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

cheng zhang: on 9/1/13 at 3:26am UTC, wrote I HAVE A NEW ARTICLE TO CORRECT THE MISTAKE IN THE PAPER: On Being ...

cheng zhang: on 8/11/13 at 8:01am UTC, wrote I MUST ADMIT THERE ARE SOME MISTAKES IN THE PAPER, SO I HAVE A NEW ARTICLE:...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 19:03pm UTC, wrote Dear Cheng Zhang, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the...

Héctor Gianni: on 8/4/13 at 20:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Cheng Zhang: I am an old physician and...

Peter Jackson: on 8/4/13 at 19:33pm UTC, wrote Cheng, Do you consider geometry to be a consistent categorical language? ...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/4/13 at 18:36pm UTC, wrote Dear Cheng, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Sreenath N: on 8/4/13 at 17:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Cheng, I have read your essay and want to express my comments on it....

Sreenath N: on 8/3/13 at 5:40am UTC, wrote Dear Cheng, I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it....


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: On Being by Cheng Zhang [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author cheng zhang wrote on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 17:44 GMT
Essay Abstract

The paper shows being is an object can be expressed in any consistent, categorical language. the information of being equals the information of any consistent and categorical language.

Author Bio

I am a student in Fudan University,Shanghai,China.I am interested in foundamental questions since I am in the high school.Luckily,I find myself share some...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 16:15 GMT
Mr. Zhang,

Unfortunately, only one page of your prospective interesting essay seems to be available. This is a pity for you were making some profound observations in the one page I read. I do not know any other language besides English and I respectfully ask you to consider the following: Everything must be everywhere, but nothing can be anywhere. A thing must always be in a place, but...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author cheng zhang replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 07:59 GMT
Thank you for your comment.In the article, nothingness doesn't only mean not a thing,there is no space nor time,neither.

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 23:56 GMT
Dear Zhang,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. The statements are a bit confusing.

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

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

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 04:50 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


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 10:06 GMT
Dear Cheng,

You say: "both being and nothingness are objects. Being expresses objects

that exist, nothingness expresses objects that do not exist"

I am sure, if you wrote in more detatail, you would have mentioned that the binary states, depicted 0 and 1 could depict your objects, i.e. (being) and (nothingness).

Your essay is one-page long but philosophically contains more than some essays I have read. I will therefore be scoring you highly despite the brevity.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 22:25 GMT
Dear Cheng

An interesting statement about language, but that it is too sketchy.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 16:18 GMT
Dear Cheng,

I like how you've utilised nothingness. You seem to have thought of this much more thoroughly than some ever manage. Original direction for the Bit/It question.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 16:47 GMT
Dear Cheng,

Very novel and fundamental approach. I'm now pretty convinced we really are something very real, and perhaps a lot more real than we can know.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 20:10 GMT
Cheng,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 01:54 GMT
Dear Sir,

We describe the physical world through languages. Languages are concepts of objects expressed through sound signals. Thus, it is always associated with some perceived object. When you say nothingness, it cannot mean ‘objects that do not exist’, but only mean ‘objects that do not exist at here-now’, otherwise even the concept would not come to our mind. It may also mean combinations that cannot be physically sustained. There are rabbits and there are horns. But the ‘horns of a rabbit’ is physically not sustainable. When you talk about –a in your last para, you still use a only with sign reversed signaling it is not present at here-now. Without the concept of a, you cannot describe –a.

‘The objects language cannot express’ refers to uniqueness. Language only expresses whatever is perceived fully, because only then we can assign a concept (name) to such experience (form or activity) and compare it with subsequent experiences through that concept. Only concepts that are unique and do not conform to any known form or activity as isomorphic cannot be expressed in languages.

You are correct that “Being is isomorphic to any consistent and categorical language model” and “If a language L can define ‘the objects this language can express’, any element any element in any model of language L can be expressed in language L, the elements in different models expressed by the same elements in language L is isomorphic to each other”.

You can read our essay: “INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776” published on May 31.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author cheng zhang wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 02:15 GMT
On Being

In this article, both being and nothingness are objects. Being expresses objects that exist, nothingness expresses objects that do not exist.

1. 1.The language that can express being is consistent.

2. Therefore, a language that is not consistent cannot express being.

2. 1. If being cannot be expressed in a consistent language, therefore, some being is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 05:40 GMT
Dear Cheng,

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

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 17:54 GMT
Dear Cheng,

I have read your essay and want to express my comments on it. Please meet me urgently at , bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 18:36 GMT
Dear Cheng,

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


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 19:33 GMT
Cheng,

Do you consider geometry to be a consistent categorical language?

I'd hoped you may have time to read and comment on my essay which is based on 3D geometry and seems to show immense resolving power. I'm sure you will like it.

Some have been put off by the dense abstract. Please don't be, all find it most readable, with blog comments including; "groundbreaking", "clearly significant", "astonishing", "fantastic job", "wonderful", "remarkable!", "deeply impressed", etc. 

I think yours has been grossly undervalued simply due to it's length, but to be brief, concise and to the point does not detract from the point if it is important, as yours is, so it deserves a much higher score.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 20:33 GMT
Dear Cheng Zhang:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”.

I am sending you a practical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:03 GMT
Dear Cheng Zhang,

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 cheng zhang wrote on Aug. 11, 2013 @ 08:01 GMT
I MUST ADMIT THERE ARE SOME MISTAKES IN THE PAPER, SO I HAVE A NEW ARTICLE:

On Being

1. Being are the objects that exsit, nonbeing are objects that do not exsit.

2. The theory that expresses being is consistent, therefore, a theory that is not consistent does not express being.

3. If there is some being a cannot be expressed by a consistent, categorical theory, a theory T can be constructed:” a exist, and only a exsit.” T expresses a, so T is consistent. T is categorical, therefore, being are the objects can be expressed by a consistent, categorical theory.

4. Assume a object can be expressed by a consistent, categorical theory is nonbeing. Nonbeing are objects that do not exsit. Therefore, the object does not exsit. This is not consistent. Nonbeing are the objects that cannot expressed by a consistent, categorical theory.

5. Being are the objects can be expressed by a consistent, categorical theory. Nonbeing are the objects that cannot expressed by a consistent, categorical theory. Therefore, being equal the objects can be expressed by a consistent, categorical theory.

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Author cheng zhang wrote on Sep. 1, 2013 @ 03:26 GMT
I HAVE A NEW ARTICLE TO CORRECT THE MISTAKE IN THE PAPER:

On Being

1. Being are the objects that exsit, nonbeing are objects that do not exsit.

2. The theory that expresses being is consistent, therefore, a theory that is not consistent does not express being.

3. If there is some being A cannot be expressed by a consistent, categorical theory, a theory T can be constructed:” A exist, and only A exsit.” T expresses A, so T is consistent. T is categorical, therefore, being are the objects can be expressed by a consistent, categorical theory.

4. Assume objects can be expressed by a consistent, categorical theory are nonbeing. Nonbeing are objects that do not exsit. Therefore, the objects do not exsit. The consistent, categorical theory does not express any object. This is not consistent. If objects isomorphic to the object that exsits can be viewed as being, objects can be expressed by a consistent, categorical theory are being. Nonbeing are the objects that cannot expressed by a consistent, categorical theory.

5. Being are the objects can be expressed by a consistent, categorical theory. Nonbeing are the objects that cannot expressed by a consistent, categorical theory. Therefore, being equal the objects can be expressed by a consistent, categorical theory.

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.