Dear Johnson,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

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

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

view entire post

Dear Johnson,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

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

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.b
logspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-downloa
d/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

……. I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data……

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

….And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?— in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

…..Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

view post as summary

Hi, Conrad,

Your thesis was extremely well argued; both the exposition and the logic (nicely clear of mathematical formalisms to make it readable for the lay person) were very clear, without any glaring gaps. Bravo!

There are, naturally, some points that one can nitpick. For example, you make an interesting case for the inability of a circular and hence infinite backward recursion...

view entire post

Hi, Conrad,

Your thesis was extremely well argued; both the exposition and the logic (nicely clear of mathematical formalisms to make it readable for the lay person) were very clear, without any glaring gaps. Bravo!

There are, naturally, some points that one can nitpick. For example, you make an interesting case for the inability of a circular and hence infinite backward recursion to be put outside the realm of mathematics. However, there are (often non-standard) mathematical systems which deal precisely with such recursions. As well, invoking complexity also does not invalidate a mathematical treatment, as fields such as Chaos Theory show. Finally, your analogy with the evolutionary process could also be used to point out that, just as evolutionary theory in biology has well-grounded mathematical bases, so too could an evolutionary universe which you envisage be based on mathematics.

(Darwinian evolutionary theory consists of two parts: the mutations, and the natural selection. To see some mathematical details connected to the latter part, one could look at the article (also inspired by Wheeler) "Quantum Darwinism and envariance" by W.H. Zurek in the collection "Science and Ultimate Reality", ed. Barrow, Davies and Harper, Cambridge University Press, 2004.)

Overall, an excellent and enjoyable essay.

Best,

David

view post as summary

Dear Conrad,

I noticed you wrote "But in our universe, equations govern on.e on-one interactions between individual entities, and what happens in any situation depends on a non-linear combination of many different kinds of interactions going on at once".

This sounds quite logical and something that isn't often considered - important point!

I like that your essay is built...

view entire post

Dear Conrad,

I noticed you wrote "But in our universe, equations govern on.e on-one interactions between individual entities, and what happens in any situation depends on a non-linear combination of many different kinds of interactions going on at once".

This sounds quite logical and something that isn't often considered - important point!

I like that your essay is built around observation plus your abstract is clear and concise. Please take a look at my essay which is also based around observation, but from a different angle.

Best wishes for the contest,

Antony

view post as summary

Dear Conrad,

Your essay is very interesting. It almost seems you're giving Wheeler the benefit of the doubt. Your words make sense, but Wheelers are over the edge. Reality does NOT arise from the answer to yes and no questions, only our knowledge of reality. One might conclude either that Wheeler simply could not express himself well, or that he was a solipsist, or he was confused. ...

view entire post

Dear Conrad,

Your essay is very interesting. It almost seems you're giving Wheeler the benefit of the doubt. Your words make sense, but Wheelers are over the edge. Reality does NOT arise from the answer to yes and no questions, only our knowledge of reality. One might conclude either that Wheeler simply could not express himself well, or that he was a solipsist, or he was confused. You, on the other hand, express yourself well and do not seem confused. You propose that measurement can [did] evolve through accidental selection. In the 1970s, as part of my dissertation, I analyzed a robot simply randomly kicking three different sized stones, with a number generating visual system, and ask how the robot could use the arbitrary numbers to recognize patterns and derive dynamics to create a theory of physics. In short, how to derive theories from measurement numbers, assuming one initially knows nothing about what the numbers represent. I touch on this in my current essay, which I hope you will read. Obviously the observed trajectories of three different size 'kicked' stones are classical in nature. You start with the more difficult QM case, which I believe should realistically follow the development of the classical theory. You may imply this when you state: "however such a web is constituted, at bottom it's very coarsely woven."

We seem to use slightly different terminology here, but I think we agree. I particularly like your "correlation of information between systems" as superpositions of possible states and your analysis of when these superpositions "collapse". I agree that this is epistemological, not ontological, i.e., "no reason to think any objective physical collapse occurs."

I also very much like your discussion of biological processes as analogous to the evolution of measurement and your statement: "the de facto "purpose" of this process is just keep itself going." A beautiful correspondence between life and the institution of physics.

I'm not sure I understand your question about "account for the fact that there are observable phenomena in the world." If you mean why do things exist, then I agree with you. If you're asking "how do we partition the observed universe into particular phenomenon", then I provide one answer in my essay.

I agree that this kind of theory is unlikely to explain the fine tuning of physical parameters.

Your last four paragraphs are excellent, leading up to the question "so if the equations are not running the show, then why are they there?" This may relate to the process I describe elsewhere by which we recognize the patterns, form feature vectors, "tune" the feature representation and deduce dynamical relations. That is, it may all be merely an overlay!

Thanks for a stimulating essay. I hope you find time to read and comment upon my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

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

1 . THE...

view entire post

Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

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

1 . THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES

A. What thing is new and the difference in the absolute theory than other theories?

The first is concept of "Absolute" in my absolute theory is defined as: there is only one - do not have any similar - no two things exactly alike.

The most important difference of this theory is to build on the entirely new basis and different platforms compared to the current theory.

B. Why can claim: all things are absolute - have not of relative ?

It can be affirmed that : can not have the two of status or phenomenon is the same exists in the same location in space and at the same moment of time - so thus: everything must be absolute and can not have any of relative . The relative only is a concept to created by our .

C. Why can confirm that the conclusions of the absolute theory is the most specific and detailed - and is unique?

Conclusion of the absolute theory must always be unique and must be able to identify the most specific and detailed for all issues related to a situation or a phenomenon that any - that is the mandatory rules of this theory.

D. How the applicability of the absolute theory in practice is ?

The applicability of the absolute theory is for everything - there is no limit on the issue and there is no restriction on any field - because: This theory is a method to determine for all matters and of course not reserved for each area.

E. How to prove the claims of Absolute Theory?

To demonstrate - in fact - for the above statement,we will together come to a specific experience, I have a small testing - absolutely realistic - to you with title:

2 . A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT :

“Absolute determination to resolve for issues reality”

That is, based on my Absolute theory, I will help you determine by one new way to reasonable settlement and most effective for meet with difficulties of you - when not yet find out to appropriate remedies - for any problems that are actually happening in reality, only need you to clearly notice and specifically about the current status and the phenomena of problems included with requirements and expectations need to be resolved.

I may collect fees - by percentage of benefits that you get - and the commission rate for you, when you promote and recommend to others.

Condition : do not explaining for problems as impractical - no practical benefit - not able to determine in practice.

To avoid affecting the contest you can contact me via email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com

Hope will satisfy and bring real benefits for you along with the desire that we will find a common ground to live together in happily.

Hải.Caohoàng

Add another problem, which is:

USE OF THE EQUATIONS AND FORMULA IN ESSAY

There have been some comments to me to questions is: why in my essay did not use the equations and formulas to interpret?

The reason is:

1. The currently equations and formulas are not able to solve all problems for all concerned that they represent.

2. Through research, I found: The application of the equations and formulas when we can not yet be determined the true nature of the problem will create new problems - there is even more complex and difficult to resolve than the original.

I hope so that : you will sympathetic and consideration to avoid misunderstanding my comments.

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

view post as summary

Hi Conrad,

''There's no such thing as information without a context that actually defines it.''

Yes: If there would be only a single charged particle among uncharged particles in the universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. As it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, must be something which is shared by particles,...

view entire post

Hi Conrad,

''There's no such thing as information without a context that actually defines it.''

Yes: If there would be only a single charged particle among uncharged particles in the universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. As it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, must be something which is shared by particles, something which only exists, is expressed and preserved within their interactions. If particles, particle properties (its) are both cause and effect of their interactions, of the exchange of bits and particles only exist to each other if and for as long as they interact, exchange information, then you cannot have one without the other nor can one be more fundamental than the other.

If the information as embodied in particle properties and the associated laws of physics (rules of behavior) must be the product of a trial-and-error evolution, then information only can become actual information if it manages to survive: when molded into particles and particle properties and tested in practice, in interactions between 'its', between actual, physical, material particles. So I agree that

''there exists here a self-defining information-structure of a very special kind – one that can define all its own facts, parameters and principles in terms of each other. This sort of system is as remarkable in its own way as a living organism''

If real particles are virtual particles which by alternately borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist, force each other to reappear again and again after every disappearance (according to the uncertainty principle: the smaller their distance, the higher the frequency they exchange energy at, pop up and disappear to pop up again, the higher their rest energy is), then they create and un-create each other over and over again. As the energy sign of a particle alternates, it is a wave phenomenon. If the energy, the rest frequency of a particle is the superposition of all frequencies it exchanges energy at with all particles within its interaction horizon, a frequency which depends on their mass, distance and motion, then the particle in its properties carries all relevant information about its entire universe, information which is refreshed in every cycle of its oscillation. The inertia of a particle, its opposition to an acceleration (its manifestation as a tangible, material object) is powered by this continuous exchange of energy, of information. If we could cut off this exchange, it would vanish without trace, just like an image on a TV screen vanishes when we pull the plug. Though the universe indeed in many respects is a living 'thing', it is not something which lives, exists as seen from without, something which has particular properties as a whole, something we may imagine to look at from without. If the universe is to obey what to me seems the most fundamental and most obvious law of physics, the conservation law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, then it doesn't exist, has no physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from the outside, but only exists as seen from within.

In the seemingly innocuous assumption that we can regard the universe as an ordinary object which has certain properties and changes, grows older in time, big bang cosmology unwittingly but implicitly asserts that there's something outside the of it the universe interacts with, owes its properties to: that it has been created by something outside of it. Evidently, this attitude can be justified only if particles only are the cause of interactions, not also their product. As big bang cosmology describes the physics of a fictitious universe, it is science fiction, not science.

''What role do laws of physics play? And if at a deeper level things aren't fully determinate, if they turn out to obey laws only on average, then why does the world we observe end up looking so precisely factual and deterministic?''

According to the Uncertainty Principle, the smaller the distance between particles is, the higher the frequency they exchange energy at, pop up and disappear to pop up again, the higher their rest energy is. The farther apart two particles are or the lower their energy is, the less it matters where the other particle is or how it moves, what properties it exactly has, the less definite the properties of one particle are according to the other. The lower the energy of a particle, the weaker its interactions are, the greater its freedom of behavior, the less strictly it obeys laws of physics, rules of behavior. If we may associate a low energy with an early evolutionary phase, then we might say that the laws of physics evolve together with the particles the behavior of which they describe, so are, like the particles, the product of a trial-and-error evolution. It isn't so much that particles and associated laws ''aren't fully determinate'' that laws work ''only on average''; it is because the behavior of particles is less related as their energy is lower and/or they are farther apart, as the energy, the properties of one particle are less definite according to the other. The farther apart they are and/or the smaller their energy is, the less their interaction horizons overlap, coincide, the weaker their interactions are, the less they can force each other behave in a coordinated manner. That the laws particles are observed to obey enable us to predict their behavior to some extent doesn't mean that the world is deterministic, predetermined, that it can be understood in terms of cause-and-effect. If when the mass of particles are both cause and effect of their interactions, then then mass cannot causally precede gravity nor the other way around: as I argued in my essay, causality has nothing to do with science but everything with religion.

Regards, Anton

view post as summary

Hi Conrad,

Yours is a common sense approach that puts complex matters in perspective in a very helpful way.

I agree that our information always depends on the web of our measurements - 'There’s no such thing as information without a context that actually defines it.'

And as you point out, information is ultimately based on our evolutionary nature - and its 'tangle of...

view entire post

Hi Conrad,

Yours is a common sense approach that puts complex matters in perspective in a very helpful way.

I agree that our information always depends on the web of our measurements - 'There’s no such thing as information without a context that actually defines it.'

And as you point out, information is ultimately based on our evolutionary nature - and its 'tangle of interdependencies'. There is no information stored in the phenomena of the universe - all facts are relevant only to the observer who has evolved in such a way as to perceive them as he does.

I'm particularly interested by how you closely link the evolution of the cosmos to the evolution of organisms. In my essay I show how organisms are inevitably created from inorganic reality, and as the result of the same force - a gravitational-magnetic force that is inherent to a general field of Cosmae.

I argue that though natural selection always plays a part, in a Cosmos that results from a General Field, the evolution of both Cosmos and life are similarly impelled. Nothing happens entirely because of natural selection; a determinant force is also at work.

Furthermore, every species ultimately perceives the underlying reality in its own way, thus spinning a Species Cosmos from the greater energy field over evolutionary time.

From your description of the interdependency of our parameter systems, I assume you'd agree with my central point - that It and Bit cannot be separated, and that neither ultimately prevails over the other: they must be correlated.

All and all, an excellent effort - I hope you'll have a look at mine, and let me know what you think.

Good Luck!

John.

view post as summary

Conrad,

I very much liked your exposé on Wheeler's ideas, especially your original take on measurement-processes presented in evolutionary terms. Your suggestion that "the process we call measurement -- including the communication of the results as the basis for setting up further measurements -- can also evolve through accidental selection" is brilliant! In this regard, have you read the...

view entire post

Conrad,

I very much liked your exposé on Wheeler's ideas, especially your original take on measurement-processes presented in evolutionary terms. Your suggestion that "the process we call measurement -- including the communication of the results as the basis for setting up further measurements -- can also evolve through accidental selection" is brilliant! In this regard, have you read the essay by Prof. McHarris? Speaking of non-linear loops, he brings up the example of evolving computer programs, modeled on the principles that drive biological systems. The implications of these programs provocative results are very much in line with the body and the conclusion of your essay.

Until I read your essay, the undisputed truth of these statements never occurred to me: "There's no such thing as information without a context that actually defines it" and "in principle, any kind of measurement is possible only because other kinds of measurements have already been made" -- even though just a week ago I had a discussion with a friend in the course of which we decided that an individual had no meaning without the context of the whole (it's funny how we tend to overlook the truths that appear self-evident).

I like the predatory spin you give to the processes underlying reality setting up "information-traps" and your vision of "the world not only as a set of facts, but also as a web of many kinds of interaction contexts that trap those facts and make them observable, defining each in terms of other relevant facts, defined in other contexts". Together with your recursive definition of "measurement", this actually resonates very well with my essay where I propose that reality is a local phenomenon perpetually generated anew by recursive processes that capture the bits of info from their environment and output them transformed.

I could offer a slightly different spin on this: "For systems in this subnetwork, interactions that happen to fit its self-defining structure do define and communicate specific information, that contributes to contexts defining other information. Interactions that don't happen to fit this structure aren't physically eliminated; they're just irrelevant to the ongoing process". One could also view this in the context of harmonic oscillations and resonances (eloquently spoken of by Dr. Carolyn Devereux in her essay).

Regarding the "storage-mechanism available within quantum systems", I actually chanced upon an idea of such a storage while writing my essay but did not expand on it, because it was so novel to me. But it boils down to a definition of a quantum process as requiring --in order to run-- a certain set of input bits. And, say, a simple process needs 3 bits of input and it has already acquired 2. It can't run without the 3rd bit and so it idles, while the 2 bits already captured can be viewed as 'stored'. The moment the 3rd bits arrives, the process runs. Isn't this in line with the definition of a quantum? I had not yet a chance to explore this idea in more detail (the only thing that occurred to me since in this regard was a neuron, which waits for the action potential to build up until a certain threshold before firing -- if the proposed definition of a quantum process turns out to be valid, one could claim that the universe exists, literally, in the Head Of God lol)

I could argue though with your conclusion, "To me at least, it seems clear that the physical world is incomparably more powerful as an information-processing system than any kind of mathematics or computational logic." Have you looked at cellular automata? Prof. D'Ariano pursues this in his essay and Maria Carrillo-Ruiz speaks of the same in her very short essay. You wrote, "Of course, physicists don't necessarily imagine the world as computing itself in real time." -- actually, some do and mean exactly that when suggesting that 'the universe is a computer'.

"So whether or not we believe in mathematical miracles, this universe hardly looks like a system based on deterministic computation." -- indeed, instead it may be based on simple processes like cellular automata that, despite their inherent simplicity give rise to great complexity. In this regard, you may also like to read Jochen Szangolies' essay (if you have not already, of course), where he discusses Leibniz' idea that one can always find a mathematical formula describing any random distribution, like in an ink blot, which however does not prove that this distribution is governed by a 'mathematical law': "This means that there exists a law simpler than just listing all the facts, from which nevertheless all the facts can be derived." This description fits the concept of cellular automata very well.

Sorry for such a long post. I gotta run now.

Again, many thanks for your thought provoking, stimulating essay!

-Marina

view post as summary

Conrad,

You have said that information has more to do with contexts that define it than that it can be cast in binary form. I'm gathering by your essay that you see information evolving from context to context as well as biological organisms.

There are a lot of good observations in your essay. You seem to speak of the macro world in your observations, not addressing the subatomic in...

view entire post

Conrad,

You have said that information has more to do with contexts that define it than that it can be cast in binary form. I'm gathering by your essay that you see information evolving from context to context as well as biological organisms.

There are a lot of good observations in your essay. You seem to speak of the macro world in your observations, not addressing the subatomic in behavioral ways. Those who advocate the Anthropic Principle speak of the characteristics of the subatomic world but often do not use it in their arguable examples, like Schrodinger's Cat, something my essay comments on.

Your essay is very sensible and lucid. I would like to hear you views on mine.

Jim

view post as summary

Conrad,

Great essay. It or Bit didn't matter a bit as it hit so many important and much ignored aspects right on the nail! Also well and clearly written and organised for such a tricky subject.

My favourite key points;

"we still have no definite idea of what constitutes a measurement, or why determinate information should depend on observer participation."

"....what...

view entire post

Conrad,

Great essay. It or Bit didn't matter a bit as it hit so many important and much ignored aspects right on the nail! Also well and clearly written and organised for such a tricky subject.

My favourite key points;

"we still have no definite idea of what constitutes a measurement, or why determinate information should depend on observer participation."

"....what happens in any situation depends on a non-linear combination of many different kinds of interactions going on at once."

I certainly agree and address those myself, because;

"...this approach has the potential to explain much about the physical world that can't be explained by any theory in which deterministic laws and principles underlie the structure of observed phenomena."

and I also propose definitions and a mechanism to explain it, and also; "...at what point then does a measurement occur? When and how do superpositions "collapse" to give a factual result?" which you do of necessity leave a little open.

I do hope you'll manage to read mine and comment as you're one of the few who'se considered these things. I build a multi part ontology, which also agrees with you blog comment; "...there's a difference between using various kinds of mathematics as precise descriptive tools, and imagining the world as "based on mathematics", or as being itself a mathematical entity."

Another particular coup in yours is the recognition that "a context of other measurements is always needed", which I commend. In that regard I try to define precisely what IS being measured, particularly dynamically, and identify a wrong common assumption as causing current confusion. I also test the power of the model I propose against the EPR paradox with a very new proposal and evidence emerging. I do hope you're not too wedded to doctrine!!

Very well done for a highly pertinent, deeply incisive and easy to read work which I'm sure will be the starting point for important advances in understanding.

Very best of luck in the run in.

Peter

view post as summary

Dear Conrad,

I like your essay.

You write as a summry

"Its basis is just the fact that measurements need a context of other kinds of measurements. I’ll try to show that this already implies the kind of system of interactions that can evolve through natural selection."

In my essay,

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

I address the first topic...

view entire post

Dear Conrad,

I like your essay.

You write as a summry

"Its basis is just the fact that measurements need a context of other kinds of measurements. I’ll try to show that this already implies the kind of system of interactions that can evolve through natural selection."

In my essay,

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

I address the first topic using the qubit language. As you suspect, it does not solve the measurement problem but helps to figure out the type of (in)compatibilities involved.

You try to establish a relation between quantum contexts and contexts in biological evolution. It is very ambitious. "In physics something similar developed, though there was no static storage-mechanism available within quantum systems" and "Essentially we’re defining “measurement” recursively, in terms of itself – a measurement takes place insofar as some other measurement results from it. But this is exactly how “reproduction” is defined in biology."

I don't think that there is such a causality, even in biology. There is probably a random selection. Anyway, I think that you are addressing fascinating questions about the deep meaning of quantum contextuality well in the spirit of Wheeler.

Thanks for your work.

Michel

view post as summary

Dear Conrad

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

Dear Conrad

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

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

With regards,

Than Tin

view post as summary

Hey Conrad,

What is meant by the statement that a physical situation "makes a difference which outcome actually occurs." I would think that the outcome is as important as the progressing to the moment or the getting there. It's less stressful thinking of things that way anyways.

Can you elaborate on the sentence "There can be no such thing as a single measurement-event; a context of...

view entire post

Hey Conrad,

What is meant by the statement that a physical situation "makes a difference which outcome actually occurs." I would think that the outcome is as important as the progressing to the moment or the getting there. It's less stressful thinking of things that way anyways.

Can you elaborate on the sentence "There can be no such thing as a single measurement-event; a context of other measurements is always needed." Distance, say one makes a ruler in isolation in space, would be a measurement by itself even if nothing was observable to measure. Each atom of the ruler may be in a gravity field, and hence possibly length-wise contracted. So even if the "distance" is indeed a measure of atom's properties, that is it is self-referential, through relativity arguments, it can begin to address properties of a gradient, of structure of space, where this structure is not referring to any measurement per say between atoms that make up the ruler, but rather of some order between different states, say of another ruler in field elsewhere.

Just a side note, in Darwin's big work, love is mentioned more than the survival of the fittest idea where certain variations are beneficial. I would like to see that in science and mathematical arguments more often.

Also, not being everywhere in the universe to look, or through out its time span, how can we say life is rare. It may not be discovered, but what does that have to do with it being there? For example, we haven't even near thoroughly searched our solar system. with more astrological data, and the evidence of water almost everywhere pretty abundantly, such searches may find more fruit if instead of looking for direct evidence of organisms, which really would be a find, mass ratios or dynamics in a solar system or region of space were analyzed.

Is a superposition equivalent to particle entanglement?

How do you know DNA is Statically and linearly coded? It kind of reminds me of a common mishap scenario in building things. An intelligent workman is looking at a space, he's been working so long at his tiresome job that he's developed certain tools of analysis that he uses in his field. He may not know an ounce of math or how to design a structure according to the rules with which an engineering student once had to keep in mind when he moved his pencil for a design class. Yet this workman calculates it'll be of by inches and tells his supervisor, who relays a workers discontent to the architect who made the plans. But even on scene the architect doesn't have a feel for the problem, he says it's fine, don't you see how good it looks here on my paper. The worker knows though, and his intuition proves right, yet again. So imagine being on the scale of DNA, of a some kind of being who has to piece together these biological rods and segments to make the helix structure. The little guy messing around with the strands at that level, well to him it may be a slightly different story than our static linear picture.

And I do agree that the possibility exists that chaotic randomness does rule and there are no laws at all. Yet I just believe non-observable entities can contribute to the structure of info. I think the unseen is real and must affect the structure of cosmos and the little minute things as well.

Your rough draft is is evolutionary. Will it keep changing with human development or is there a possibility that like a unified theory, the main questions will be answered but there will always be little things to work out or incorporate, like psephology or the other arts or biology?

Best,

Amos.

view post as summary