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 20:47pm UTC, wrote Dear John, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

john selye: on 8/7/13 at 16:29pm UTC, wrote Ps ... to christian: Did you rate the essay?

john selye: on 8/7/13 at 16:28pm UTC, wrote Hello - And thanks for your comments. I will consider these points, and...

Christian Corda: on 8/7/13 at 9:00am UTC, wrote Dear John, As I promised in my Essay page I have read your pretty Essay....

KoGuan Leo: on 8/6/13 at 8:30am UTC, wrote Dear John, Thanks for inviting me to comment your essay. Excellent essay! ...

Sreenath N: on 8/6/13 at 7:24am UTC, wrote Dear John, You, please, meet me at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in, for a fair...

Margriet O'Regan: on 8/6/13 at 0:40am UTC, wrote Hello John from Margriet O'Regan I'm too am in great favour of adding at...

john selye: on 8/4/13 at 11:55am UTC, wrote Thank-you Lorraine; and yes, there's a lot of off-site collusion going on....


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: The Correlation of Bit and It in a Cosmic System by john stephane selye [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author john stephan selye wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 15:11 GMT
Essay Abstract

It is striking that Physics is still without a universally accepted concept of the relation between the Cosmos, the Particles that compose it, and the field of Energy from which all entities and processes emerge. This situation is not entirely surprising, however, for an even greater uncertainty exists regarding Information – specifically, the exact nature of its manifestation as a component of the Cosmos. This clearly imposes significant limits upon the use of Information as a tool of discovery and definition. Indeed, so long as Physics persists without an all-inclusive Paradigm with regards to foundational phenomena, it must necessarily be restricted to only a part of reality. Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to identify certain assumptions that have till now prevented the development of a Paradigm that would enable the various branches of Physics to examine the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive phenomena of the Cosmos within a single mathematical and empirical framework. This Paradigm will then be developed in detail, based on new assumptions that reveal the Observer and the Cosmos as being involved in a 'gear-mesh' system that establishes their reciprocal interaction, in both the immediate and evolutionary time planes.

Author Bio

I am a New York based science writer, heading a full-service editorial company geared to the scientific and philosophical author. I have recently written and published 'The Nature of Particles in the Unified Field', a book that fully develops the Paradigm advanced in my essay. I am particularly interested in Physics as our most ancient discipline – the one that has contributed to our Information Systems throughout our Evolution, and therefore to our identity as participants in the Cosmos. I am presently expanding quantum physics' concept of the participatory Cosmos into the realm of Neuro-Physics and Mind Science.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



David M Reid wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 06:23 GMT
The article is extremely dense in ideas, and deserves to be expanded into a book. This does not mean that I am in agreement with all the points raised, but the article was very well-written (as would be expected from a professional science writer) and very thought-provoking. The first part contained some excellent expositions of the relationships of human thought to that which we called physics....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
post approved

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 16:08 GMT
Thanks, David, for your most helpful and encouraging comments. Your opinion that I deviate into metaphysics touches upon the central aspect of the paper – and of this contest, I believe, in which we should be trying to further extend the reach of Physics into those questions that have till now been considered 'metaphysical'.

In attempting to discover the relation between It and Bit, we...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 06:44 GMT
Dear John,

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 17:40 GMT
Dear John

You wrote in abstract

It is striking that Physics is still without a universally accepted concept of the relation between the Cosmos, the Particles that compose it, and the field of Energy from which all entities and processes emerge.

But if you look in

Boscovich J. R.: (a) "Theoria philosophia naturalis redacta ad unicam legem virium in natura existentium", first (Wien, 1758) and second (Venetiis, 1763) edition in Latin language; (b) "A Theory of Natural Philosophy", in English, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, first edition 1922, second edition 1966.

You would find a lot of answers. But keep in mind that three centuries ago liberally writing was very dangerous. Therefore, it is very difficult to read Boskovich. In my work, Bit, Cycle, Dimensionless, you could find a small portion of his views. Boskovich is a precursor to quantum theory. Many of his views, in the meantime forgotten should be reaffirmed.

Regards

Ziki

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 07:04 GMT
Dear john

Very interesting but somewhat abstract.

Easy to read but difficult to define.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 13:19 GMT
Hello -

Not sure what you mean by difficult to define.

I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have.

Look forward to reading your essay - good luck!

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 15:43 GMT
Mr. Selve,

Your essay was certainly interesting to read.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 13:17 GMT
Thanks, Joe - I look forward to reading yours.

John

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 05:04 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 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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:56 GMT
John,

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


Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 03:22 GMT
Hello John,

I have studied your essay in an attempt to isolate the similarities you speak of in your comments on my essay. I find many similarities, and potentially concurrences, but this does not extend to extrapolations from your basic foundations. We all build clouds from foundations, and I must say that your foundations are close enough to mine that some rewording would make them even...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 13:16 GMT
Hello Zoran - nice to hear back from you.

I am going to re-read your essay later on, since I'm quite busy reading essays in the competition. I think the main point of interest for me is that I have redefined the Cosmos as being a three-field system, in which each field, including the Sensory-Cognitive Vortex, interacts with the elemental Gravitational-Magnetic Force, so that they are correlated with one another, in the immediate and evolutionary time planes.

I think you tend towards the all-in-one structure of the Cosmos, but get into details and mechanisms which could be very usefully integrated with a structure such as mine that completely accounts for the contiguity of Sensory-Cognitive phenomena with the physical Cosmos across all time planes.

I look forward to delving deeper into this after the competition – I'm sure we'll all stumble across many interesting perspectives by the end of the month.

Let's confer again - good luck!

in comparing our two approaches is that you work within an – to see if it isn't possible to correlate your insights into cognitive mechanics with a Cosmos-structure that is

Bookmark and Share



M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Mr. Selye,

Thank you for stopping by to comment on my entry. I have just read your essay where you paint such a vivid vision of the world. Your style flows easily exposing a skillful writer in you. Thank you for sharing your unique view. Happy holidays and good luck with the rest of the competition!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 10:00 GMT
Dear John,

Nice prose which is expected being the head of an editorial team. The story is captivating but seems to be entirely original to you since you quote no references. Your account may however contain things that can be verified in future.

One or two questions for you: "on those 'quirky folds'.. which have troubled and motivated Physics more than any other science… for clearly, there can be no gaps in a single-field Cosmos. In seeking to smooth them over, Physics keeps searching for ever-smaller Particles that might LINK ALL THINGS TOGETHER… But for all these efforts, the gaps persist to this day;– and that it makes clear these gaps actually do exist, and really do violate the integrity of the single-field".

Is it only particles that can link all things together? Would gaps still not remain between such a particle and what it is linking together? If gaps do not remain, on what ground would you then refuse that both that particle and what it is linking together are not one thing, thereby returning to the same problem you initially tried to solve by conjuring such a particle?

Just food for thought. This is part of the discrete vs. continuous debate in physics.

Then you believe that the law of energy conservation is Sacrosanct. I am still thinking of an appropriate response on that.

My regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 14:31 GMT
Hello Akinbo -

You are actually agreeing with me about the gaps: I say that they do indeed remain even though we've been looking to bridge them for the better part of a century. What physics has been trying to link together (Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive phenomena) are three distinct fields that have only recently emerged as valid domains of physics.

The chain reaction...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 17:34 GMT
Dear John,

Your essay gives a non-standard reinterpretation of the 'it from bit' subject. It is also very well written in my opinion. Reading it, I had in mind two FQXI essays, the one by Eugene Klingman about the unity of the cosmos and the one by G. G. Miller about the Quaternio and the fourthness. I mention the latter essay because, to "the three pricipal vortices, the inorganic, organic and sensitive-cognitive ones" you add a fourth one, related to us. I have no idea if this analogy makes sense in your interpretation, at least you can check it.

I liked the "quirky folds" and the science fiction paragraph at the end.

Thank you again for your interest in my own work.

Best wishes,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 13:53 GMT
Thanks Michel,

I will read these essays ASAP. It's very kind of you to point them out; I find I have no compass in these woods ...

John

Bookmark and Share



Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 16:33 GMT
Hello John,

I read your essay with great interest. I think you are absolutely on the right track in pointing out that we must think of reality as a multi-field Cosmos. To me, it makes sense that the Cosmos consists of several distinct fields.

I also agree that in order to understand what's 'going on' we must take into account the undeniable fact that Organic and Sensory realms exist within our universe. Life and Mind exist; we not only observe this - we experience it directly for ourselves. So any description of the universe/Cosmos as a whole must somehow account for these things.

Although my essay differs from yours somewhat on the details, I have given your essay a very high rating. I believe, that based upon the rules of evaluation of the contest, you have come forward with a fresh, new perspective and found it to be interesting and well written. I would invite you to read my essay at your convenience and would even be interested in corresponding with you in the future, if you are so inclined.

Best to you in the future.

Ralph

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 13:49 GMT
It's great to hear from someone who's clearly operating on a similar wavelength! I'll read your essay and communicate further with you there.

Many thanks,

John.

Bookmark and Share


Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT
Hi Ralph,

I wasn't able to access your essay. Is there a glitch?

I'll try again later, of course.

All the best,

John.

Bookmark and Share


Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 03:09 GMT
Hi John,

So sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I forgot to look at your thread to see if you had responded. I'm unaware of a problem, but here's the link in case that helps:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1910

I read your essay again for the 3rd time. I must say that in addition to your excellent writing style (you should seriously consider becoming a New York based science writer or editor, or something along those lines . . .) you are squarely focused on what I consider to be the central area we should be direct our efforts toward a better understanding of the cosmos and our place within it. Without question, we need to develop a paradigm "that would enable the various branches of Physics to examine the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive phenomena of the Cosmos within a single mathematical and empirical framework. This Paradigm will then be developed in detail, based on new assumptions that reveal the Observer and the Cosmos as being involved in a 'gear-mesh' system that establishes their reciprocal interaction . . ."

I couldn't agree more. Again, I look forward to corresponding with you in the future, if you are so inclined. I think there is the possibility of shared interests in our thinking.

Best to you,

Ralph

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 19:12 GMT
Dear John,

We are concerned with the same problems, but we diverge in the details of our solutions. As you note on my page, you propose multiple universes, and make a reasonable argument therefor, while I prefer a single universe, based on one field initially. You define this as "essentially, a very large 'room'... into which are heaped together all particles, entities, and organisms." In...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 00:06 GMT
Dear John

What an amazing essay! You relate a tale of physics and humanity as gripping as a Star Trek thriller: Vortices beckon, we zoom through a gear-mesh system, we correlate with a Greater Cosmos and look to a future of transformed humanity. The wonderful language (even the short paragraphs) is poetic - Blake comes to mind - but as science it is more Tiellard de Chardin isn't it? You obviously have seriously have thought long and hard about the concepts you can only outline in this essay, and approach the Bit from It question as relating to human consciousness and cognition. I think Wheeler's idea of Bits is much more basic and arid: just bits of "yes-no answers".

It does not lessen my admiration for your effort of thought and imagination that my reductionist approach to physics is quite different - rather than go beyond the quirky folds you speak of, I try to show that they are only tricks of vision that will disappear when a more fundamental scale is considered. In fact my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here here can be described as a flexibly correlated gear-mesh system (as in your your words) ...and nothing else!!

With all best wishes

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 14:29 GMT
Dear Vladimir - What a great boost! Thank-you so much, I can see you appreciate what I'm trying to put across here, and I'm very curious to read the 'Beautiful Universe Theory' (a most intriguing title!) as soon as the contest ends.

Best of luck and thanks again Vladimir,

John.

Bookmark and Share


Don Limuti replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 21:08 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

What a great sentence:

The wonderful language (even the short paragraphs) is poetic - Blake comes to mind - but as science it is more Tiellard de Chardin isn't it?

I just think it is beautiful. Look forward to both John's and your essay.

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 13:26 GMT
Hello John,

Thanks for your kind comments over on my thread. As promised, I've read your essay. Still got 60 left to read and comment on! ;-/

I thought your essay was interesting and a nice balance of the sciences too. Also very well written.

The vortices and higher dimensions were a neat idea too. I can see a near overlap of our papers in the section you wrote:

"Omni-dimensional in nature – that is, of no fixed dimensionality itself, but perpetually expanding and sub-dividing into an infinite number of distinct dimensional systems, each representing a unique type of Cosmos – which is, in turn, sub-divided into its own internal fields".

I think you've hit on some very good points, that we need to assess if we've got things right since physics began and also we need to take an observer's consciousness into account.

Well done!

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 14:25 GMT
Hi Anthony -

Your kind comments were most appreciated.

I only wish we could permit ourselves a more detailed analysis of each other's work - but there are so many works to read, and to rate, in order to make the contest as valid as possible for everyone.

Thanks again, Anthony - and best of luck in the contest!

John

Bookmark and Share



Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 16:19 GMT
Hi John,

Thanks a lot for your comment on my thread (topic 1810).

Some remarks while reading your contribution :

OUR physics began some 200.000 years ago in the present structure of our memeory.

I see history as changing every Planck time, with changing the life/time line in the what we call our past in time and the structure of "matter" in space.

This is the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 17:51 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Thanks for this appraisal of the concurrence between us. I think we are basically on the same wavelength, and I look forward to your views when you have a re-read. Also, thank-you for planning to give me a positive rating - I truly appreciate the support!

Best wishes,

John.

jselye@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 06:37 GMT
Dear John,

I am thankful for your attention to my work. I have read your comments and find there some points that fully acceptable for my. I will not start discussion on your some remarks because we are working in some different spheres and it will difficult bring in consensus of our basic approaches at all, to be have possibility got to a mutually acceptable conclusions. I hope you will agree with me. Meantime, I have read your interesting article and have find there one assertion, which is ,,energy vortex nature of primarily substance!,, My dear, I have come on similar confidence by totally other way! (see ref. [9] in my work)

I have rated your work as a ,,good,,. I see very necessary to have sections ,,abstract,, and ,,references,, in works, which can give more value to it.

Best wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 13:06 GMT
Dear George,

Thanks for the feedback - yes, many foundational concepts are achieved from different starting points; it is to be hoped that in the near future a grand synthesis of many of the perspectives presented in this contest will emerge!

Good luck to you,

John.

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 09:00 GMT
Dear John

I had read and also rated your essay.

As already commented, it very interesting with the practical purposes.

But it will be somewhat abstract and somewhat difficult to specify in practice. Because: you use a platform is "a Gravitational - Magnetic nature" Including the concept of gravity is still pretty vague, so it will be difficult to prove in practice. Add to that the "three Vortex" you also use this as a basis, especially with "third Vortex" , Because it seems to have belonged to one of the remaining two, so it also seems to be somewhat abstract and difficult to be separated in to prove.

Anyway, I love your conclusion: "Strange as such predictions might seem , they arise readily enough from the evolutionary path we have travelled so far : After all, is it truly possible not to imagine this path leading to future generations that will be as divergent from us as we are from animals?" .

Best regards - Hải.Caohoàng

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 13:16 GMT
Thanks for stopping by - The problem of proofs in the matter of foundational questions is problematic by definition, since we are taking a new look at the Cosmos. If we alter the parameters of reality we have come to accept, then much of our experience becomes a proof of certain new concepts.

For instance, I advance that the 'gaps' between Energy, matter, Life, and Sensory-Cognition - which science has been trying (and failing) to solve are thus proven to exist. Our experience is therefore an experiment that proves the thesis that Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive phenomena are independently formed by the Gravitational-magnetic Force, and are correlated as a result.

Hope that makes things clearer,

Thanks again for taking the time to read my work,

All the best,

John.

Bookmark and Share



Patrick Tonin wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 21:18 GMT
Hi John,

In my blog you wondered if my system could be adapted to your Species Cosmos?

I will try to answer your question by quoting some parts of your essay and adding my comments.(Sorry for my lack of writing style, I am French and I am not a born writer)

Quote: "Indeed, a Cosmos seems very likely to consist of several distinct fields in such a General Field system; and we...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 12:35 GMT
Thanks Patrick,

Your comments do show a similarity in our fundamental views; I've made a note to read your theory in detail after the contest.

Best of luck to you, too,

John

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 12:25 GMT
John,

An excellent essay. You asked about the EPR solution but you've closed right in on something far more important and fundamental. You've surrounded it and only missed nailing it by a whisker! I've found it's that giant step out of the multi billion year mire you describe, across the 'unbridgeable gap'. But it's MORE, and even more 'real' than where you're looking. The discrete field...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 12:26 GMT
Dammit, that sneaky log-out again!! P

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 12:42 GMT
Thanks for the feedback and clarifications - I will be referring to your past essays in August. We are indeed moving towards the same concept by different paths, and I find that closely examining each other's views crystallizes things nicely.

All the Best,

John.

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 03:28 GMT
Hi John,

Your essay is in the style of good journalism. Informative and easy to read.

I rate your essay with a high mark.

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 14:18 GMT
Hello Don,

I'm grateful for your interest - many thanks!

John

Bookmark and Share



Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 05:57 GMT
Dear John

I'd like to let you know that I have read your essay. Although I founded well structured and written I must confess that you use an unusual language to express your ideas and I couldn't get the full meaning of what you mean to say. I still don't have clear why you make a distinction between the 3 different realms. It seems to me that you want to express the difference between...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 15:12 GMT
Hello Israel,

Thanks for your detailed views. Many of your points are of interest to me.

Your reference to deChardin is apt (another commentator pointed this out also). But in reference to the relation between matter, life, and mind you say - 'I believe that current science is not yet well equipped to address these questions at this time".

You go on to say that such a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Israel Perez replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 18:24 GMT
Dear John

Thanks for your reply. I would like to make clear just some points. Indeed, from your reply I can see that you have a completely different view that radically departs from the conventional wisdom. I have had this kind of discussions with other people who believe that consciousness is the essence of life, etc. and I agree but I think science needs to solve first some other problems before it goes to the consciousness issue.

You: I feel it is less confusing to use new terminology.

Well, I don't think so. The transition from one language to another should be smooth and I think you are skipping steps. You should use a jargon that is understandable to everyone otherwise nobody will understand the meaning of what you have in mind. The way you are expressing sounds sort of mystical.

With respect to the flatness of the universe it is not a matter of distance as you mention. It has been experimentally shown (within the framework of GR) that the universe is flat. But since I don't follow the physical notion of space of GR, for me the concept of "curvature" has no meaning. I have an alternative theory of space.

You :If you also question the big bang and space-time...

I do question this, but for some fundamental reasons. For me the vacuum is a continuous material medium in the sense of Descartes, Newton or Maxwell. Since space is a medium it makes no sense to talk about the curvature of this medium or the expansion of the medium as GR and the cosmological model claims. The space expansion was just an explanation to the redshift but the redshift has another interpretation if we conceive space as a medium. Since the redshift has another explanation that means that space is not expanding and that the big bang didn't occur. As far as I can tell, the universe has no beginning.

Thanks for the wishes, I wish you good luck in the contest too.

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jeff Baugher wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 21:14 GMT
John,

A very imaginative essay. Your sentence "Further into the future, it can be expected that we will be able to predict the dissolution and recurrence of facts themselves - given the orbital nature of Vortices and if so, we might well sub-divide humanity into groups that will perceive different facts, and variant systems of reality." caught me a bit off guard. At first this thought was disturbing, but don't we already do this now? We need imaginative writers to probe not only what we don't know but also to question whether we have considered all perspectives. I do have some issues with your use of vortices, and what you mean by that, but I think this may be due to a limit of ideas explored. I have rated your work highly, and many thanks for the review.

Regards,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 13:30 GMT
Jeff,

I thank-you for your kind comments. It is indeed very important to question our assumptions - to bring 'fresh eyes' to every question and problem. I'm very glad if you think I'm fulfilling this role to some small degree.

Best regards,

John

Bookmark and Share



Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 22:39 GMT
Hi John,

I found your essay difficult to understand at first, as it has no references to explain the terms it uses, and no sections to divide the flow of narrative. But then I let your images work with me, and it opened up like a work of literature, a kind of stream of consciousness as James Joyce might write. What I initially saw as a deficiency became an asset.

It occurs to me that the essay is rather like the cosmos itself, a continual Creation Story that tumbles ahead heedless of our comprehension. The cosmos does not explain itself, it just presents itself to us, and that is a good part of its mystery, and its charm. It just is what it is, and enchants us or not. As regards the cosmos, I could argue with it, or accept it, but what do I know? I am only a part of it anyway, after all.

I realize that the organizers did not ask us to produce a scientific proof of a theory for this essay contest. We were not asked to be right, just to be interesting and on topic. I do not know whether to judge your essay as literature or as science, but in the end I find a lot to admire in this bold and original mirror of the cosmos itself. Perhaps only by looking back after we have a Theory of Everything can we really know its value.

I think the closest thing I have come across to your ideas are those of Edward Close and Vernon Neppe and their TDVP model. Perhaps their work will be helpful to you.

And you may enjoy Mark Peterson's article regarding Dante's Divine Comedy. He shows that Dante was describing, in a literary masterpiece, the S3 hypersphere, which may just be the Correlated Vortex System that you describe.

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
Thank-you for your beautifully expressed and sincere critique, Hugh. I am very touched ...

I will definitely check out Close and Neppe - and the essay on Dante sounds very interesting, too. Thanks for these recommendations.

I wish you the very best of luck in the contest,

Best regards,

John.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 12:51 GMT
Dear John,

I read your essay with great pleasure. An essay written by a beautiful language and it is easy to read. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions. I largely agree with you, and fairly priced essay...

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.» http://www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

I have only one question: why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

I wish you success,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 13:12 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I'm delighted you enjoyed the essay. It really means a lot to me when any of my color-musical cognitive images affect someone else's essence, as you can well imagine - and therefore, I thank-you, and I will look up Alexander Zenkin.

I also really liked the video - but you have to understand, we're all involved ... the 'physicist' is simply anyone who interacts with the physical world: someone who makes musical instruments, for instance - or the sound machines, or the cameras and the lights.

There's more than two people on that stage: ultimately, everyone's involved.

All the best, my friend -

John

Bookmark and Share



Chidi Idika wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear John,

Already have a download of your essay. Was going to invite you to my page anyway. I will certainly be back here after reading.

Regards,

Chidi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 14:31 GMT
Ok, Chidi - looking forward to your comments!

Bookmark and Share



John C Maguire wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 19:41 GMT
"Though modern Physics is striving to master dimensionality itself – to discover where space-time begins and ends, both within Particles, and in the farthest reaches of the Cosmos – the complex root system that sustains Physics also impels it to explore Information as a fundamental component of the Cosmos; and in order to do so, Physics must trace the coils of the Organic, Inorganic, and Sensory-Cognitive systems to that merging point that first bound Bit to It."

Well said. Couldn't agree more and was an element of the tail end of my submission as well. Nice read.

Regards,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 23:55 GMT
Hi John..

Thanks for your comments on my essay forum. I'll be reading your essay tonight or tomorrow, and will return here with comments.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 21:27 GMT
Great Jonathan -

Looking forward to hearing from you!

John

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 07:50 GMT
Dear John,

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


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 16:39 GMT
Dear John

Thank you for comment.

Are you relative with my favorite scientist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Selye

Good luck in contest.

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 16:42 GMT
Yes, Yuri - he was my father. I'm glad he's your favorite scientist - when you've had a chance to read my essay, let me know if I can be number two!

John

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 21:08 GMT
His book "From Dream to Discovery" on my book shelf right now....

Russian translation.

I am read his other books too

Why your last name no cap letter?

Also my favorite quote on the entrance Stress institute

about observability and original approach for scientist....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 21:30 GMT
Hi Yuri -

The original approach is always the key, isn't it?

(No caps ... just a typo, I think.)

John

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT
Hello John

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.

Good luck,

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 23:50 GMT
Dear sir -

I thank you for your kind comments.

I will certainly try to read your essay. ( Have you read mine?)

John

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 23:24 GMT
John

Say hello to dad

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 00:15 GMT
To science writer John from his Dad.

Although I had learned a lot about Dr. Selye and his Institute from my colleague and good friend, at the main entrance, near the elevator, there was the inscription:

"Neither the prestige of your subject, and the power of your instruments, nor the extent of your learnedness and the precision of your planning, can substitute for the originality of your approach and the keeness of your observation."

Hans Selye

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jacek Safuta wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 09:02 GMT
Hi John,

“…we came to dominate our environment, and its creatures, by manipulating Bit and

It...”

That is very common misconception about the evolution. The only scientific theory of evolution is that Darwinian one. Its modern version tells us that the genes (and not biological organisms) are evolving entities. The genes are pieces of information (Bit). So in fact Bit is manipulating us and not vice versa. Our mind and consciousness are only phenotypes. You said that Bit is not DNA. OK, it is something more than that. But DNA is a form of Bit.

We do not dominate our environment. There is only 7 billion people and billions of billions of other biological organisms that partially share the same genes. Some of that genes have dominated their (not our) environment. So in a sense the information (as Bit and It) have dominated the spacetime. Also memes (another pieces of information) that create the essays fight each other to unconsciously dominate the contest and physics.

In my view everything (also the genes being an information or a piece of matter) is only a wavepacket (a deformed spacetime region).

Best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 11:33 GMT
Hello Jacek -

Darwinism is the only interpretation of evolution currently accepted by science; but it is important to always exert our logic and pursue our inquiries beyond what is currently accepted - or evolution stops.

It is by exerting our minds, and acquiring the skill to do so, that we developed tools, weapons, language, and technology. We also developed social structures such as marriages, and classes, legal systems, and so on.

It is perfectly impossible to survey this panorama of history, and the growth of the mind that consistently dominates it, and to say that this in no way distinguishes us from turtles and worms, and that evolution is really only taking place by chance.

It is also impossible to say that this effect of the mind does not in itself further the development the mind.

When I say we came to dominate the planet, I mean that we've reached a certain platform - for instance, we need not fear a great many other animals as much as we used to, and we have acquired a great measure of access to resources so we can build cities, and produce medicines, etc.

Of course, it's understood that we're still vulnerable and that evolution never ends; but we have moved on to other fields of inquiry - and palpably to a broader field of inquiry.

I cannot therefore simply state that everything is a deformity of space-time, and leave it at that. But I do thank you for reading my paper, and for your thoughts.

Best regards,

John

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 17:08 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your post in our thread. We have replied it there. We have read your essay cursorily. Soon we will give detailed comments on your essay here. We will also rate your essay soon.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 02:41 GMT
Dear Sir,

You description of “Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms”, reminds us of the ancient treatise “Kanaada Sootras”, which describes these as “Vishaya” – meaning “object”, “Sharira” or body, and “Indriya” or instruments of sensory perception respectively. This, he applies to each (5) type of perception. Unfortunately, it is very precise and its...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 13:48 GMT
This is a very absorbing and perceptive overview of the issues that concern us both. I am called on to other duties at the moment, but I will read this post again as soon as I can - I find it extremely useful.

My sincere thanks,

John

Bookmark and Share


basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 00:17 GMT
Thanks, Sir

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 06:38 GMT
Hello John

Thank you for your comments on my essay.

I have read your essay. I felt your argument was insufficiently supported. I'm not saying its 'wrong', just that the evidence seems coincidental, and the ideas lack any causal connection beyond description.

Apologies if this seems harsh, and maybe it is because of the word limit prevented space to properly establish your case (I found this challenging also). I look forward to next year's entry to see how you have improved the argument.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
Such a curt dismissal, without any reference to the text, makes all dialogue impossible. This, I imagine, is your intent.

John

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:07 GMT
Dear Sir,

This is our letter to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 19:28 GMT
I hope to have something to say about your essay, before day's end John..

Best wishes,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Darrell R. Poeppelmeyer wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 22:03 GMT
John, Highly speculative but you are one to see the forest then work down to the trees. This was a delight to read in that you offered imaginative solutions to age-old (200,000 years) problems. Thanks for contacting me. -Darrell Poeppelmeyer

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 11:50 GMT
Dear John,

You describe an intriguing, speculative view, combining physics with biology and philosophy. It seems that there are some strong relations between these fields, in the problem of it from bit vs bit from it. Good luck with the explorations and the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 15:02 GMT
Hi John!

You may recall that we corresponded at the beginning; I was one of the first people to reach out to you, because when I read your essay, I was struck by the similarity of our thinking on several main points. You kindly responded right away, but mentioned that you had trouble downloading my essay. I wrote back and provided the link, but didn't hear back again. Were you ever able to access it?

Either way, I do hope that we'll stay in touch in the future. I would enjoy sharing thoughts and ideas with some of the like-minded/open-minded people I've met recently.

Best to you!

Ralph

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 01:26 GMT
Hello Ralph,

Sorry that I took so long - I've been away, and I will read your essay ASAP!

Please feel free to communicate at any time -

John

jselye@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 15:55 GMT
Dear John,

No judgement below although I found Ojo's report extremely attractive.

As a complement to our previous interaction, I copy part of a recent post (to Gordon Watson) that may be relevant to the discussion we had.

******************

Concerning counterfactuality, as soon as a good theory of quantum observability is written, one will be able to check it as others assumpions in science. I claim that Grothendieck's approach with dessins d'enfants is an excellent starting point because it has all attributes of an archetype (read Dickau's essay) or a monad (read Ojo's essay) and other good ontological properties which I don't list here. Topos theory is not too far.

There are important essays here that pushed me to see the dessins d'enfants as "explicate imprints" of a more general (possibly spatio-temporal) algebraic geometry. I have in mind the Hopf fibrations as an excellent tool. For example you can lift S2 (the Riemann sphere) to S3 (the 3-sphere, i.e. the space of a single qubit (Jackson's intelligent qubit?), also the conformally compactified Minkowski space (see Matlock' essay and in relation to Bell's theorem Joy Christian 'realistic' approach).

Local/nonlocal arguments are insufficient, I think, mathematics should help in revealing the hidden machinary of the physical and ontological universe. May be this is Einstein's dream, not contradicting Wheeler, at the end of the day because we are, more or less, their children in knowledge.

************

May be this type of ontological/physical approach may be operational in other contexts such as the mind/body duality, i still do not know.

Kind regards,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 21:46 GMT
Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz:

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 22:04 GMT
Dear john stephan selye:

What I wrote is for you I directed to the wrong person, whos name came from my list of names sorry

Héctor D. Gianni

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 06:02 GMT
Dear All

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

After I boarded the bus,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 21:41 GMT
Hi John,

I found your essay most intriguing especially when you mention "Evolutionary Impulse" which I found to be in keeping with the findings obtained in the 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. Although you have a different approach to the topic than I do, I found your essay truly a joy to read. You made me wonder... what if?

I look forward to reading more of your work and I wish you well in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:41 GMT
Hello Manuel -

Thanks for your kind words. I am curious about your findings regarding the Evolutionary Impulse.

I will definitely be reading your paper tomorrow, and am looking forward to it.

Best Regards,

John

Bookmark and Share



Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 13:44 GMT
Dear John,

I liked the fact that your essay is clearly and beautifully written, with a very natural progression of assertions and arguments.

You build a picture of three types of complex vortices (Inorganic, Organic and Sensory-Cognitive) interacting with a "General Field of Cosmae", with a fourth type likely to form which will allow us to:

"participate ever more intricately in the creation of Information...we will manipulate Bits and alter their nature - transforming them into tools of dimensional exploration that will enable us to peer into those gaps that were our impassable borders till now...this path leading to future generations that will be as divergent from us as we are from animals"

This is a techno-optimist science-fiction-like view of reality.

However there seems to be at least one flaw in your argument: You assert that the Primal Particle in the Organic Vortex is Omni-dimensional, while microorganisms are Intermediary Particles and DNA are Composite Particles. You also assert that the Primal Particles evolve to the more complex Intermediary Particles, which in turn evolve to the more complex Composite Particles. But surely it doesn't make sense to (in affect) assert that microorganisms are less complex than DNA and that DNA evolved from microorganisms?

I can see that we come to several similar conclusions about reality, e.g. that information is subjective experience, and that new categories of information evolve - but it's clear that the underlying mechanisms we propose are very different!

I congratulate you for building a very complex, convincing and original view of the nature of reality.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author john stephan selye replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 15:07 GMT
Hello Lorraine,

Thank-you for your kind appraisal - I am glad that you see some parallels between our work.

On your objection to DNA evolving from micro-organisms: Though there is simple DNA in microorganic life, these creatures nonetheless live in an environment that is dimensionally different from our own - ie: they are closer to the omni-dimensional fabric of the Cosmos than are the more complex organisms. The DNA of the latter - of creatures 'fully in space-time' - is what represents the Composite Particle in the Organic Vortex. Thus, complex DNA evolves from its simpler counterpart.

It was not possible to explain this in detail in the essay, because so much else needed to be said in the space allotted. But the subject is treated at length in my book - 'The Nature of Particles in the Unified Field' (Amazon). If you get a chance ....

Thanks again for getting back to me. I can't tell if you rated my essay, but if so - thank-you!

John

Bookmark and Share



Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 13:59 GMT
John, as you may be aware, FQXi has just been moved to a new server and many people have found that posts are missing. The post I sent to you on the 1st or 2nd of August is missing, so I am resending the post in case it never gets restored:

Dear John,

I liked the fact that your essay is clearly and beautifully written, with a very natural progression of assertions and arguments.

You build a picture of three types of complex vortices (Inorganic, Organic and Sensory-Cognitive) interacting with a "General Field of Cosmae", with a fourth type likely to form which will allow us to:

"participate ever more intricately in the creation of Information...we will manipulate Bits and alter their nature - transforming them into tools of dimensional exploration that will enable us to peer into those gaps that were our impassable borders till now...this path leading to future generations that will be as divergent from us as we are from animals"

This is a techno-optimist science-fiction-like view of reality.

However there seems to be at least one flaw in your argument: You assert that the Primal Particle in the Organic Vortex is Omni-dimensional, while microorganisms are Intermediary Particles and DNA are Composite Particles. You also assert that the Primal Particles evolve to the more complex Intermediary Particles, which in turn evolve to the more complex Composite Particles. But surely it doesn't make sense to (in effect) assert that microorganisms are less complex than DNA and that DNA evolved from microorganisms?

I can see that we come to several similar conclusions about reality, e.g. that information is subjective experience, and that new categories of information evolve - but it's clear that the underlying mechanisms we propose are very different!

I congratulate you for building a very complex, convincing and original view of the nature of reality.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 03:12 GMT
Dear John,

All the posts that went missing because of the FQXi server upgrade now seem to be restored. I have now received the post you sent a day or so ago. I have rated your essay and given it a good score, and although I couldn't see the actual rating you had before and after (seemingly because of the FQXi server upgrade) your rating would definitely have risen. A minute ago I attempted to rate your essay again to make sure that the rating had indeed been recorded, and the message said that I had already rated your essay.

Speaking of ratings, by my calculations I have had a few very good ratings, but I have also had a lot of 1 and/or 2 ratings from people who have left no comments about my essay!

Cheers,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 11:55 GMT
Thank-you Lorraine; and yes, there's a lot of off-site collusion going on. As soon as my score goes up two points, it goes down two or three. I can only hope the organizers know about it, and are deciding in some fair manner who will be among the finalists.

If not ... well, it is sometimes a greater honor to lose: Simple survival is not evolution, and evolution has been our true success through the ages, right?

John

Bookmark and Share



Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 00:40 GMT
Hello John from Margriet O'Regan

I'm too am in great favour of adding at least one more component to our cosmos - as you will see in my essay that thing is 'knowingness' - not consciousness, nor even thinking, or computing - but raw, undifferentiated 'knowingness' - which, I believe on the evidence my 'geometrical-objects-are-information' hypothesis provides, is not obviously a generalized...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 07:24 GMT
Dear John,

You, please, meet me at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in, for a fair comment on your essay as there is not much time left to discuss our essays.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


KoGuan Leo wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 08:30 GMT
Dear John,

Thanks for inviting me to comment your essay. Excellent essay! I will rate it accordingly.

I like what you wrote here: "Our second ancient assumption, one that that has no justification except that it has always seemed to be what we 'see', is that the Cosmos is a single field – essentially, a very large 'room' that happens to offer itself to our objective examination,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 09:00 GMT
Dear John,

As I promised in my Essay page I have read your pretty Essay. Here are my comments.

1) Why do you think we need to elaborate a new Paradigm? In my opinion, current Paradigm works well, even if I agree that it has some problems. Maybe modifying the present Paradigm instead of elaborating a new one could be sufficient.

2) You claims that a Force exists that draws Life from Atoms. Is the the ultimate Unified Field that Einstein searched in the latest years of his life?

3) Your statement that Gravitational-Magnetic Force must be simultaneously acting upon the Cosmos at every point looks to contradict the Relativity Theory. You should also clarify which "time" you are using for such a simultaneity.

4) The greatest problem in order to find such a Gravitational-Magnetic Force is to realize the unification of the gravitational field with the electromagnetic field. There have been various attempts to make this, but at the present time, without success. The most intriguing one is, in my opinion, the Kaluza-Klein one, because of its geometrical character.

In any case, I find your Essay fascinating, thus, I will give you an high score.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:28 GMT
Hello -

And thanks for your comments.

I will consider these points, and respond shortly.

All the best,

Jogn

Bookmark and Share



Author john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
Ps ... to christian: Did you rate the essay?

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:47 GMT
Dear John,

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.