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

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 19:23pm UTC, wrote Dear Héctor, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Michael Helland: on 8/6/13 at 19:32pm UTC, wrote Hi Hector, I like your essay and rated it with a top score. Mine is here

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/5/13 at 23:20pm UTC, wrote Dear hector, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 8/5/13 at 8:23am UTC, wrote Dear Dr Gianni I read with great interest you post on my essay and also...

Antony Ryan: on 8/4/13 at 22:24pm UTC, wrote Hi Héctor, I see you didn't understand my comment above. When I initially...

Héctor Gianni: on 8/4/13 at 19:29pm UTC, wrote Dear Waldo: You understood, but if you want to...

Ralph Walker III: on 8/4/13 at 2:59am UTC, wrote Dear Hector, Thank you for inviting me to read your essay. If I...

Patrick Tonin: on 8/3/13 at 7:05am UTC, wrote Dear Hector, Thank you for your post on my blog. I already left you a post...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "I am aware that Max Tegmark is the director of the organization that runs..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Georgina Woodward: "What is happening in material reality provides the connection to inertia...." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: ""We saw early on that as conformed by countless experiment, there is no..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Ian Durham: ""Loony" Max Tegmark is the director of the organization that runs this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


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
August 25, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: The deep nature of reality by Héctor Daniel Gianni [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 14:37 GMT
Essay Abstract

The deep nature of reality I choose the following ideas of John Wheeler, because since we know that with clocks, we are measuring “motion” and no time, my essay perfectly feats with those ideas. “It from bit or bit from it” are just the words with which John Wheeler condensed his main thoughts as: “According to the it from bit, we create not only truth, but even reality itself--the "it"--with the questions we ask”. “Reality might not be wholly physical; in some sense, our cosmos might be a participatory phenomenon, requiring the act of observation--and thus consciousness itself”. “How could we all have been so blind for so long!” “I would like to stand for. We can and will understand." What you do, makes a big difference, if you don’t have the necessary information “you are measuring time” so you are measuring something that flow uniformly that have a direction that can’t reverse, that can’t be physically related to any other physical existing thing, but if you do the necessary observation you become conscious that what you are measuring its “motion” not time Our participatory phenomenon that required the act of observation and thus consciousness itself, makes that when still doing the same, “measuring with a clock” we are not anymore measuring time but “motion” Our careful observation allowed us to become conscious, that what we always were measuring was “motion”. So time disappear, becoming physically inexistent “motion” comes with definition and empiric meaning Since around two thousand years the physic discipline began as such, one of the most fundamental parts of it, “motion” occupies its own right place as one of the legs of the physics table Wheeler “a mystery left to explain”, was time “now it lights up”

Author Bio

University of Buenos Aires, degree MD. MN. Nº 32.803, 1967. ECFMG Candidate number 097729 approved 78 % Jan/22/1968 Surgical Intern The Queen’s Medical Center, Honolulu Hawaii 1968-1969 Psychiatry Residency Metropolitan State Hospital, Waltham Mass.1969-1970-1971-1972 Advanced Study in Psychotherapy at Harvard Medical School, Mass.1971-1972. I taught Clinical psychiatry at Tufts Medical School, Boston Mass. 1971-1972 Staff psychiatrist Florida State Hospital, 1972-1975. Research: “The Institute of Medical research, Dr Alfredo Lanari” University of Buenos Aires, field: nervous transmissions. 1979-1983. Private practice: Psychoterapist

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share
post approved


David M Reid wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 05:07 GMT
Hola, Dr. Gianni,

Your essay raises a central and valid question, that of the lack of a clear definition of time in physics: or, as some would put it, there is no time operator. Your point that one deals with durations rather than points of time is also a good one, which is why much of the mathematics used in physics is based on algebras of intervals. You also hit upon a key question in asking how far we confound psychological time with physical time. The questions are good, and it will be interesting to see whether they are, or even can be, answered.

Suerte,

David

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 11:13 GMT
Dear Dr Gianni and David Reid

In my essay I deal with time, which seems to be an area of focus for you. I hope you find it interesting, in that I locate the initiator of time as the action of a global principle that is not time related. You may find the essay rather abstract, but one would expect this, given the need to step outside empiricism.

Unfortunately, given the page limit I was unable to do more than provide the bare bones (and could not, within the essay constraints talk about our local time or experiential time). The rest will be contained in a nearly completed work, "The Armchair Universe" (working title). I would be very keen to receive feedback on this essay, especially as it relates to time.

Stephen Anastasi.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 06:25 GMT
Dear Gianni,

Your essay or abstract are not visible here. David's Post is visible....

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

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 17:14 GMT
Hello Hector,

I can't seem to find the link to your essay on various devices and browsers.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 06:05 GMT
Dear Héctor

You make a very interesting problem, I appreciate your essay because we have a few similarities with each other - 7 points.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 16:08 GMT
Respectfully Dr. Gianni,

Reality does not have a nature. I went to extraordinary lengths in my essay BITTERS to explain that the real Universe is unique, once. I even helpingly noted that the absolute of time is now.

You wrote: “Reasoning about something is a continuous process, which its recognizable unique limits, are given by the beginning and the finalization of it. Unique, once cannot have limits. Unique, once cannot be continuous. Unique, once, cannot have either a beginning or an end. That is why the unique Universe is eternally occurring.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:41 GMT
Hola David:

I didn’t raise the central question, mankind did it for us at least the last 25 hundred years. What I offer is the answer physicists are searching for the last 50 years. Most of them to be able to join general relativity to quantum mechanics. I don’t deal with durations that just imply the “motion” length; I do deal with “constant” “uniform” “motions” as celestial bodies and clocks and with no “constant” ones, which are the most of them, and we usually measure. “Intervals” as a main difference with “motion” doesn’t have physical existence. I am glad you become interested by my essay, by the way I don’t ask myself any question about physical and psychological “time” that is just a remnant word of which mankind forgot its meaning. I ‘m just referring to physical and psychological present past and future and that the last two only exist during our consideration of them in our psychological present.

Muchas gracias por tus buenos deseos

Héctor

Bookmark and Share



Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:47 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Gupta:

I don’t understand how you are answering me, if you was not able to read my abstract and essay, that as you whish are about reality, and with a demonstration base on solid arguments and centuries old proves.

First you don’t know if you fail yet, you have to keep trying, certainly is hard to go against mankind main stream and specially on science, they use to keep flowing in the same direction. I answering now, later I going to read your essay, but I know almost nothing about cosmology.

Héctor

Bookmark and Share



Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:49 GMT
Hi Antony:

I am sorry but I wasn’t able to understand you. I thank you for whishes.

Héctor

Bookmark and Share



Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 22:12 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher:

I choose to titled my essay “The deep nature of reality” I wouldn’t say that “Reality does not have nature”, but I would agree that the meaning of “reality” could be included in the meaning of “nature” so my essay title is a kind of redundancy.

As you can see in “The End of Science,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 05:12 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


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:55 GMT
Hector,

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


M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 16:15 GMT
Dear Dr. Gianni,

thank you for stopping by to comment on my entry and for your kind invitation to read your essay. I appreciate your unique view of the continuum inherent in the arrow of time and your answer to the question of the ever-elusive 'now'. I also find your apparent aversion to . in the end of a sentence intriguing, as if you never want it to end or perhaps to be so crudely extracted and separated from the continuous flow of the context it is in. This makes a vivid illustration to the main theme of your essay. Thank you for sharing it and good luck with the rest of the competition.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 06:44 GMT
Hector,

in response to your feverish post in my thread:

Once upon a time there was a fisherman who went into the sea daily. One day, far away from the shore, he caught a fish he had never seen before. So beautiful and unusual it was, the man was certain he could ask a good price for it. He brought it to the market as soon as he could. But. Alas. The fish was so delicate that by the time he showed to people, no-one saw any value in it.

Your essay is hard to read. Knowing your limitations, you could hire a translator. You did not. Now you are upset that people do not understand you.

Ah?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 21:30 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva:

Thanks you

Héctor

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 15:03 GMT
Dear Dr. Gianni,

Your highly original treatise was most absorbing. I am a science writer, and my work preparing texts for publication has bred a broad perspective in me - one that also takes into account the interaction of Mind and Cosmos, as is the case with you.

Mind defines the Observer's 'patch of reality' at any given moment, and continues to do so throughout evolution.

Even if we could describe the quantum world in perfect mathematical language, we would still have only described some small part of our Cosmos perfectly; and we would still be involved in our distinctive human Cosmos ... one that displays a continuous correlation between Bit and It over the course of evolution.

As you can probably tell, this is one of the strands of my essay – which I think you would find very interesting. I hope you will have a chance to read it.

All the best,

John

(jselye@gmail.com)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 15:05 GMT
Hello, Héctor

A very interesting essay. The main task of the contest FQXi-depth new ideas. You bring forth new ideas. But the real mystery is the mystery of reality "generating structures." If we "grab" (understand) "generating structure" we "grasp" the mystery (nature) of the time and information. If we split the "generating structure" (which physicists do in their experiments and theories, "guessing the equation "), the mystery of time is not disclosed. "Protean nature" (a metaphor matter) need to catch small "network", a form which tells us the goddess forms - Eydoteya. Excellent rating. Look, comment on my essay and fair vote. We can understand each other as a lyricist lyrics. I wish you success and respect, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 04:17 GMT
Hello Héctor,

Thank you for your invitation to read and comment on your essay. Even though your English made it hard going, I believe I got the gist of it, and because I think I understand where you're coming from, I will make a few constructive observations.

1. We all use time whether we know how to describe it or not, indeed, we have no choice because the period between something...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 16:01 GMT
Dear Héctor,

As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your Essay which I have found enjoyable and a bit provocative. I have also found interesting your rational demonstration which should prove that with the clock one measures motion rather than time. On the other and, by setting c=1, time and motion, in the sense of travelling in space, become the same thing. In any case, I enjoyed in reading your Essay, thus, I am going to give you a high rate.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 14:04 GMT
Hi Héctor,

In your essay, you say that time is a useful concept that early humans created, with the "day" being an example of a time concept created by humans.

You say time can't be sensed or described like gravity and inertia can be sensed and described, because time doesn't really exist. You say that a lot of confusion would be avoided if we realised that time is actually motion. You discuss factors like temperature that affect motion.

You say that there is a psychological present separate from the physical present, and say that the psychological present is approximately one second behind the physical present or "now" .

But I think that time (properly understood) DOES exist. In my essay I contend that "laws of nature" represent static information category relationships: they do not represent nature actively performing mathematical calculations, so laws of nature do not represent change in numerical information. I argue that time and change of number is injected via quantum decoherence. In other words "time...unfolds...[and] the unique actual physical outcome...unfolds in an unpredictable way as time progresses" (physicist George Ellis).

I am sorry that I cannot agree with you. Best wishes,

Lorraine

(I have also posted the above comment on my essay forum)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 00:11 GMT
Héctor,

I found your essay much in keeping to the findings that time is relative to the existence of motion. I would like to run some questions by you via email. What is your email address? My email address is msm@physicsofdestiny.com

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 22:00 GMT
Dear Hector

WE HAVE 2 DIFFERENT KINDS OF SYMMETRY: DISCRETE AND CONTINUOUS.

BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM

DISCRETE SYMMETRY IS STATIC SYMMETRY(REFLECTIONS,PARITY,ETC). NOT DEMANDING MOTION,CHANGE IN TIME

CONTINUOUS SYMMETRY IS DYNAMIC, DEMANDING MOTION(ROTATIONS,TRANSLATIONS,SHIFTS,ETC) CHANGE IN TIME.

THE MOTION SUPPOSED TO BE DIFFERENT VELOCITY (FROM SMALL TO RELATIVISTIC)

WHEN WE GOING TO RELATIVISTIC VELOCITY OBJEKT GET DIFFERENT LORENTCIAN DEFORMATION AND CONTINUOUS SYMMETRY LOST ITS SENSE.WE GET SOME KIND SELF-REJECTION OF CONTINOUS SYMMETRY.

DOES DISCRETE SYMMETRY ONLY REAL SYMMETRY?

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 02:49 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
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 06:51 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
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 16:53 GMT
Hector,

It was absolutely wonderful to read you essay. My last two essays have developed this and it's implications but I was beginning to think I was on my own and going crazy! I've often quoted Einstein's;

"There is no such a thing as an empty space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field."

Currently I describe that 'motion' as what turns a simple rotating dipole into a double helix, and show it's power.

The importance of this thesis can't be overstated. I propose that the great "simple idea" we've all been blind about is that, contrary to all current theory (including even interpretation of Einstein!) 'TIME' itself does not change or 'dilate,' only the emitted 'signals', physical motions of some 'thing' in motion, are effected, compressed or contracted, and they are not 'time'!

Thank you and very well done for your essay on this massively important subject. A top mark from me for sure. But how do we get more to throw off the blindness? I do hope you'll read (and score) my essay, which is entirely field and motion based, where the concept is developed to demonstrate it's power.

Congratulations, hold on for a big boost, and very best of luck in the run in.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 22:09 GMT
Dear Sreenath B N:

Thak you for reading my essay. This is a demostration, using centuries old proved facts. I don't need any theory,

Thanks

Héctor

Bookmark and Share



Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 22:29 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson:

About "time" we don't, even speak the same language.

Thank you

Héctor

Bookmark and Share



Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 22:33 GMT
Dear Yuri Danoyan:

I am so sorry, I don't know what you are talking about.

Thank you for reading my essay.

Héctor

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear Hector,

Your essay contain bright ideas. You talk a lot about motion in your essay. If you see something and it disappears, has it moved? Or if something appear suddenly has it moved? That is, is moving from somewhere to nowhere a motion? If you say, No and the thing is no longer in its place, how can it not be motion? If you say, yes, then it means you don't have to know where something has gone or its new place before you say it has moved. You might find some quotes from Newton on motion in my essay interesting.

May all the best things come your way,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 21:48 GMT
Dear Akimbo Ojo:

I am going to make things simple and understandable. With my clock I measure “motion”, and I can demonstrate with centuries old proved facts, that what I am measuring is “motion”. With your clock, what are you measuring? and, how can you prove, that what you are measuring, is what you said to be measuring?

Best whishes

Héctor

Bookmark and Share



Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:17 GMT
Dear Sreenath B N

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


Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 03:26 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
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 10:44 GMT
Dear Hector,

Interesting essay.

If we don't know what the absolute time is, we have clocks to synchronize our human activities. Atomic clocks are the most accurate time and frequency standards known.

I spent a lot of time understanding what the mesaurement of time means

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0510044

But on our topic of today I wrote

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

Time in quantum realm is weird.

Best wishes,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 02:57 GMT
Hello Hector

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


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 01:47 GMT
Hector,

You have it all right, but you miss the reason why it is proving so difficult to accept and model. We, as individual points of reference, experience time as a sequence of events and so it becomes a vector from past to future, but the underlaying reality is that change is causing future potential to become past circumstance. For example, it isn't the earth traveling some dimension...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 20:26 GMT
Dear John:

The explanation why the so called “time” is “motion” is quite clear the real problem I think, it is that as I said we inherit the incognita of what we are measuring from primitive men. The word “time” and not knowing what it means come together from the beginning of every civilization on earth- In every literature come the word “time”, since we born we hear the word “time”, we use the word and their derivatives very frequently during the day, every day of our life. Is possible but very difficult for everybody to express themselves without using the word “time”. Since we born we put the word “time” in the neuronal circuits of our brain. Even Rovelli denying “time” existence to explain his relationist theory, refer to a subyacent “time” the “true time” and the “time” that lies beneath everything. Even denying “time” he can’t get rid from the word, and he is a physicist. Before accepting that the so called “time” is “motion” you should abandon the word “time” and this is very difficult for everybody, people can’t express themselves without using the “word” This attachment to the word prevail over the rational prove I gave in my essay that with the clock we measure “motion” and not the mysterious “time”.

About your “different clock run at different rates” does not matter at what rate a clock run, always will be a good clock if the rate is maintained , the movements of the clock or the speed at which the hour hand run over the dial that’s not matter if this speed is “constant” “uniform” “regular”, the variable should have this condition to be a clock. With a “constant” “motion” we measure comparatively every “no constant” “motion” which integrates every change and transformation of everything physical existing thing.

Héctor

Bookmark and Share



Patrick Tonin wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 12:47 GMT
Dear Hector,

This is a brilliant essay and it is the first one I see that talks about time as motion. I think that we are in agreement.

If you are interested, please take a look at my theory, I think that you will find that we have a lot of common viewpoints. Try to read it to the end (especially the coherent spacetime continuum paragraph) and let me know if my representation of past/present/future matches your ideas.

You can also take a look at my essay but it is essentially the begining of my theory.

Cheers,

Patrick

PS: I am married to a psychiatrist !

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 06:56 GMT
Dear Héctor,

I salute your efforts to clarify the problem of time. Your essay shows you put much time and deep philosophical thinking in this investigation. I agree that this is about "motion", or "change", and there are many complementary angles to look at time, depending on the problems we want to understand and solve.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 16:14 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 18:10 GMT
Dear John:

The explanation why the so called “time” is “motion” is quite clear the real problem I think, it is that as I said we inherit the incognita of what we are measuring from primitive men. The word “time” and not knowing what it means come together from the beginning of every civilization on earth- In every literature come the word “time”, since we born we hear the word “time”, we use the word and their derivatives very frequently during the day, every day of our life. Is possible but very difficult for everybody to express themselves without using the word “time”. Since we born we put the word “time” in the neuronal circuits of our brain. Even Rovelli denying “time” existence to explain his relationist theory, refer to a subyacent “time” the “true time” and the “time” that lies beneath everything. Even denying “time” he can’t get rid from the word, and he is a physicist. Before accepting that the so called “time” is “motion” you should abandon the word “time” and this is very difficult for everybody, people can’t express themselves without using the “word” This attachment to the word prevail over the rational prove I gave in my essay that with the clock we measure “motion” and not the mysterious “time”.

About your “different clock run at different rates” does not matter at what rate a clock run, always will be a good clock if the rate is maintained , the movements of the clock or the speed at which the hour hand run over the dial that’s not matter if this speed is “constant” “uniform” “regular”, the variable should have this condition to be a clock. With a “constant” “motion” we measure comparatively every “no constant” “motion” which integrates every change and transformation of everything physical existing thing.

Héctor

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 06:32 GMT
Dear Héctor,

I hope the comment I wrote here, and lost during changing the server, will be restored. If not, I will try to make another one.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Patrick Tonin wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 07:05 GMT
Dear Hector,

Thank you for your post on my blog. I already left you a post on this blog but it seems to have disappeared ?!

If I understand correctly what you are saying, then I think that we have a similar way to look at time. In my theory, past/present/future information co-exists in layers. In relation to each layer, the inner layers represent the past and the outer layers represent the future. There are as many "presents" as there are layers and they all form a coherent space-time continuum. To an external observer, we and our surrounding world are just information moving at the speed of light through the time dimension (the layers). So we could say that time is motion. You will understand better what I mean if you read my 3D Universe Theory. Let me know if that is in line with what you are explaining in your essay.

You can also read my essay but it is essentially the beginning of my theory.

Best regards,

Patrick

PS: my wife is also a psychiatrist !

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 02:59 GMT
Dear Hector,

Thank you for inviting me to read your essay. If I understand your main premise, it is that we are actually measuring the 'motion' of objects within the universe rather than actually measuring 'time' itself. This is a very deep, fundamental concept. After all, if suddenly, everything in the universe completely froze into complete and utter stillness, what 'time' would it be? There would be no such thing as 'time' if NOTHING WHATSOEVER MOVED. So I think you have made an extremely interesting observation.

I hope I have understood you correctly. If not, please clarify it for me. I admire your thinking and appreciate the fact that you wrote on a deep and complex subject what is for you, a second language.

I wish you the best in the future.

Sincerely,

Ralph

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 19:29 GMT
Dear Waldo:

You understood, but if you want to clarified the subject a little more.a) you should forget about “time” this is now just a word without definition or empiric meaning that came to us from primitive men, has not physical existence. What primitive men and us do is just with “constant” “uniform” “regular” motion, which was celestial motions, or now clocks, we do measure all “NO constant” movements which are part and integrates every change and transformation (impossible without motion) of ourselves or of things that surround us. As Einstein said space, time, event are just men creation and tools of thought. We should always remember that “constant” motion means motion always at the same speed, “uniform” with no change, this kind of motion characterize the sun, or the hour hand of our clock. I we read with atention more than once the essay, we will find out new things. Thank you for reading it, and I am glad you enjoy it.

Best whishes

Héctor

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 22:24 GMT
Hi Héctor,

I see you didn't understand my comment above. When I initially tried to read your essay the link didn't work to download the PDF.

I was trying to help as I thought it would mean nobody could read it. Glad it works now!

Nice essay - I rate it highly now. I like your points on observation. Please take a look at mine if you get the chance.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 08:23 GMT
Dear Dr Gianni

I read with great interest you post on my essay and also your contribution to this contest.

It seems we have a lot of perceptions in common regarding time, if you attentively have read my essay (topic 1810) you could have perceived that I am introducing the "Eternal Now" which solves one of the problems of continuity.

And also we agree upon that time is just a clockwork with reference of the human being, I am explaining this by saying : "the reference of reference is consciousness"

I am an "old" architectural engineer and like you I do not understand too much of mathematics , but for a "real" understanding it is my opinion that no formula's are needed.

I liked very much your approach and gave it a good rating , which I hope you did mine and if not pls do so), if you are interested my former essays (topic 913 and 1370) were published (also in print) in the "Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research" Vol 3 No 10 (2012) as : "FOUNDATION OD REALITY : TOTAL SIMULTANEITY" and "A METAPHYSICAL CONCEPT OF CONSCIOUSNESS" (http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/264 (and 265) , there is also an article of Massimo Cocchi which may interest you : "Possible Roles of Cell Membrane & Cytoskeleton in Quantum Aspect of Psychiatry".

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:20 GMT
Dear hector,

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


Michael Helland wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 19:32 GMT
Hi Hector,

I like your essay and rated it with a top score.

Mine is here

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:23 GMT
Dear Héctor,

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


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.