Dear Matlock,

Your idea of software simulation of Cosmos is good. Did you formulate any model ? I also work on Dynamic universe Model, for which some details you can find in questions of this essay also.......

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

I failed mainly...

view entire post

Dear Matlock,

Your idea of software simulation of Cosmos is good. Did you formulate any model ? I also work on Dynamic universe Model, for which some details you can find in questions of this essay also.......

I am requesting you to go through my essay. 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 Hugh,

I liked your essay (I was in the IT industry but not a programmer).

I have developped a theory of the Universe that you could easily reproduce with a program (there are only two rules to follow).

You might want to take a look at my essay and if you like it (you never know !), you are welcome to try to simulate it with a program. You can also find the complete theory...

view entire post

Hi Hugh,

I liked your essay (I was in the IT industry but not a programmer).

I have developped a theory of the Universe that you could easily reproduce with a program (there are only two rules to follow).

You might want to take a look at my essay and if you like it (you never know !), you are welcome to try to simulate it with a program. You can also find the complete theory here: 3D Universe Theory.

Cheers,

Patrick

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Hugh

Hopefully "This picture hints that physics will find the ancients were right" so that we no longer have a headache because of the questions that remain to be answered - also had from very ancient times - but in the fact is we seeing a very different conclusion.

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of...

view entire post

Dear Hugh

Hopefully "This picture hints that physics will find the ancients were right" so that we no longer have a headache because of the questions that remain to be answered - also had from very ancient times - but in the fact is we seeing a very different conclusion.

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 :

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

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

Mr Matlock,

I am deeply in your debt. Please allow me to respond to the John Wheeler quote: “Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful that when we grasp it – in a decade, a century, or a millennium – we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?”

The time has come. The only yes/no question Wheeler should have...

view entire post

Mr Matlock,

I am deeply in your debt. Please allow me to respond to the John Wheeler quote: “Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful that when we grasp it – in a decade, a century, or a millennium – we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?”

The time has come. The only yes/no question Wheeler should have asked was:

Is the real Universe simple? And the only sensible answer is “Yes”

Reality cannot be simplified below the point of it being simple; therefore, any explanation of reality must be complicated and unrealistic.

The real Universe only deals in absolutes. All information is abstract and all and every abstract part of information is excruciatingly difficult to understand. Information is always selective, subjective and sequential. Reality is not and cannot ever be selective subjective and sequential.

One (1) real unique Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real “speed” of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.

Life is the absolute of understanding. An real ant understands that it is a real ant existing in a real simple ant’s universe. Man prefers to deal in complex abstract choices rather than reality.

Joe

view post as summary

Hello Hugh,

Excellent essay, happy to read it. You brought a good quote John Wheeler "In any field find the strangest thing and then explore it." There is nothing more strange in the observable world than dialectic "coincidence of opposites." What kind of opposites? Basic contradictions of the Universe (rest and motion, continuity and discontinuity, symmetry and asymmetry ...) that need to...

view entire post

Hello Hugh,

Excellent essay, happy to read it. You brought a good quote John Wheeler "In any field find the strangest thing and then explore it." There is nothing more strange in the observable world than dialectic "coincidence of opposites." What kind of opposites? Basic contradictions of the Universe (rest and motion, continuity and discontinuity, symmetry and asymmetry ...) that need to find a simple mathematical model and signs. You are absolutely right drew attention to many of the many ancient traditions. And what ancient image of the foundation of the world: the three pillars ... three elephants ... which keeps terra firma ...

Why do not you focused on the category "memory"? For «software paradigm» this is very important. Memory - is the center. You yourself say about her and "the key lies in your last sentence,« We can hope, as he surely would, that that inheritance, and the knowledge of the "sacred hoops" it holds, can help us come to "live together like one being "as Black Elk described so beautifully.» The direction of your research, your ideas are very interesting. But it is necessary to use a very sharp Occam's razor to drop the "essence" that prevent build the basic model of the world on the basis of the new paradigm. Excellent rating. See my essay, your opinion on the introduction of a picture of the world with the «ontological memory». I do not know physics, but programmers, information workers need to take «OntoMemory» - a bang ... With best wishes and regards, Vladimir ...

view post as summary

Hi Hugh,

1. I'm talking about the coincidence of opposites in the spirit of Nicholas of Cusa: «coincidentia oppositorum» - minimum and maximum.

2. The ancient images of the "three elephants" and "three pillars" tells us about the idea of the trinity foundation of the world.

3. The introduction of the category "memory" as central to the new paradigm requires the disclosure...

view entire post

Hi Hugh,

1. I'm talking about the coincidence of opposites in the spirit of Nicholas of Cusa: «coincidentia oppositorum» - minimum and maximum.

2. The ancient images of the "three elephants" and "three pillars" tells us about the idea of the trinity foundation of the world.

3. The introduction of the category "memory" as central to the new paradigm requires the disclosure of its essence, which is a measure of being the world as a whole, ie, the most fundamental structure of the world. That is an ontological memory - a fundamental structural memory.

4. I would like to say that phrase that for modeling of the fundamental structure of the world must enter at least the entity that is used not just a poignant and very "sharp" Occam's razor ..

5. Here I fully agree with you, but I just wanted to focus on the fact that the synthesis of the knowledge necessary to use all the knowledge accumulated by mankind.

My comments are not a criticism, just a friendly like-minded dialogue that go together in the same direction.

Thank you for your comment on my forum. Hugh, you have already put my rating essay? Someone last night lowered my rating ... I appreciated your ideas happy a nine. Sincerely, Vladimir.

view post as summary

Vladimir

1. coincidence of opposites

The Software Cosmos, being finite, probably corresponds to the Cusan concept of "contracted maximum". At first glance no finite system could correspond to his "absolute Maximum". However, software can simulate something similar to the infinite, using a recursive process that opens up more detail below or a larger enclosing space above whenever...

view entire post

Vladimir

1. coincidence of opposites

The Software Cosmos, being finite, probably corresponds to the Cusan concept of "contracted maximum". At first glance no finite system could correspond to his "absolute Maximum". However, software can simulate something similar to the infinite, using a recursive process that opens up more detail below or a larger enclosing space above whenever required. Thus, the fractal structure of implicate space might enable one to imagine an infinite "chain of being" that extends above and below the physical realms that we can observe. In this sense, we might be able to comprehend the infinite while only being able to observe some finite portion of it, in the spirit of a Cusan "coincidence of opposites".

2. three elephants and three pillars

On reflection, I am not sure that the elephants/pillars are the same as the turtles/snakes in the way they support the world. There are usually four turtles to support the world, one each in the four cardinal directions.

With both the turtle shell and cobra's hood we have the image, not just of curvature, but of a hemisphere. This has an abstract relationship to the grid model. A grid model composed of nodes linked by great circle arcs has a dual representation (nodes along arcs are dual to arcs crossing at nodes).

The set of arcs is indexed by a hemisphere and so the turtle may represent the grid. The geometric alignments of the grid are preserved over geologic time, so I think it is entirely possible that they can persist after the end of the phenomenal world, as it is said of the world serpent.

3. rating

I have not rated your essay yet, as I want to read it again first, but I can assure you that you will get a good rating from me. Few people attempt to bring such a wide philosophical and historical outlook to cosmological questions and I agree that it is important.

Yesterday I took the time to read all 183 abstracts and select 20% for further study. My plan is to read a few more and then start rating them.

Hugh

view post as summary

Hello Hugh,

Thanks for your comments on my blog. I will certainly take a look at your essay and the links in the next few days and engage you in some dialectic. I will be rating all essays with a digital inclination high including yours as I feel thats the way to go. Before I come back here, can you take a look at the below 4 simple questions, which I will be asking a few others:

"If...

view entire post

Hello Hugh,

Thanks for your comments on my blog. I will certainly take a look at your essay and the links in the next few days and engage you in some dialectic. I will be rating all essays with a digital inclination high including yours as I feel thats the way to go. Before I come back here, can you take a look at the below 4 simple questions, which I will be asking a few others:

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there…

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

view post as summary

Hugh,

You talk about Dark Matter, as if we know what it is. Check MOND. First observation of spiral galaxies let to suggestion of MOND (slight change on gravity equations). Recently guys reported that observations of elliptical galaxies are in line with MOND.

From a practical point, when doing simulation, it would be computationally cheeper to use MOND corrections, then adding new...

view entire post

Hugh,

You talk about Dark Matter, as if we know what it is. Check MOND. First observation of spiral galaxies let to suggestion of MOND (slight change on gravity equations). Recently guys reported that observations of elliptical galaxies are in line with MOND.

From a practical point, when doing simulation, it would be computationally cheeper to use MOND corrections, then adding new type of matter (like luminiferous aether). Unfortunately, MOND corrections are at scalar, or Newtonian gravity level, and there is no good tensor MOND, in the spirit of Einstein's equivalence principle.

Do you think you have enough fingers to count all suggested candidates for dark matter that were supposed to show up at LHC, and DIDN'T show?

By the way, Dark Energy is an addition of one constant in Einstein's equation. It is called cosmological constant. And its presence, like MOND, might be a sign that GR must be tweaked a tiny bit for he long-range (galaxies, universe).

Cheers,

Mikalai

view post as summary

Dear Hugh -

Your exposition of a computer simulation of the Cosmos is highly interesting, and brings into focus our relationship, and the relation of mathematics, to the Cosmos.

The implicate and explicate orders you deal with can be considered from different perspectives, of course. I think ultimately we are dealing with a cosmos composed of different but correlated dimensional...

view entire post

Dear Hugh -

Your exposition of a computer simulation of the Cosmos is highly interesting, and brings into focus our relationship, and the relation of mathematics, to the Cosmos.

The implicate and explicate orders you deal with can be considered from different perspectives, of course. I think ultimately we are dealing with a cosmos composed of different but correlated dimensional zones. I was interested by how you deal with this, especially when considering quasars, dark matter, and dark energy.

One way or another, all these phenomena describe the boundaries of our space-time based parameters, and push us into expanding them.

I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer while describing a quantum/classical world correlation. The evolving observer, I show, is the missing link in many of our quests. I think it is this that impels Physics' expansion into Bio- and Neuro-Physics.

We are continually realizing that the Cosmos does indeed 'appear “fine-tuned” to develop life,' as you say. Unlike you, however, my focus is not on the mathematics of the Cosmos, but rather on the evolutionary correlation of both observer and Cosmos, and the deducible effects of this continuous correlation.

I submit that it is in this area that our key assumptions must be reconsidered: And is not the historical expansion of mathematics into the field of reality a phenomenon that must also precisely describe the evolution of the human mind within that field?

I very much liked your phrasing - “It from Bit and Bit from Us” - and can only add that the 'us' is evolving: I show that incorporating evolution into physics expands the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler; indeed, the interaction of It and Bit is one of continuous and simultaneous shifts - or more precisely, of correlation.

We will always be playing with the borders; they will never be fixed and permanent.

We will indeed find the ancients were right - in fact, a Vortex System of energy fields as I describe it shows that evolution is recursive, and that even facts vanish and re-appear over long periods of time.

Your essay certainly made me focus on what we might achieve with computer simulations in the near future, something that is often unfairly derided. I rated your essay accordingly, and hope you'll soon visit my page and share your insights.

All the best,

John

view post as summary

Dear Hugh,

Congratulations for writing this engaging essay about how to go about simulating the Universe. It took me some time to read your essay : you discussed many mathematical tools such as Geometric Algebra and permutations of known theories in physics that I was not familiar with. I kept going to Wikipedia and other articles to get a sense of what you were saying!

The role of...

view entire post

Dear Hugh,

Congratulations for writing this engaging essay about how to go about simulating the Universe. It took me some time to read your essay : you discussed many mathematical tools such as Geometric Algebra and permutations of known theories in physics that I was not familiar with. I kept going to Wikipedia and other articles to get a sense of what you were saying!

The role of the observer is stressed in Special Relativity and in the Copenhagen interpretation, and in Bohm's "explicate orders" if I understood that correctly. You take this role for granted and search for a software to represent it. When there is a will there is a way, and mathematics is so accommodating and can eventually describe any physical theory thrown at it. The question is - is'nt there a simpler way - one i which the Universe 'works' whether there is an observer or not?

I believe there is and have started to explore it in my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here. I lack your skill as mathematician and programmer, but will try to explore this new starting point for physics (also explored in my last year's "Fix Physics!"I will now attempt to answer the more specific issues you raised in your interesting note on my my essay The Cloud of Unknowing .

I wish you all the best.

Vladimir

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Hello Hugh,

I very much enjoyed your essay. Very engaging and interesting. I liked that you explored various aspects of the cosmos and objectively displayed historical takes on it. I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire...

view entire post

Hello Hugh,

I very much enjoyed your essay. Very engaging and interesting. I liked that you explored various aspects of the cosmos and objectively displayed historical takes on it. I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire picture.

I work around geometry, which is why I liked the fractal approach. I've partly unified the four forces of nature using a geometric approach (not in my essay), which also resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. Interesting that you point out the mass of the Proton from modelling it as a geometric Black Hole. My model geometrically links the masses of the proton, neutron and electron to 99.999988% of prediction. Further, as the data for these masses has been refined over the last few years, the result has improved constantly.

In my essay you might like the Fibonacci approach. You mentioned Software and Hardware - maybe the Fibonacci sequence is the firmware.....?

Anyway, well done for producing what I consider to be one of the best essays in the contest. Top marks from me!

Best wishes for the contest!

Antony

view post as summary

Hello Hugh,

I very much enjoyed your essay. Very engaging and interesting. I liked that you explored various aspects of the cosmos and objectively displayed historical takes on it. I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire...

view entire post

Hello Hugh,

I very much enjoyed your essay. Very engaging and interesting. I liked that you explored various aspects of the cosmos and objectively displayed historical takes on it. I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire picture.

I work around geometry, which is why I liked the fractal approach. I've partly unified the four forces of nature using a geometric approach (not in my essay), which also resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. Interesting that you point out the mass of the Proton from modelling it as a geometric Black Hole. My model geometrically links the masses of the proton, neutron and electron to 99.999988% of prediction. Further, as the data for these masses has been refined over the last few years, the result has improved constantly.

In my essay you might like the Fibonacci approach. You mentioned Software and Hardware - maybe the Fibonacci sequence is the firmware.....?

Anyway, well done for producing what I consider to be one of the best essays in the contest. Top marks from me!

Best wishes for the contest!

Antony

view post as summary

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

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

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

view entire post

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

If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements – which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

With many thanks and best wishes,

John

jselye@gmail.com

view post as summary

Hugh

thank you for your very interesting, stimulating essay. You show an amazing breadth of knowledge in the area. I even saved your essay on my machine for the future reference. I also looked at your site and read all the posts on this blog -- very interesting! I'm giving you a high rate it deserves.

I answered the 2 questions you asked in my blog and here wanted to discuss an...

view entire post

Hugh

thank you for your very interesting, stimulating essay. You show an amazing breadth of knowledge in the area. I even saved your essay on my machine for the future reference. I also looked at your site and read all the posts on this blog -- very interesting! I'm giving you a high rate it deserves.

I answered the 2 questions you asked in my blog and here wanted to discuss an aspect you bring up in your essay. It has to do with the S3 hypersphere. I know that topologists call it a 4-sphere, emphasizing the 4-dimensionality of the object as a whole, while mathematicians and physicists call it a 3-sphere, being mainly interested in its 3-dimensional surface. Thus you wrote, "Reimann, Gauss, and Clifford believed the shape of the cosmos was a 3-sphere" (and give an interesting reference [12]). It so happens that I too believe that the universe is a 4-sphere ..lol.. I insist on the topological definition of the same object, and for good reasons! Here is why:

...well, I know that the contest comes to the close and maybe you won't have the time to discuss it now.. and so to keep it short:

1. we live in 4 spatial dimensions, while being aware of only 3. I discussed how this can be explained in my last year essay (did not do too good of a job, I'm afraid).

2. we --well, the nuclei of the atoms that comprise us-- are 4-dimensional objects. (I know a big surprise here, which however is explained in the same model). I found excellent references in your essay for all this, but why call a 4D proton a 'black hole'? (this is a rhetorical question pending my looking up the reference you provided).

Of course, my model is not original (I did not know this at first, but already knew it by the time I wrote the last year essay). The novelty I tried to bring was in explaining these... facts of life? in simple terms and vivid analogies so that anyone can get to see it and so agree with the undoubtedly shocking at the first glance statements 1. and 2.

The top-down model of the universe I tried to convey in my last year essay comes down to a 4-sphere (in topological definition) the 3D surface of which is the 'visible universe', i.e. this 3D surface is what EMR is confined to. This makes this surface akin to a 3D screen from which we get all the info. Just like in the Plato's cave, the real 4D objects (ex. protons) exist in.. 'a large extra dimension' speaking in modern terms.. and only cast 'a shadow' or projection on the 3D screen.

For example, this model explains why a nucleus looks so small -- because it 'sits' in an extra dimension and only touches the 3D surface. There are many other implications of this model, explaining some very intriguing cosmological observations.

I wonder, would it be possible, using your Landscape Test, to *prove* that matter is actually 4-dimensional and that we live in a 4D universe, crawling on its 3D surface?

Also, with your amazing knowledge and expertise in this area, where did you see such an explicit description of such a 4D universe model?

The other *proof* I was looking for is that 4-space is unique among all N-spaces (N>2) in the sense that it has the highest degree of all conceivable symmetries. Because this would serve as yet another rationale why our universe is 4D.

Thank you very much again for inviting me to read your very interesting essay. I understand how difficult it was for you to cut it down to 9 pages, after the first 30-page draft -- and yet to took a risk with the last section. Why?

-Marina

view post as summary

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Hugh,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and...

view entire post

Dear Hugh,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

view post as summary

Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented...

view entire post

Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented your essay in what follows.

Of the nearly two hundred essays submitted to the competition, there seems to be a preponderance of sentiment for the ‘Bit-from-It” standpoint, though many excellent essays argue against this stance or advocate for a wider perspective on the whole issue. Joseph Brenner provided an excellent analysis of the various positions that might be taken with the topic, which he subsumes under the categories of ‘It-from-Bit’, ‘Bit-from-It’, and ‘It-and-Bit’.

Brenner himself supports the ‘Bit-from-It’ position of Julian Barbour as stated in his 2011 essay that gave impetus to the present competition. Others such as James Beichler, Sundance Bilson-Thompson, Agung Budiyono, and Olaf Dreyer have presented well-stated arguments that generally align with a ‘Bit-from-It’ position.

Various renderings of the contrary position, ‘It-from-Bit’, have received well-reasoned support from Stephen Anastasi, Paul Borrill, Luigi Foschini, Akinbo Ojo, and Jochen Szangolies. An allied category that was not included in Brenner’s analysis is ‘It-from-Qubit’, and valuable explorations of this general position were undertaken by Giacomo D’Ariano, Philip Gibbs, Michel Planat and Armin Shirazi.

The category of ‘It-and-Bit’ displays a great diversity of approaches which can be seen in the works of Mikalai Birukou, Kevin Knuth, Willard Mittelman, Georgina Parry, and Cristinel Stoica,.

It seems useful to discriminate among the various approaches to ‘It-and-Bit’ a subcategory that perhaps could be identified as ‘meaning circuits’, in a sense loosely associated with the phrase by J.A. Wheeler. Essays that reveal aspects of ‘meaning circuits’ are those of Howard Barnum, Hugh Matlock, Georgina Parry, Armin Shirazi, and in especially that of Alexei Grinbaum.

Proceeding from a phenomenological stance as developed by Husserl, Grinbaum asserts that the choice to be made of either ‘It from Bit’ or ‘Bit from It’ can be supplemented by considering ‘It from Bit’ and ‘Bit from It’. To do this, he presents an ‘epistemic loop’ by which physics and information are cyclically connected, essentially the same ‘loop’ as that which Wheeler represented with his ‘meaning circuit’. Depending on where one ‘cuts’ the loop, antecedent and precedent conditions are obtained which support an ‘It from Bit’ interpretation, or a ‘Bit from It’ interpretation, or, though not mentioned by Grinbaum, even an ‘It from Qubit’ interpretation. I’ll also point out that depending on where the cut is made, it can be seen as a ‘Cartesian cut’ between res extensa and res cogitans or as a ‘Heisenberg cut’ between the quantum system and the observer. The implications of this perspective are enormous for the present It/Bit debate! To quote Grinbaum: “The key to understanding the opposition between IT and BIT is in choosing a vantage point from which OR looks as good as AND. Then this opposition becomes unnecessary: the loop view simply dissolves it.” Grinbaum then goes on to point out that this epistemologically circular structure “…is not a logical disaster, rather it is a well-documented property of all foundational studies.”

However, Grinbaum maintains that it is mandatory to cut the loop; he claims that it is “…a logical necessity: it is logically impossible to describe the loop as a whole within one theory.” I will argue that in fact it is vital to preserve the loop as a whole and to revise our expectations of what we wish to accomplish by making the cut. In fact, the ongoing It/Bit debate has been sustained for decades by our inability to recognize the consequences that result from making such a cut. As a result, we have been unable to take up the task of studying the properties inherent in the circularity of the loop. Helpful in this regard would be an examination of the role of relations between various elements and aspects of the loop. To a certain extent the importance of the role of relations has already been well stated in the essays of Kevin Knuth, Carlo Rovelli, Cristinel Stoica, and Jochen Szangolies although without application to aspects that clearly arise from ‘circularity’. Gary Miller’s discussion of the role of patterns, drawn from various historical precedents in mathematics, philosophy, and psychology, provides the clearest hints of all competition submissions on how the holistic analysis of this essential circular structure might be able to proceed.

In my paper, I outlined Susan Carey’s assertion that a ‘conceptual leap’ is often required in the construction of a new scientific theory. Perhaps moving from a ‘linearized’ perspective of the structure of a scientific theory to one that is ‘circularized’ is just one further example of this kind of conceptual change.

view post as summary