be preferable. Please note that in my essay I address exactly this issue.

My best wishes to you!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 06:51 GMT
Dear Lev,

You are right when you say that 'mind' is the primary source of knowledge but at the same time you cannot deny the 'objective' existence of both It and Bit. For, otherwise, this becomes just 'solipsism' and science being objective wants to avoid it at all costs. Although both It and Bit are objective, they have meaning if there is mind to comprehend them. This is just like the absolute view of space and time, and in themselves both have no meaning without reference to change. That is why relative view of space and time is preferred. I hope this point makes my stand clear. We can have more discussion on it, if you like.

I will post my comments on your essay soon.

best regards,

sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 05:01 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 06:21 GMT
Hoang cao,

Thanks for your reply and understood your view on reality much better.

regards,

sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Michael Helland wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 05:10 GMT
Hello,

So mind is made of neither bit nor it in your view.

Is mind made of anything?

If not, how does it work?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 07:18 GMT
Michael,

You, probably, haven't gone through the 'Biology' section of my essay and there I have said how 'mind' came in to existence; it is as a result of billions of years of the evolution of Life. It is identified as the over all function of brain and brain,in turn, is composed of living matter in the form of 'neurons' and the brain (now we can call it 'mind') is designed to comprehend its surrounding (i.e., environment) through its cognitive powers.

Mind can know of what happens in its environment only through Bit and there by assessing the situation itself is It. We can have more discussion on it, if you like. I will post my comments on your essay soon.

sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 08:55 GMT
Sreenath,

Biology is not my field but I liked the analysis and analogies with my own findings and mechanism logically defining and explaining detection, observation and measurement. I agree both bit and it are indeed required and harmonious as wave particle duality. A well balanced view and essay. Congratulations.

Best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 10:04 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for your comments. So is your essay.

Best of luck in the contest.

sreenath

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 12:26 GMT
Dear Sir,

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

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

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

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

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

Thanking you and best of luck in the contest.

sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 14:30 GMT
Sreenath, well done for this engaging essay. Classically you have "bit from it", but in quantum physics the reverse. Fine, the world it quantised so "It from bit" must be the reality. You say the mind is required to make this work which is a commonly defended point of view, but what was there before the first mind?

cheers Phil

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 15:52 GMT
Dr. Philip,

Thanks for your query. Before the first mind? Of course there were Its and Bits, but to make meaning out of them the existence of mind or something similar to that is essential. I have stated in my conclusion that, 'It and Bit in themselves are empty and blind without mind'.

If you are asking regarding the existence of first mind, you will find answer to that in detail in the 'biology' section of my essay. There I have explained clearly how mind came in to existence (as a result of the evolution of Life for over billions of years). If you have further queries, please, inform me.

Regards,

sreenath

Bookmark and Share


Philip Gibbs replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 17:44 GMT
Sreenath, it is a nice synthesis of ideas. I wish you luck in the contest.

Phil

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 20:15 GMT
Sreenath,

Nice multidisciplinary perspective. In the quest of understanding the universe, each scientific discipline contributes, and you provided a well written unified view of this.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 00:54 GMT
Cristinel,

Thanks for your kind comments. I will shortly post my comments on your essay soon.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share


Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 07:09 GMT
Cristinel,

I congratulate you on your well written essay in which you have clearly pointed out the defects prevailing in Wheeler’s views stemming from his delayed choice experiment.

But, your interpretation of Zero Axiom, I feel, is not right. Because you have said that according to Zero Axiom, the proposition p ‘and’ its negation –p is always true; that is in symbols it is written as (p&-p). But this is wrong, for (p&-p) is ‘always’ false. So you should say, (p v –p). This proposition is always true for whatever value you ascribe to ‘p’. Hence, you better change the last sentence of your essay which reads “Assuming both propositions p and -p are true, we want to prove q. Since p is true, p v q is true. But since -p is true, p is false. From p v q and -p follows that q is true” to “From the proposition (-p or q) is true, we want to prove q. If p is true, q must be true and the whole proposition (-p v q) is true. But if q is false, p must be true”; where ‘must’ is logical.

In symbolic logic (-p or q) is written as p > q, meaning ‘if p then q'.

[p > q, p, * q; p > q, -q, * p] where * means therefore.

Regarding this, please, consult a ‘symbolic logician’.

Wishing you best of luck in the contest,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 03:36 GMT
Screenath,

Interesting thoughts.

"Although Information & Reality (Bit & It)have physical origin,without mind

they are in themselves empty and blind.Bit comes from It, but mind can

know of It only through Bit."

If there is no mind at the time of the Big Bang and before humans were possible (1 billion yrs after), is reality (material world) empty and blind? What is your concept of consciousness -- when it appeared? Are "it" and reality the same?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 07:34 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I am interested in your essay. I will post my comments very soon. Good luck.

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 07:48 GMT
Dear Dr.Michel,

Thanks for your response and I too will post my comments on your essay soon.

best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share


Author Sreenath B N replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 18:05 GMT
Dear Dr. Michel,

Your essay is highly original and intriguing but at the same time it appears as if it is written for the experts in the field but not keeping general audience in the perspective. It is interesting to know how far the different geometric methods, you have followed in this article, are capable of solving other problems prevailing in QM. I congratulate you for producing such an innovative essay.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share


Michel Planat replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 09:28 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for the impact of your favorable appreciation. I did my best before on your essay. Reading you again, I realize that may be some questions regarding DNA/RNA and their three-dimensional embedding could be approached with dessins d'enfants or the related language. By the way, do you have any comment about the non-coding role of the genome.

Good luck,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 08:49 GMT
Dear James,

I, like a classical physicist, believe in the objective reality of the physical world. But how to have a conception of it without reference to mind is the problem. Can you just imagine how it appears without mind? That is why I called both information and reality, empty and blind. This is just like the absolute concept of space and time in the Newtonian system as exposed by Einstein; what is space in itself and time in itself 'without reference' to something external to them (say, change). They have no 'meaning' in themselves.

By 'It', I mean 'reality' as it is evident from the title of the essay itself.

By 'consciousness', I mean it is an innate quality possessed by the mind as a result of billions of years of the evolution of Life. To know more about it, please, go through 'biology' section of my essay in which I have clearly described how mind, through the evolution of Life acquired this innate quality by interacting with the environment; there I have said how on parallel lines the relationship existing between the evolution of Life and the evolution of the knowledge of mind can be comprehended.

Thanks for your kind query and welcome more discussions.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 21:01 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

interesting essay. In particular I like your multi-disciplinary view. I have only some comments:

- I think, that quantum mechanics do not imply that space and time is discrete. We don't know the curve of the electron but the space points can exist.

- Pure mathematics based on axioms but that is not as rigid as it sounds. In particular as shwon by Gödel, every axiom system (expressing or encoding information in a specific manner) is incomplete. It left open a lot of flessibility to change math.

Hopefully more later

I will be absent for the next three weeks

Good luck and all the best

Torsten

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 17:25 GMT
Dear Torsten,

Thanks for going through my essay and for your kind comments.

The fact that space points can exist and these are disconnected itself shows that space is discrete in QM.

I agree with your view on mathematics.

I will post my comments on your essay soon.

Best of luck,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 09:06 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

As I already said, I liked your essay. In particular your view of the evolution of the knowledge of mind. Now my observation is that it should not be so easy to separate the different fields 'classical, quantum, mathematical and biological' in what regards our understanding of reality. All realities are postulated by our mind, depending on the object we are looking at we just fit to it with the constraints that the object is giving to us. In the past, I worked a lot on the synchronization of ultrastable (classical) clocks and I found the structure of rational numbers in the measurements (the Farey tree and the related mathematical objects). In each case, what we find is contextual. In classical physics, the observables are just real numbers while in quantum physics they are operators with the new problem of non-commutativity that creates problem with the time.

My best regards,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Dr. Michel,

I appreciate your kind comments. It is good to learn that we share some common basic views regarding the existence of knowledge.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



David M Reid wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 06:55 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Hi,

Your essay is clearly written. I have some comments on some individual passages.

Your essay starts with a nice contrast between classical and quantum physics. However, I find it a bit harsh to say "String Theory, Loop QG and the like, ... lack new and original concepts and hypotheses." Also, your implication that these theories, albeit not yet tested, are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear David,

Thanks for going through my essay in detail and with care. There is no exaggeration in what I have said in my essay. I would like to answer all your questions point by point.

String Theory, Loop QG and the like are not physical theories; they are just mathematical ploys which intimidate physics by posing themselves as unified physical theories. I reject them because in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


David M Reid replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 04:18 GMT
Hi, Sreenath

Paragraph by paragraph:

I do not dispute that string theory and loop quantum gravity have not as yet been tested and, if this keeps up, they may need to be relegated to the dustbin of useless theories. (But remember that it was many years between the first statement of Einstein's theories and the possibility to measure them; so too was Bell's theorem only much later...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 13:04 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

As promised, I read your essay. I must confess I do not have the expertise to comment on issues which relate to mind, biology, and mathematics. In our essay we were addressing `it versus bit’ in quantum theory - you say bit is more important than it in quantum theory. We argue against this hypothesis and conclude otherwise, even for quantum theory.

A few statements in your essay puzzle me. You say: "Whereas in quantum physics, both Space and Time are discrete entities and hence there are gaps in both Spatial and Temporal intervals; i.e., Space and Time are quantized. “ But this is not so - space-time is assumed to be a continuum in quantum theory. Also I could not understand what it means to say "In this sense, even our Knowledge is non-physical in nature although it tries to explain the physics of the external world.”

With best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Dr. Tejinder singh,

Thanks for going through my article and also for your kind comments. It is true that in quantum theory, I view Bit as more important than It and this is what is to be expected from the Copenhagen interpretation of QM; in the quantum world, it is the experimental set up (with information fed in to it) which decides the probability of its outcome. That is, for the same type of experiment, we get different results which means that for the same Bit we get different Its and in this sense Bit is more basic and more important than It. I have not yet gone through your essay and hence don’t know how you have argued there as opposed to my view and I am eager to read your essay and post my comments soon on it.

It is true that Space-Time as back ground entity is assumed to be a continuum in quantum theory to describe the motion of the ‘psi-function’ or of quantum particles but once measurements are carried out we get an array of values which suggest that the motion is not continuous as is to be expected from classical physics if Space-Time were a continuum. That is, the results obtained do not match with the continuity of Space-Time. The quantization of space and time is explicit in the motion of electrons in the orbits of an atom, especially when they jump from one orbit to another, and this I have said in my essay in detail. The gap between the two orbits is said to be quantized as we cannot describe the motion between the two orbits whether we consider electron as a particle or as a wave. In this sense Space and Time are quantized and there are gaps in Spatial and Temporal intervals.

Regarding our knowledge as non-physical in nature, it is to be noted that ‘our knowledge’ is as a result of function of our mind and hence intertwined to our mental processes and they are non-physical in nature; that is why our knowledge is also non-physical in nature although it might be objective corresponding to the physical world.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:31 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I like that you've considered the question of us as observers - it was an enjoyable essay to read! Also your conclusion that Bit may come from It is nicely explained.

Well done & best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 02:21 GMT
Dear Antony,

I appreciate your comments and I have read your intriguing essay too and post my comments on your thread.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 17:40 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

As I promised in my FQXi Essay page, I have read your essay. I appreciated your idea to discuss the relationship between information and reality not only in Physics but also in Biology and Mathematics. I also find fantastic the aphorism "Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit." Your work is very peculiar and I had lots of fun in reading it.

Thus, I am going to give you an high score.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 05:44 GMT
Dear Corda,

Thanks for your compliments and so do I.

Cheers,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 04:28 GMT
Sreenath,

Hi. This was a good essay, and I liked how you discussed the view of information from three different perspectives, physics, math and biology. A couple of minor comments are:

1. In the conclusion where you mention:

Although Information & Reality (Bit & It) have physical origin, without mind they are in themselves

empty and blind. Bit comes from It, but...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 05:51 GMT
Dear Roger,

Thanks for your kind and good analysis of my essay. Out of the five comments you have made, I agree with the last three comments fully as you are an expert in that field and for the first two comments I want to make minor clarifications.

The mind is contained not only within the brain but it is as a result of the ‘functions’ of the brain and I have made this point clear in my article.

Regarding the second comment as to why it is impossible to explain biology in terms of physics is for the following simple reason; suppose you are waving your hand to a crowd, the waving of your hand can be precisely defined in terms of physics, but the ‘intension/ purpose’ behind it cannot be described in terms of physics. Physics cannot describe ‘purposive acts’ which are ‘often’ the hallmark of living beings and these are also behind the evolution of Life, and even nonlinear or chaos dynamics based on physics can explain them but only if these dynamics are based on biology then they can account for them.

Thanking you once again for your fine comments and I will post my comments on your essay soon.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 22:25 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for your very nice comments on my essay. I have gone through your nice essay also, and conceptually your is similar to mine. I am giving account of both below. Your concluding words

- - - - Although Information & Reality (Bit & It) have physical origin, without mind they are in themselves empty and blind. Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit- - - -

That is very nice, and in my opinion, we have physical 5 s-enses and a sixth sense called mind. We form pictures of all the real things around us in our mind from these senses. Mind interprets these real things around us for forming these pictures. All these information will be lost when we die.

We invented the communication to transfer these pictures to fellow humans.

This communication uses information which is nothing but description of our mental picture.

- - - -

Your comments - - - - The theme up on which your essay is based is having deep rooted meaning and you have aptly said that it is ‘IT from Bit’ - - - -

Here I mean to say, whatever the manner one describes the material or matter with words, mental thoughts, using information technology or computers, his descriptions will not produce matar bits or atoms. This explanation can give information describing the material bits only and nothing more.

Here I used words - -IT- - for: - -Information technology- - and - -Bit- - for : --a piece of material or a bit of material- -

Please reply in my thread so that I will get a communication from FQXi, and I can reply you. .

best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 09:34 GMT
Dear SNP Gupta,

Thanks for your fine analysis of my essay and for your kind compliments and in the final analysis, in treating It as primary to Bit, we both agree. The meaning that you have given to ‘IT from Bit’ simply substantiates that.

All the best in the essay contest.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 00:55 GMT
Hi Sreenath,

I just read your essay and noticed that of all the ones that I have read so far, yours is the closest in organizational structure to mine, although I did not cast my net as wide so as to include biology and mathematics.

As for whether reality can be really considered separate from it, I think it would have helped if you could have mentioned some quantitative relations that support your assertion. What equations in physics point to the existence of a reality apart from it or bit? I am genuinely curious because I believe that existence is not a binary concept, so it would be stimulating to see your idea tied more precisely to known relations in physics.

All the best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 03:48 GMT
Dear Armin,

Thanks for reading my essay and I appreciate your comments. Your query is an intriguing one and is at the basis of ‘our’ epistemology. I have made it clear in my essay while concluding that ‘mind can know It only through Bit although It (reality) is having an independent existence’. So the problem of knowing It apart from Bit by the mind wouldn’t exist and that is why I have concluded in my essay that ‘for our knowledge to exist all three (It, Bit and mind) must coexist’. Speaking in terms of physics (or, in general, in science), It is having different forms and it depends on how you cognize It by interpreting different Bits in different terms. One of the best examples is gravitation itself; you can view it in Newtonian-way, Einsteinian-way, phenomenological-way, etc. The same thing happens in the quantum world also. So as to your question “What equations in physics point to the existence of a reality apart from it or bit?” I would have to answer in the negative. In this sense I agree with your belief that the ‘existence is not a binary concept’.

It is only in religions that the ‘absolute reality’ (usually called God) can be grasped in its ‘purest’ form as it is, in the ‘mystic experience’ and this experience is ‘indescribable’ in terms of language or mathematics and it can only be ‘felt’. Here also the existence of ‘subject’ and ‘object’ is not a binary concept.

I look forward to hear from you more and I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments in your thread.

All the best,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 04:22 GMT
Hello Sreenath

I rated you essay very highly (8). This may seem rather over the top, but I thought it was better than the other essays; at least in that it had an ordered structure and explained why you believe what you believe, and was about foundations of our disciplines and models of reality. I focused particularly on the mathematics. Von Neumann argued that mathematics actually finds it roots in empiricism, contrary to the assumptions of others (I guess including Kant).

In my essay, while there was not time to discuss it, the mathematics is entirely evolved from the GPE, and has no reliance on contemporary mathematics at all, for to do so would introduce errors leading to infinities and inconsistencies all over the place, as presently happens in physics. Because it is derived from a single indefeasible principle it is immune to Godel incompleteness (Godel confined his arguments to formal systems of axioms and the laws of thought). Maybe that will a subject for next year's contest.

Best wishes

Stephen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 05:00 GMT
Dear Stephen,

Thanks for rating my essay and I too do so.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 01:15 GMT
Dear Sreenath Garu,.

Thank you for your post on my essay

I did not rate your essay earlier. I am very much in need of Good ratings. People are down rating me! Congratulations! Now I gave 9 to you. Earlier your score is 3.9 with 29 ratings, now it jumped to 4.0 with 30 ratings. Please give me your e mail ID, I will send some my books published in Germany.

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 05:09 GMT
Dear Guptaji,

Thanks for rating my essay and I too have rated your essay with maximum honors.

All the best in the essay contest.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 12:15 GMT
Dear Sreenath, To respond to your recent comment on my thread I made it a habit to rate an essay as soon as I read it. I usually gave scores of above 7 but did not keep a record of what I rated yours a few weeks ago.

I wish you all success in the contest, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 18:27 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Your essay is very well written. In particular, I like the connections you make between it, bit, and mind.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 18:45 GMT
Dear Christinel,

Thanks for your nice compliments.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 13:19 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

The breadth of your knowledge is so vast, this essay deserves book length treatment.

I know next to nothing of biology and little of physics -- where mathematics is concerned, however, I think you have well captured the attitude of most research mathematicians toward the meaning of their art. It is quite telling that you cite Paul Ernest (have you also read his work on mathematics as social constructivism?) as well as Brouwer. Your hypothesis -- that classical physics is discovered and quantum physics invented, and yet both are objective -- is deep, and I'm going to be pondering it for a while to come.

I agree with Dr. Corda that the statement "Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit" is wonderful. It is an elegant way, I think, of getting to Murray Gell-Mann's (*The Quark and the Jaguar*) hypothesis of a continuum of consciousness from the very small to the very large, with which I agree without reservation. Recent research in the evolution of consciousness that combines computability with organic evolution includes Chaitin's *Proving Darwin: Making biology mathematical.* I have one semantic nitpick regarding " ... prerequisite consciousness and intelligence as inherent traits." I can accept conscioussness (represented as free will) as fundamental, which preempts intelligence (represented as adaptability) as fundamental. In other words, conscious organisms cooperate to form intelligent adaptive systems; we know that even a human body is at core a corporation of cooperating cells and organisms.

Yours is a wonderful essay to which I can lend my highest compliment -- I was compelled to read it slowly and carefully. It also made me feel good, which is another rarity.

Expect a high score from me, and all best in the compeitition.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 13:42 GMT
Dear Ray,

Thanks for your compliments and wish you all the best in the essay contest.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share


Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 17:29 GMT
Thank you for the high rating, Sreenath! Will reciprocate when I am on my home computer where code is stored.

Best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 17:27 GMT
Hello again Sreenath,

I appreciate the kind remarks left on my essay page, and that you read my essay. Now it is my turn to return the favor. Judging by your abstract; there is indeed a lot of common ground explored in our essays, and it should be affirming as well as enlightening for me to explore. I wish you good luck in the contest.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


KoGuan Leo wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 22:49 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I read it once and I will retread again to understand it better. But I do like your conclusion:

Although Information & Reality (Bit & It) have physical origin, without mind they are in themselves empty and blind. Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit. Thus the relationship between them is triangular and so all three are equally essential for knowledge to coexist. For classical physicists, ‘It’ is basic and more important than Bit; but for quantum physicists, Bit is basic and more important than It. For biologists, both are equally important and for mathematicians, both are engraved in their axioms. Biological Reality (BR) basically differs from quantum Reality (QR); QR is a probability allowed by QM to show up at any time in Time; BR is the Reality created by the biosphere out of the Information content available to it from the environment over Time; so QR exists as virtual Reality in the quantum sea before it is found, but BR exists or realized only after it is created by the biosphere at its will. Mathematical ‘It’ would be in semi-realized state in the axioms and when conclusions are derived from them, it becomes self-realized. In math, Bit is contained in the axioms; but in biology, environment feeds Bit to the biosphere..

After I read it again I will comment and rate your excellent essay.

Best regards,

Leo KoGuan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


adel sadeq wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 02:28 GMT
Hi Sreenath,

I read your essay very carefully and I liked the clear and down to earth analysis. That is very refreshing compared to the many mind bending and complicated analysis that I find in many essays. Many essays mangle basic concepts so that even an expert will get confused, but I think you have written a very good essay that a layperson can really benefit from it. I have even learned few things from it.

So you deserve the high standing and you get a very good grade from me. Thank you.

Adel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 02:37 GMT
Dear Adel,

Thanks for your compliments and I too rate your fine essay accordingly.

Best,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 20:19 GMT
Dear Sreenath;

Following your post: I gave a high rate to your essay (at the time I red it), I like it very much. Hopefully we can still have fruitfull scientific exchanges about this topics or others.

Good luck,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 14:43 GMT
Dear Michel,

Yes, of course.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 16:01 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I read with great interest your participation in this contest and even printed it out the content has parallels with my own essay (topic 1810) but you are staying on "earth" and perhaps my perception is more metaphysical.

However your deductions that "the evolution of life is analogous to the evolution of the knowledge of mind" opens both ways , the actual awareness and the future possible awareness. In my perception the actual awareness is described as just one life-line available in Total Simultaneity, the eternal now moment we are experiencing as our reality with its specific past (that is dependant indeed of the era you are living in) is just one of the infinite eternal now moments available.

The evolution of the mind (consciousness)is the way that our consciousness will be able to "construct" more and other life-lines , until now however our causal consciousness is just caught in a time line where reality is dependant on so called "dimensions".

There are lots of other points we can discuss and I really hope that you will read, comment and rate my essay "THE QUEST FOR THE PRIMAL SEQUENCE". I rated yours high and hope that your final opinion on mine will also be favourable. I count on you.

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 18:41 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay and also for rating it. I will soon go through your essay and post my comments on it and rate it too.

Regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 12:06 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thanks for your comments on my blog and I am expecting your rating.

On your essay, I like the way you properly differentiated the concept of information in Classical and Quantum physics. And also in other branches of science, Biology and Mathematics. But eventually all views must eventually logically boil down to one view since all are expressed in this universe. I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


KoGuan Leo wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 01:44 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Your essay last and this year are extremely sophisticated. You are a curious person who is thirsty for knowledge and for an absolute truth. I share your passion. Many times, I question my own foolishness to seek the absolute truth knowingly that this truth could be a different truth for each person. However, we are the owner of our destiny and yet simulataneously we are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 02:04 GMT
Dear KoGuan Leo,

Thanks for your kind comments. I quite agree with you when you say that knowledge is monism, because that is the basic philosophy behind my whole argument of unifying all the four forces in physics in the form of QG thus agreeing with your concept of KUID.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Chidi Idika wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 05:03 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Your essay has been educating.

I appreciate that you have allowed of plants and bacteria and other live forms with perhaps non-human sensory modalities that: “It is obvious that they also must have their own way of receiving Information from the event and will have their own vision of its Reality and then respond to the situation.”

Personally, I think it is a crucial question on what basis a single sensory modality (or any other ensemble like our five senses) should have in principle PHYSICAL prominence over every other. Special Relativity has questionably elevated the sense of sight. It is still to me baffling how a bat for instance (which orients more via echolocation) should prize our speed-of-light over his speed-of-sound. Indeed it is possible that for any life form the KEENEST sense defines the “sense-of-sight”.

My question: what is your definition of biosphere? You have said, “The evolution of the biosphere in Time means the expansion of its Information content and this result in increasing its conscious and intelligent activities, and later leading to the evolution of Life (Darwinism).”

I intend to score you well because we need the interfacing of concepts like you have done.

Regards,

Chidi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 05:35 GMT
Dear Chidi,

Thanks for your kind comments and I am too going to give you a high score.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Stanislav Smirnov wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 10:17 GMT
Dear Sreenath!

I have found your essay very unique and well prepared.

In my field - linguistics there is a strong connection between development of biological and linguistic processes.

Please have my highest rate for nice explanation of the main topic with great intra science vector.

With regards, Stanislav

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 10:48 GMT
Dear Stanislav,

Thanks for your nice comments on my essay and also for rating it. I too will rate your essay accordingly.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Jeff Baugher wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 16:19 GMT
Sreenath,

What a thought provoking essay! Your descriptions and explanations of a biosphere (even before Life) that gathers information isn't a point of view I had considered previously. I especially liked your concluding remark of "Although Information & Reality (Bit & It) have physical origin, without mind they are in themselves empty and blind. Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit." I do agree with your summation of my essay in the context of your own.

Would you state that the evolutionary process of gathering data becomes more fine tuned as Life attempts to reconcile discontinuous Bits in Information of It(GR and QM)? Since technology has allowed us to view further into space, would you call this an enlargement of the Biosphere since we now can absorb Information from previously undetectable sources?

Your highly interesting and topical essay deserves the high marks it is receiving, to which I have added.

Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 16:46 GMT
Dear Jeff,

Thanks for your kind comments and appreciate rating my essay highly. I am too going to rate your essay much more favorably.

Regarding your query " Since technology has allowed us to view further into space, would you call this an enlargement of the Biosphere since we now can absorb Information from previously undetectable sources?"; it is not due to the enlargement of the biosphere but it is due to the enlargement of our vision (knowledge) of our 'mind'. Similarly, to your another query, "Would you state that the evolutionary process of gathering data becomes more fine tuned as Life attempts to reconcile discontinuous Bits in Information of It(GR and QM)?"; again it is due to 'the evolution of the knowledge of mind' rather than due to Life.

If you have further queries, please, inform me.

Best of luck in the essay contest

Bookmark and Share



Chidi Idika wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 18:39 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

You have my good rating anyway for attempting to INTERFACE the sciences. Meanwhile, I am needing to understand what is your definition of Biosphere.You have said: “The evolution of the biosphere in Time means the expansion of its Information content and this result in increasing its conscious and intelligent activities, and later leading to the evolution of Life (Darwinism).”

Regards,

Chidi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 18:50 GMT
Dear Chidi,

Thanks for your good rating and I am too going to rate you very high.

Regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 22:20 GMT
Dear Screenath BN:

As I clarified later on I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. Your essay did teach me a lot about where Physics, Biology & Mathematics are placed now days and the relations between them. I never read about the subject something as concrete and clear as your essay thank you.

...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 02:44 GMT
Dear Hector,

Thanks for you kind comments on my essay and I have down loaded your essay and shortly post my comments on it in your thread.

With my best whishes'

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 22:30 GMT
DearScreenath BN:

The Anonymous july 21th post it is mine Héctor Daniel Gianni

Sorry

Héctor

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 06:46 GMT
Dear Hector,

I read your whole essay which is based on an innovative idea called motion. It appears true that Time without reference to Motion makes no sense as you have rightly grasped and also that Motion can be easily grasped by mind. You have lucidly analyzed the concept of Time from prehistorical period to the current period in a systematic way and have shown how it is invariably associated with the concept of Motion. You have also said clearly how the concept of Time is still perplexing physicists and philosophers alike. That is why you have said ‘we measure motion and no time’. According to you, our concept of Time is derived by analyzing the concept of Motion and hence there are Past, Present and Future. This is a novel idea that is to be considered seriously. In solving the problem of quantum-gravity (QG), the concept of Time has also become a problem. In the previous fqxi essay contest (2012), in fact, the essay I presented was on QG. You need to work up hard on this problem and present a theoretic model based on these ideas systematically and then only, I feel, physics community will accept your ideas. Since you are a physician you better seek the help of some mathematician in this regard to help you in your task.

Thanks for presenting a thought provoking essay and wish you all the best in the essay contest. After seeing your response to this in my thread I am going to give your lucidly written essay a very high score of over 8.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Sergio Miguel wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 23:31 GMT
Dear Screenath,

I have been reading your article and although I like in general and I gave a good mark I want to mention some points to you about which we can discuss if you want.

First I recommend you read the article Causation as Folk Science of John D. Norton which you can look for in google. Although I am not agree with all his conclusions it is going to give you a new view about causality.

Second, I don’t understand completely your sentence “The evolution of Life is analogous to the evolution of the knowledge of mind” Can you explain me better?.

Third, I am not sure our intellectual power is enough to understand all universe. For example we have really headache with the duality wave-particle. So my doubts about we don’t have limit of comprehension because also I am not sure we don’t have limits on our imagination. We have only as 300 hundred years of scientific knowledge to know if we have limit. We would need as 10.000 years to see if there is something which we can not understand (But we are not enough intelligent to survive that long time because we have too power in our hands and few intelligence to use it).

Finally, I have a good friend who has dedicated all his life to the brain “Mind is only one of the functional states of the brain” and I am very agree with him. So I don’t think there is a triangle, just physics and mathematics because the brain it is only a physical system although probably one of the most complex of the universe.

Best regards,

Sergio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 02:28 GMT
Dear Sergio,

Thanks for your nice comments and a few queries on my essay and I am glad to answer them convincingly.

I will go through the article "Causation as Folk Science of John D. Norton" as suggested by you and I want to know how you have grasped my views on causality.

You have asked a very good question to clarify the meaning of the hypothesis that I have framed at the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 01:11 GMT
Dear All,

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

iSeries always yields two sub semi...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 01:28 GMT
Dear sridattadev,

It is good to hear from you in my thread. I liked your referencing to Fibonacci series as relating to QG because I have also worked on it.

Thanks for that.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share


sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 11:55 GMT
Dear Sreenath and All,

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

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 19:10 GMT
Hi Sreenath,

Overall an excellent essay, and I rated it that way.

Your conclusion, was spot on, and I do detect a little Vedantic logic in the triad. This is good.

However, your conclusion is all yours and is enlightening: its and bits are context dependent!

If your context is classical physics it is one way, If your context is biology it is another, etc, etc.

This is original thinking, and very insightful.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 03:36 GMT
Dear Don,

Thanks for your kind comments and I am too going to rate your essay accordingly.

Best of luck,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Ken Hon Seto wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 22:12 GMT
Sreenath,

I enjoyed your discussion on classical and quantum reality and I gave your essay a high rating.

Current physics endorses the probabilistic nature of QM. However I believe that there is a physical system that explains all the weird results of Quantum experiments. In my theory I posited that the absolute motions of particles in a stationary, elastic and structured aether called the E-Matrix give rise to all the forces, all the particles and all the processes of nature.

Good luck with your essay entry.

Regards,

Ken Seto

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 03:40 GMT
Dear Ken Hon,

Thanks for your kind compliments and I am too going to rate your essay accordingly.

Regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 00:24 GMT
Hi Sreenath,



Wow. First, I want to offer my sincere apology for not having read your essay sooner. You mentioned several days ago that you had downloaded my essay and would be reading and rating it and asked that I reciprocate. I was out of town all last week, but now I wish I had read your essay immediately.

Sreenath, I know that there are many essays for us to read, but after having read your essay I want to tell you that I believe you are absolutely correct in your thinking about classical physics, QM, biology, and mind. Up to this point I haven't asked anyone to read my essay, but now I will - please read my essay. I don't even care if you rate it. I just want to discuss your ideas afterward.

Again, I think the points you make are precisely on track. I do hope you'll have the opportunity to read what I've written, particularly regarding the definition of Life, how it interacts with the environment, and how the interactions of living things convert 'physical' into 'mental' and additionally, create 'bit.'

Best to you, Sreenath, and I hope that, if you are so inclined, you would consider staying in touch in the future.

Sincerely,

Ralph

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 03:46 GMT
Dear Ralph,

Thanks for your kind compliments on my essay and I have down loaded your essay and going to post my comments in your thread shortly. I will rate it too accordingly.

Sincerely,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 02:44 GMT
Hello Sreenath,

I enjoyed reading your essay for a second time. I find little to disagree with, and that which I disagree with isn't really worth mentioning because it reflects the current consensus accurately. While I said I would comment, I am struggling to find something to say that hasn't already been said, so I present the following as simple cautions in areas where I feel your essay...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 04:28 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



Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 10:53 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thanks for your high valued philosophical essay pointing to the basic links concern over the three realities of nature: micro, "classical" and "biological".

I am rating the essay at highest end.

Regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 13:57 GMT
Dear Dipak,

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay and also for rating it.

Regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 11:54 GMT
Dear Sreenath;

his essay is masterful. Make an analysis concise yet profound reality of the concept of observation attached to process. also manifests a realistic critical string theories and severity of ties. Indeed: the assertion that these theories suffer from predictive ability, both experimentally, as new physical phenomena. some basic ingredient missing in these theories to represent a realistic theories, in terms of the physical phenomena. Then, you engage in the wonderful concept of the information regarding the biology, pointing out the fundamental aspects of this wonderful symbiosis. In short, his essay is a worthy candidate to win a prize. I would encourage you to write a book about this thematic, for how to translate your deductions using pen promises that you can be a writer of popular science first class. Thank you very much. I'm sure it will be a winner

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 15:53 GMT
Dear Angel,

Thanks for your gracious comments and I am going post my comments on your essay in your thread shortly.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 18:01 GMT
Hello Sreenath

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

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

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 03:05 GMT
Dear Than,

Thanks for responding to my posting in your thread and I will shortly respond to you by posting in your thread my comments on your essay and also to your query,

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Richard N. Shand wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 19:41 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I enjoyed your essay - very pragmatic and to the point.

I agree with you that without mind, information and reality are "in themselves empty and blind". In my essay I expressed a similar thought: "Without context, and without a relative observer to provide such context, notions such as space and time collapse into incoherence." (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

It is interesting that you mentioned the idea of a mathematician as a sculptor carving reality out of his preconceived axioms. In my essay, I was originally going to include a photograph that I took in the Louvre of Michelangelo's unfinished statue of a slave. What impressed me about this sculpture was that the front was completely finished in polished detail while the back was still rough hewn marble. Michelangelo had an amazingly clear idea of what the slave should look like before he ever set the chisel to the stone.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 02:58 GMT
Dear Richard,

I appreciate your kind comments and I am going to post my comments on your essay shortly in your thread.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share


Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 01:01 GMT
Sreenath,

I am very appreciative of your well-considered and constructive comments about my essay.

For me, existence cannot be compartmentalized if it is to be understood. Classical spacetime, quantum information theory and consciousness constitute an indivisible whole. The ultimate goal of both western science and eastern spirituality is enlightenment. If we remain fixated on our conditional knowledge of reality, we miss out on the interconnected web of endless possibility and, quoting you, "limitless wisdom".

By the way, I previously gave your essay with a high rating, which I hope will bring you closer to success in the contest.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:11 GMT
Dear Screenath B N:

You sent me this: Dear Hector,

I want to rate your essay high, over 8 since it deserves rating; and I also need your rating; are you interested in it or not?, inform me in my thread. Waiting for your response.

Regards,

Sreenath

Your essay taught me many things, for this at the same moment I rate yours in 8. About your rating you shouldn’t rate mine at all, because you did not understand anything of it.

I can’t make business because I already rated you.

Chau

Héctor

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 03:21 GMT
Dear Hector,

I didn't mean in that business sense of rating for I know that men of your sort are not interested in rating to your essay; but, however, it is my obligation to rate your essay because it is written with originality behind its back ground and I am doing injustice to my self if I don't rate your essay; it is in this sense I asked whether you are interested in rating my essay. Please be in touch in future too. I too have rated your essay more favorably.

Thanks for your response to my plea and wish you best of luck.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 11:25 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

As the observation by particle scenario is probabilistic rather than realistic, a string-matter continuum scenario is recommend to observe the observational information continuum, in that the observational efficacy is higher in biological systems, whereas the chemical potential of a biological system is proportional to the information storage in that system.

Thus I think that the applications, that may emerge on ‘Voyage from Discovery to Invention’ is in the order of, Information, Physics, Chemistry and Biology; in that Mathematics is the vehicle for expressions.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear Jayakar,

Thanks for your response to my posting in your thread. I have downloaded your essay and post my comments on it shortly in your thread.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Antoine Acke wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 15:24 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Your essay gives an excellent overview of diverse ideas about the relation reality/information. It is very educational and it deserves a high score.

Best wishes,

Antoine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 16:09 GMT
Dear Antoine,

Thanks for your comments on my essay and shortly I am going to post my comments on your essay in your thread.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



JOSEPH E BRENNER wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 16:35 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

To make sure you see my comment, I have read your initial remark and look forward to your comments and rating. I wrote that I thought your essay was a very good review, and I liked in particular one phrase "the logic of hidden relations". That is what my Logic in Reality is all about, especially, on how the relations "percolate upward" into the macroscopic domain.

Kind regards,

Joseph Brenner

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 01:03 GMT
Dear Brenner,

Thanks for your response to my posting in your thread. I will shortly post my comments on your essay in your thread and rate it accordingly.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



ioannis hadjidakis wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 18:23 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for the outstanding revision of the voyage of knowledge. I do not resist in making the correlations of THESIS-IT, ANTITHESIS-BIT and SYNTHESIS-MIND. The next query is whether mind is characteristic only of biological systems? I feel this is not so and any existent has a sort of mind that allows it to respond to its environment. How it will be differently as anything is a resemblance of the whole universe (mind included).

Best wishes,

I.H.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 18:56 GMT
Dear ioannis,

Thanks for your comments on my essay and also for the right analysis of the theme of my essay.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Chenxi Guo wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 02:43 GMT
Dear Sreenath

I really appreciate your work. The concept of information is clearly given in this context. It deserves a good rating.

“Information & Reality have physical origin, without mind they are in themselves empty and blind. Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit. ” It is dialectic.

“The Information comes mainly in the form of electro-magnetic radiation (photons). ” I am sure that all interaction phenomena can be reduced to the electromagnetic interaction.

Best regards

Chenxi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 03:07 GMT
Dear Chenxi,

Thanks for appreciating my essay. I will shortly go through your essay and post my comments on it in your thread and rate it highly.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 10:14 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I've already rated all those who have submitted an article in June. It was my fault that I could not comment on the articles in which only mentions biology and life. Your article itself, I rated fair and with great marks. Thank you for what you high value on my article.

All the best,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 09:06 GMT
Hi Sreenath,

Congratulations on an essay that covers such a wide range: physics, QM, biology, mind, and math. All of these disciplines have something to say about the cosmos, and so must be part of our cosmology. Thank you for your ambitious attempt to discuss them all!

Here are some thoughts on what you wrote:

> From the recent success of the theory of GR, in explaining...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 07:29 GMT
Dear Hugh,

Thanks for reading my essay and making an in depth analysis of it and commenting up on it by raising some good queries. I am glad to answer your queries point by point.

1) GR is not successful in predicting galactic rotation curves and many other observed effects at that scale. Modified Newtonian Gravity (MOND) had been a much better fit to observation.

This is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Walter Smilga wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 11:34 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I have read your essay. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with your description of quantum mechanics. What you describe is not what physicists understand as quantum mechanics. Your description refers rather to some kind of statistical mechanics.

Your write: "Whereas in quantum physics, both Space and Time are discrete entities ... i.e. Space and Time are quantized."

No, in standard QM space and time are as continuous as in classical mechanics.

"What HPI tells us is that Reality in the quantum world is probabilistic in nature and measurement of probability always does not give the same real value as it changes from measurement to measurement."

No, after you have measured a certain quantum state, then a repeated measurement of this state by the same experimental setup will result in the same state with a probability of 1.

What HPI tells us is that the precision, with which certain pairs of (complementary) physical properties of a particle can be known simultaneously, is limited.

Concerning the question of Reality, there is a worth reading book by Nick Herbert: "Quantum Reality". I think you will like it.

Walter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 18:22 GMT
Dear Walter,

Thanks for your questions and suggestions. I have answered your questions point wise.

1) QM in a broad sense is statistical mechanics. Like statistical mechanics, QM also predicts average value over a wide range of values due to quantum probabilities.

2) It is true that in QM space and time as back ground entities are treated as continuous as in classical mechanics but the motion of quantum particles at the ‘quantum level’ is not continuous due to the discrete nature of space and time at the quantum level; it is this which leads to the quantized nature of space and time. Had space and time been continuous at the quantum level, then there would have been no necessity of formulating QM as classical mechanics itself would have been enough to account for all the facts of the quantum world.

3) When we measure canonically conjugate quantities of HPI, due to the principle of ‘superposition’ we will not get the same values even for the repeated measurements under the same experimental setup. So the probability is not 1.

4) If the precision of measurement is limited, it implies that there is uncertainty in the measured values of canonically conjugate pairs. This is what HPI insists.

5) I am thankful to you for suggesting me to read the above mentioned book concerning the question of Reality in the quantum world. The reality described in different versions of QM is not the same as it differs from version to version.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 17:25 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I still feel uneasy with your formulations, because:

Ad 1: As long as you are not interested in specific quantum mechanical properties, you may consider quantum mechanics as a kind of classical statistical mechanics ("In a broad sense") by simply setting Planck's constant to 0. However, I have the impression that it is exactly the differences between classical mechanics and QM that you want to bring to the general public.

Ad 2: You obviously do not really mean "the motion of quantum particles at the quantum level" but refer to the discrete energy levels of e.g. the electron in a hydrogen atom. These discrete energy levels are the result of the electromagnetic interaction between electron and proton. They are not "due to the discrete nature of space-time at the quantum level." Remember that there are also "free" electrons, which are not bound to discrete energy levels. Nevertheless, they show quantum properties, e.g. in a double slit experiment.

Ad 3: If you measure the momentum of an electron, then a repeated measurement of the momentum will show exactly the same value within the resolution of the measurement. The resolution depends only on the experimental setup and on your experimental skills. It is neither limited by HPI nor by QM in general. Only if, after the first momentum measurement, the position is measured, then the momentum of the second measurement will not only differ, but may be completely undefined.

Ad 4: It is the other way around: QM does not generally limit the "precision of measurement" (cf. Ad 3). Only if you simultaneously measure the values of two conjugate variables, then the precision is limited. This is expressed by HPI.

Best,

Walter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 02:15 GMT
Dear Walter,

I agree with all your points and there is no disagreement between us if you remember that the uncertainty in QM arises only when canonically conjugate quantities are measured (i.e. HPI) and not otherwise as you can measure a quantity to any accuracy and QM wouldn't restrict it.

Best,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Yutaka Shikano wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 14:14 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

From your post in my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1836 , I came here. Thank you so much for your interesting essay. While you analyze the relationship between information and physical or mathematical concepts. However, you seems not to clarify the concept of information itself. What do you think about it? Also, what do you think about the amount of information? In your essay, these are the conceptual thing.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 17:29 GMT
Dear Yutaka,

Thanks for posting your comments on my essay and also for your compliments. I am glad to clarify your queries.

1) You asked, “While you analyze the relationship between information and physical or mathematical concepts. However, you seem not to clarify the concept of information itself. What do you think about it?” In my essay in the beginning itself I have made the notion of ‘information’ clear by defining it as “the set of data that our mind/brain perceives through its senses”. Please, check.

2) You have asked “what do you think about the amount of information?” Amount of information is the total set of data perceived by the mind through its sense organs, especially eyes. I think the matter is clear now.

If you have any other doubts please, contact me.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 23:01 GMT
Sreenath,

The topic for this round of essays is broad and sweeping, which has generated many “big picture” essays. Seemingly independent complex systems are divided up like departments at a university in this essay. The universe is complex and separating the subject into fields of study (which match scale of observation) is a way to divide and concur this complex subject. I do not always agree with how fields are divided up and their limits, but how topics are divided is clear. If I understand correctly - these separate systems (fields of study) are all incomplete descriptions of a true “reality” and they all need each other to be whole.

I don’t know if there is a “reality”. I don’t know if the goals of Life, Physics and Math are the same and could lead to the same “reality”. I do agree of the universe is complex and there are many ways try to understand the Universe.

A few comments on style: I don’t like the use of initials. Each new initial was well defined, but I was always going back to figure out what is “CP”.

I feel the essay would flow better if you edited out the historical context and tangential facts about the subject areas.

Overall this was a good essay.

I hope you do well,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 01:14 GMT
Dear Jeff,

Thanks for our kind comments on my essay. Due to limited space available in this essay contest it becomes difficult to accommodate all information in it, especially, when you want to cover so many fields of study as I have done in my essay. I am sorry for not to have included as much of information as I would have liked to in my essay.

I will shortly respond to your essay and post my comments on it in your thread.

All the best,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:25 GMT
Greetings Sreenath..

Thank you for your comments on my essay page..

I appreciate your kind regard, and will return here soon with comments about your essay. Please be patient with me, as I have been busy. But I want to give your essay my full attention while reading.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 03:45 GMT
Hi Sreenath,

If with saying that ''there is no path between the orbits. So the points in both Space and Time are not causally connected; i.e., the connections are acausal'' you mean that at the most fundamental (quantum) level causality doesn't apply (which I vehemently agree with), then this has the all-important consequence that we can no longer conceive of the 'speed' of light c as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 10:56 GMT
Dear Anton,

You are absolutely right and I agree with what you have said.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 21:21 GMT
Dear Sreenath B N,

Looking for your essay I found it in alphabetic order at the letter N. We in Europe do not use a single letter as last name.

I promised to read your essay, and I smiled about your limitless wisdom. Didn't Einstein speak of limitless stupidity too?

While I also dealt with physiology, related basics of mathematics, and belonging foundational questions of physics and therefore found some agreeable views in your essay, I missed scientific precision in it, and admittedly, it didn't provide any new insight to me. I hope you will benefit from a few exemplary hints to what I consider minute imperfections:

- You confused Einstein's first and second postulates

- You wrote von Newman and certainly meant von Neuman

- You didn't explain what you meant with continuity when you wrote "continuous collection of bits"

- In your references you wrote Dr. Roger Penrose ...

Best,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 01:19 GMT
Dear Eckard.

I appreciate your insightful comments on my essay and try to cover up the mistakes in due course.

Best,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 06:33 GMT
Dear All

A standard-issue big city all-glass high-rise stands across the street from my usual bus stop. When I look up the high-rise facade, I can see the reflections of the near-by buildings and the white clouds from the sky above. Even when everything else looks pretty much the same, the reflections of the clouds are different, hour to hour and day to day.

After I boarded the bus,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Salvish Goomanee wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 08:46 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I have read through your essay which was interesting overall. However in this contest we are discussing philosophical principles using well founded ideas in physics and mathematics. Hence in order for your paper to be consistent with your ideas you have to ensure that your knowledge is perfectly coherent with the foundations of physics.

Firstly you said that "for a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 03:17 GMT
Dear Salvish,

I thank you for reading my essay and expressing some queries on it. I am glad to clarify your doubts.

My ideas are perfectly coherent with the foundations of physics and you don’t have to doubt it.

In what I have said "for a quantum physicist reality is out there to be invented", it is in perfect agreement with what the popular Copenhagen interpretation of QM...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 21:34 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I have read your essay and it contains some original thoughts.

However, I believe that when you are discussing reality in mathematics, then it is an oversimplification to say that mathematics can be divided in pure and applied mathematics. There are namely several views on what pure mathematics is, which are more or less widely held. At least two of them differ substantially concerning 'reality' in mathematics. If you take the most widely held view that mathematics is the body of statements that can be derived withing Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, then the mathematical universe is a Platonian universe of sets. That is, the sets are already there, the researcher only needs to 'discover' them. You can then prove that a set exists by proving that it is not possible that it doesn't exist. A different view is the intuitionism to which you refer in your references, which uses a different logic and rejects the use of this reductio ad absurdum. So from the intuitionisitic point of view you have to (positively) construct a set before you can say that it exists.

Any way, I gave your essay a nice rating.

Best regards,

Marcoen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 01:43 GMT
Dear Marcoen,

Thanks for reading my essay and rating it. I welcome your comments on my essay. your views on mathematics is much appreciated.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Patrick Tonin wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 15:33 GMT
Hi Sreenath,

As requested in my blog, here are my comments on your essay.

You wrote:

"Although Information & Reality (Bit & It) have physical origin, without mind they are in themselves empty and blind."

I would agree with that. I believe that mind is the power to control the inherent uncertainty in the Universe. The more developed the mind is, the more you can control the uncertainty and the more you stimulate evolution.

I believe that mind is real 3D information (accross past/present/future), unlike real space which, I believe, is 2D information (3D space is virtual). You will see what I mean if you read my essay. In fact, you should probably read my theory to understand what I mean about the mind/soul.

Overall I enjoyed reading your essay.

Cheers,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Patric,

Thanks for your comments on my essay. Now I am going to post my comments on your essay in your thread.

Best,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 21:13 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

A good essay although I do not see things as you do, and indeed like most articles.

But I think your overview, physics, mathematics, and biology is relevant.

That's why I give you a high score.

Good luck.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 01:08 GMT
Dear Amazigh,

I appreciate your kind comments on my essay and also for rating it.

Bet of luck,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 18:56 GMT
Dear All

Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman.

In the Character of Physical Law, he talked about the two-slit experiment like this “I will summarize, then, by saying that electrons arrive in lumps, like particles, but the probability of arrival of these lumps is detemined as the intensity of waves would be. It is this sense that the electron behaves sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave. It behaves in two different ways at the same time.

Further on, he advises the readers “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it. ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain’, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”

Did he says anything about Wheeler’s “It from Bit” other than what he said above?

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


CS Unnikrishnan wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 09:08 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Though I read your essay earlier, I could not write to you since I was travelling. Now that I am back, I have several questions of clarification. You seem to call definite states of matter as 'reality', rather than matter itself, and hence a distinction between realities of classical and quantum physics. However, at several points you seem to mix the two. For example, 'photons represent classical information as continuous collection of bits'. In any case, your basic treatment of space and time in the context of CP and QP seems problematic when you say, for example, that space and time are discrete in QP and there are gaps (for which you give example of quantized stationary states and quantum jumps). Quantum jumps do not imply discreteness of space and time. Indeed, writing the S-equation requires continuous time. Then you go on to say, from the fact of quantum correlations being stronger than classical correlation, that information is non-physical. That seems to me a true 'quantum jump' without a logical connection between. A similar extra-logical statement is made when you discuss biology and information: from a statement that the mind/brain can answer any question it asks, you conclude that there is no limit to capacity to gather information. However, the questions it can ask might themselves be limited! So, the conclusion does not follow logically.

Perhaps you have some reasons, beyond logic, to say these so emphatically?

Thank you.

Unnikrishnan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 17:31 GMT
Dear prof. Unnikrishnan,

I am very much thankful to you for reading my essay and posting your lucid comments on it and I am glad to answer them point by point.

1) In QP, we can call definite states of matter as 'reality' but in CP, we can call matter itself as 'reality'. I don’t see how the realities of both classical and quantum physics are mixed when I say “photons represent...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Kai Olaf Henkel wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 07:43 GMT
Dear Mr.Sreenath,

verry nice article. Maybe it is the best to the topioc of this contest.

I have only one question: Why you are sure, that time effects the wold of quantum?

I think a quantum, which runs with light speed, have no mass. Therefore which kind of quantums are not infeccted by time.

Good luck in the contets

Kai Henkel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 16:51 GMT
Dear Dr. Kai,

If you mean photon by quantum then you are right that it has no rest mass. If by quantum you mean electrons, protons, etc. which have rest mass, then their motion (evolution of psi-function)is described in time. Photons are not affected by time if they are left to themselves. Even in atomic molecular, etc. energy transitions, time doesn't play important role.

Thanks for your comments and queries.

Regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Douglas Alexander Singleton wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 10:48 GMT
Hi Sreenath,

A clever and broad ranging essay; I think it is one of the few (the only one?) to deal with biology (there are a lot of essays so there may be others). If I understand correctly the idea is that in biology its (physical objects) and bits (information) are on equal footing (whereas in classical physics its are primary and in quantum physics bits are primary).

There is some evidence that biological constructs store information -- in the development of a fetus at various stages the fetus of different animals mirrors in a sense the evolutionary steps that brought them to some common point before they diverged. Thus one could say the its of DNA store and use information from past evolution in building a new version of whatever it the DNA is coding for (mouse, money, man, etc.)

Also in your essay you mention that time for evolution to take place is important and generally takes a long time. But the question is "How long?". In this sense I was surprised to learn (recently after I mentioned to a biological colleague of mine that biology seemed less quantitative so he gave me the following as a counterexample) that biologist had developed a measure/unit of evolution called he "Darwin" -- the Darwin a a rate of change given by r=[Ln(X_1/X_2)]/Delta t. Delta t is some time period measured in millions of years (hence evolution takes in general a long time by human standards). X_1 and X_2 are the initial (X_1) and final (X_2) "values" of some trait. This part I was I bit unclear on -- what value does one give to X_1 and X_2? However the fact that one has ln(X_i) might remind one of entropy S~ ln (N) where N is the number of states. In any case if takes ln(X_i) as a measure of "entropy"/complexity of some trait of an organism then assuming things evolve from less complex to more complex one gets a positive rate of change, r or positive Darwin value. Something which devolves would have r

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 18:03 GMT
Dear Dr. Singleton,

Thanks for visiting my site and expressing your kind comments on my essay.

I have not yet come across (but soon go through) the above equation (in biology regarding evolution) you have mentioned. But, however, I feel that the ratio (X_1/X_2) represents rate of change of a particular 'trait' during evolution and we can not ascribe individual values to X_1 and X_2 but have to take them in ratio only. You comparing it to entropy S~ ln (N), looks interesting and I want to work out how far it is viable.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:22 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

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

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 02:35 GMT
Dear Amazigh,

I have read your essay and rated it too with a nice score.

best,

sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Michael Alexeevich Popov wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 13:44 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for your visit.

Because it is physical forum, may I ask you merely one very strange question : How we can make physical measurement of the bits of taking universal information seriously in reality ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 14:33 GMT
Dear Michael,

You can make measurement of bits by feeding them in to a computer in the form of digital bits. Another method, recording bits by instruments while performing an experiment related to measurements of quantum entities in the quantum world.

Thanks,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 20:49 GMT
Greetings Sreenath,

I have just now finished reading your interesting and excellent paper. I shall share a few comments shortly, and make my rating before day's end (I usually rate all the papers read each day at the same time).

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 01:51 GMT
OK then..

I wanted to say that you write well and that your essay was fun to read. And you and I share the same opinion about a lot of things. There are several points about which I agree strongly, and a few points of partial or mild disagreement. You note a simile between the way we learn about nature and how nature creates, and my research supports this notion. You also note there is a triangle with It and Bit at two points, and knowledge at the pinnacle. My essay comes to the same conclusion, or expands this idea somewhat.

In relation to the idea that the rules of biology are not simply a product of physical law, I am largely in agreement. The fact is; living creatures seem to be a law unto themselves, and more than the sum of their pieces. And it's certainly safer to say they are unrelated, if we consider how Penrose was treated for saying Physics determines the behavior of neurons. But you might want to check out a book called Reflexive Universe by Arthur M. Young, which suggests a common basis for the evolution of life forms and other form - atoms linking into molecules and so on.

I have some doubts about the cogency of where you draw the line distinguishing It and Bit, and Quantum and Classical, but even so your essay will be rated good to excellent. More later, if there is time.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 08:46 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay. I will try to read the book suggested by you. There is no demarcation line between Classical and Quantum; Classical is Classical and the Quantum is Quantum. Most believe that there is demarcation zone and for that they implicitly assume that both are based on the same 'scale'. According to me, this very conception is wrong. You can't measure them on the same scale as this is tantamount to saying that both 'interaction range' and the 'gravitational range are one and the same instead of saying that both are related to each other.

Regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Neil Bates wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 09:11 GMT
Sreenath, I did not have time to carefully study your essay, but I am impressed with anyone that tries to redefine out basic approach to reality. You might fond my essay interesting, at /1610.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David Levan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 09:41 GMT
Best of Luck for the Magnificent Eight !

I am throught the 180 essays, all rated. For me 2/3 of them were poor and other 1/6 curious. The rest (1/6) have I rated over 4/10.

You are among the authors of the top essays from my sight - alphabetically :

Corda, D'Ariano, Maguire, Rogozhin, Singleton, Sreenath, Vaid, Vishwakarma,

and I hope one of you will be the winner. Thanks, for your rating.

David

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 09:49 GMT
Dear David,

Thanks for your kind compliments in advance and I wish it to be so.

Best,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:02 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

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

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

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

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

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

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Paul Borrill,

I appreciate your kind comments on my essay. I read your essay and shortly post my comments on it in your thread.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



james r. akerlund wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:46 GMT
Hi Sreenath,

Just read your submission and I liked how you involved Biology in the "it vs bit" question. It is throwing in the observer as quantum mechanics requires in the "it vs bit" question. You saw the contest question in a bigger picture then most of the submissions in this contest. Good job and good luck.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 14:53 GMT
Dear Jim,

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay and I wish you too best of luck.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:41 GMT
Greetings Sreenath,

Good luck in the finals.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 08:05 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for your compliments and I wish you too good luck in the finals.

Regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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