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 22:09pm UTC, wrote Dear Than Tin, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the...

Richard Kingsley-Nixey: on 8/7/13 at 13:28pm UTC, wrote Than, Super essay, a pleasure to read, super score applied. Richard

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 7:45am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Than Tin: on 8/6/13 at 5:37am UTC, wrote Dear Amazigh I have downloaded your essay and now sits with the essays...

Than Tin: on 8/6/13 at 5:34am UTC, wrote Dear John, I’ve planted this particlular question “How comes the...

Than Tin: on 8/6/13 at 5:32am UTC, wrote Dear Christian I very much appreciate your detailed point by point...

Christian Corda: on 8/5/13 at 15:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Than, I have read your beautiful Essay, as I promised in my Essay...

Peter Jackson: on 8/4/13 at 18:57pm UTC, wrote Than, Thank you for your comment on my blog. I posted the below to you...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Re Blogger Ian Durham replied on Aug. 25, 2019 @ 15:31 GMT..."Free will..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Lorraine Ford: "So, define “free will” Ian. It’s obvious that you are not talking..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Anthony, you have briefly explained the fictitious (centrifugal) force...." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Vipul Agarwal: "All about this post is very informative and unique. I am thankful to you..." in FQXi'ers Debate the Deep...

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

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

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

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


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
August 26, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Analogical Engine by Than Tin [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Than Tin wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 14:58 GMT
Essay Abstract

A quantum theory without the sobriquet of weirdness can be imagine. Based on a premise that "what quantum is to classical (or equivalently what wave is to particle)" is similar to "what analogy is to reason" (or equivalently what analogical is to rationality)", this essay argues that quantum mechanics is "analogical." By following this line of arguments to its logical conclusions, we can bring fresh perspectives to the meanings of wave-particle duality, of entanglement, of Born's rule, of constant speed of light, and last and certainly not the least, of Planck's constant. I have argued that Planck's constant is the Mother of All Dualities, and a necessary condition for existence of thoughts and things.

Author Bio

Than Tin is a graduate of science and engineering, and a scholar engaged in the study of physical understanding of mind.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 20:58 GMT
Than Tin

You are touch old problem

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Than Tin wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 03:13 GMT
Hi Yuri:

Thanks for your interest and the link, but I’m afraid that philosophy is not my strong suit. I know Descartes from his famous quote: “I think, therefore I am” and his meditations on consciousness and/or mind-body duality. In my contest essay, I treat mind-body (from philosophy) as an analog of the wave-particle duality from quantum mechanics.

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 18:47 GMT
Than,

I found your essay to resonate very well with my findings. As you pointed out, "We can choose to carve up Nature at many different points, yielding answers that differ with the scales we probe and the premises we adopted. But Nature itself is quite agnostic and mum and plays no favorites. The lesson is clear: In the case of physical processes, we have indirect access, i.e. only through the rationalism of our minds."

I appreciate your argument that "Planck's constant is the Mother of All Dualities" although I have found this to be only a fundamental 'part' of reality. I found your essay well worth the read and have rated it accordinly. I hope that if you decide to read my essay that you will find it worth rating. I believe you will find it relevant to your perspective as well:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Good luck with your entry.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 12:10 GMT
Manuel,

I very much valued your comments: they really touch on the heart and soul of my essay. And I am also glad that our respective essay entries have resonances between them. And before this forum is closed, my hope is that there are many more in the same vein.

Analogical minded that I am, I can’t help recalling the great physicist Richard Feynman’s all-paths formulation of quantum mechanics, the meaning of which I think can made to be consilient with what we are finding.

I have just downloaded your essay, and I will respond with the same serious care and attention that you had paid me.

Until then,

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 23:11 GMT
Dear Than

I enjoyed reading your well-written essay full of new ideas and reflecting an original and creative mind. Like most people I do not think about how I think, but watching my baby grandson develop, learn and communicate is an amazing experience - doubtless he is using some of the mechanisms like analogy that you describe.

It is commendable that you try to find a 'solution' to the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Most physicists, like Feynman and Greene want us to close our eyes and take their word for it. Do I understand you right, that the weirdness is an artifact of our analogicial thought processes?. I may have misunderstood you. But one thing I can definitely say is that quantum weirdness is simply due to the weird theories and incorrect notions human physicists have concocted.

Having developed a ToE free of weirdness ( Beautiful Universe Theory also found here) I can confidently say that there is no particle-wave duality in nature. Everything is causal, local, logical, linear at the equivelant of the Planck level. I reflect on these matters in my fqxi essays of this and last year. See also how a modern experiment has demolished the Born Rule: Eric Reiter's website .

With best wishes,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 12:20 GMT
Dear Vladimir

I appreciate your generous commendations, but I am embrassed to accept even a tiniest portions of them.

Children are the best candidates for studying the analogy-making power of the human mind. Noam Chomsky, a famous linguist from M.I.T., was the first to notice that children “grow” their respective native languages, not “learn” it as B. F. Skinner and other empirical minded scientists generally had presumed. Chomsky practically said it is “genetic” or “biological”, which I take it to mean “automatic”. I was interested in the physical basis of “automaticity”. For me, automaticity is everything that is the opposite of learning.

I saw analogy as the flag ship of automatic thinking, and I use the term for all other kinds of thinking that are also automatic. I chose quantum mechanics as a vehicle for understanding the meaning of the “physical”, not as a project to banish “weirdness” out of quantum mechanics or its disseminations as such. “That quantum mechanics is not weird” is a logical consequence of the analogy I make: “What quantum is to classical ‘is similar to or is analogical to’ what analogy is to reasoning or logic or rationality”. If someone can disapprove or destroy the aforementioned analogy -- or analogies similar to it -- then a whole foundation of my essay would crumble, and needless to say that I am not looking forward to such an outcome!

Thank you again for your best wishes, and I’ll check into the links you have provided.

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 09:56 GMT
Dear Than,

You have clubbed together thinking and Planck's constant with nice way of saying it... 'Planck's constant is the Mother of All Dualities, and a necessary condition for existence of thoughts and things. '

How did you come to that conclusion?

and.....

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 03:36 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,

In your comment you wrote: “You have clubbed together thinking and Planck's constant with nice way of saying it... 'Planck's constant is the Mother of All Dualities, and a necessary condition for existence of thoughts and things.’ How did you come to that conclusion?”

Good question, and I’m glad to answer.

In my essay, the conclusion that you quoted...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies.

It was my proposition, it was not an inference to your essay. What I mean is that we should be more close experimental results for our propositions.

I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.

Now in this context, can we create material from information...?

You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 10:16 GMT
Dear Than,

I almost did not read your essay but thank God I did. Very philosophically true.

Now for some comments:

-Thanks for those online references

- Yes, I agree Great theories are built from duals. But I dusagree Planck constant is the Mother of all Dualities. How? Planck constant is a physical value, can it have more than one value or duality?

- I like, "How Nature does strikes a balance between … ceaseless and meaningless activities… AND … a situation where everything is silent, predictable,unchanging, or unchangeable". This is the riddle to solve.

Then, two questions for you based on your essay:

1. CAN REALITY BE REACHED BY ANALOGY OR BY REASONING? In answering this, consider what can be analogous to Non-existence.

2. You mention Discrete-Continuous as an example of duality. Somewhere in your essay you described discreteness as separation by space. IF SPACE TOO NOW HAS A DISCRETE NATURE, BY WHAT WILL THE DISCRETE REPRESENTATIONS OF IT BE SEPARATED?

Answer these, before having a look at my perspective, where I suggest that Space unlike other things can have it both, literally having its cake and eating it!

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 19:28 GMT
Dear Akinbo:

Thanks for coming to me on my soap box!

Answer 1: Reality is the truth you find with the tool you used. We use analogies to find partial truths; and we use logic and reason to find a more precise and reliable truths. In the framework I had adopted in my essay “Analogical Engine”, ANALOGY and REASON are separated by CONSCIOUSNESS, which in a physical model might be represented by a value, not dissimilar to the Planck constant.

Answer 2: Dualities are like a changing cast of characters in a play, and they tend to change with the scenes. As you know, we associate space-time with Theory of Special Relativity, and wave-particle with Quantum Mechanics.

However, naïve analogy will not work with space-time and wave-particle dualites, but if we dig deeper there is a relation (definitely for sure if you ask me) between SR and QM! Frame-independent constant velocity of light in SR and the Planck constant from QM are definitely related. Based on the coincidence, I say SR and QM are friendly (close?), but in the context of EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought-experiment), SR and QM are no longer friendly (separation?). SR does not allow “spooky-action-at-distance” where QM seems to revel in it.

It’s a CONUNDRUM, but I am not complaining: It keeps us talking far into the night, and for someone as creative and enterprising as Bryan Greene of Columbia and NOVA, it’s just a god-send! (Recently, he has a sold-out play on Broadway based on the theme of “spooky action.” Can you imagine PHYSICS on B’way, NY,NY?)

Cheers!

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 04:12 GMT
Dear Than Tin

As an interesting speech, will be more interesting when you adds more, if "In fact, it may be construed as one and the same!" - Thus, they come from?

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 22:19 GMT
Dear Hoang

Much appreciation for reading my essay.

The presumption that the “constant” obtained from my thought-experiment and the actual Planck constant are “one and the same” comes from my interpretative understanding of black-body radiation formula.

In the text-books, the historic formula is obtained by interpolating low- and high-frequency regimes of the radiation. Physicists have interpreted low frequencies as waves and high frequencies as particles.

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:37 GMT
Than,

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

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 22:22 GMT
Hello James

The current entries have reached 181, and it’s a large track of individual musings for anyone to slog through. Even if I could imagine myself as the speed-reading champion of the world, I can manage just a few. Besides, there are other problems.

One of the problems is the fact that we are NOT on the same page even with the title of the contest essay “It from Bit.” I have seen essays with the title “It from Qubit”! So which is it?

“It” is definitely and positively “classical”, and so “Bit” must be quantum. Then, is “Qubit” a quantization of “Bit”?

I have troubles thinking about the first quantization, let alone to really know what we are talking about in the second quantization.

I can read the first copy so to speak, but copies of copies are too faint for me to see, let alone reading and understanding them!

In real life, I have the same feeling about concocted derivations of stocks and bonds, known as financial derivatives!

I wish someone authoritive from FQXi Community could say something about the normenclatures. Without the standard normenclature, we will be arguing our nights into days!

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
Hello Than,

A very interesting essay and radical ideas. The nature of the main fundamental constants is an extremely important task for physicists. Good conclusion: «One can only marvel at what a small constant can do, creating an impersonal cosmos of unimaginable dimensions out of nothing as it were, while not forgetting to populate a corner of it with conscious human beings like us, brimming with desire to know what it is all about. »See my essay. I think we are close in spirit and direction of research. With best regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 22:23 GMT
Hello Vladimir

Thanks for reading my essay. I also try to reciprocate, but generally I do not have much to say beyond what I had already said in my essay.

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 11:34 GMT
Hello Than Tin,

I look forward to your comments and fair evaluation of my ideas. With best wishes and regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Philip Gibbs wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 08:59 GMT
Than, this is a very smoothly written essay that makes some nice points.

I like "What quantum is to classical ≈ what analogical is to rational" You use the idea of analogy to make a deeper analogy, very good.

I also take to heart your point about the central rolw of Planck's constant.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 03:31 GMT
Philip

I value your kind generosities. Very please also.

Than

Bookmark and Share



Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 02:14 GMT
Hi Than,

I have just read your essay. I must admit that I don't think I understood it very well. It seems that your argument is that because the action associated with quantum systems is usually only a small multiple of Plancks's constant-as opposed to that associated with classical systems for which it is usually much, much larger-the kind of approach to understand what quantum mechanics...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 21:55 GMT
Dear Armin

First and foremost, I want to thank you for taking the time to read my essay and making suggestions for improvements. I am grateful, and to tell you the truth I actually wish for someone to demolish or eviserate the thesis so that I can fight back with gusto!

With that preamble, allow me to restate my thesis: The Planck constant as a Mother of All Dualities is a conclusion...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 12:02 GMT
Dear Than,

Thank you for you excellent, highly relevant and very original essay. A pleasure to read.

I liked you 'White Cliffs' analogy (I live in Kent UK) as it's always the aspect we look or approach from that provides the limits to what we observe.

Interestingly our essays deal with the same subjects from quite different approaches, but find some 'unity in hidden likenesses'; i.e; a "quantum theory without the sobriquet of weirdness", definitions of what a 'bit' is, then also 'detection' and 'measurement', which considers how the brain as a 'processor' arrives at 'outputs', and certainly 'duality', where I look at 3D physical forms right down to the Planck length offering a simple explanation.

Our essays then consider precisely the same critical parts of nature, but while standing in different places, so when combined the truth of the whole may be greater than the parts. That alone certainly earns a high score from me, I hope you will find the same of mine. I explore a little further into that uncertain zone to find rationality, and show how the EPR paradox (Bell inequalities) may be resolved via rational duality without spookyness or FTL.

I really do hope you can read my essay and will be interested in your comments.

Well done and thank you for yours. Very best wishes.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 16:55 GMT
Dear Peter

By forgetting to click the right response button, I have placed my reply to your comment in the wrong place on mine. Please forgive me.

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 01:58 GMT
Dear Than. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Vladimir

Here are some of the places from your essay where we are on the same wavelengths:

1. “Reality may be like that at fundamental scales where its physical and informational content can be regarded as one and the same thing.”

2. “This chicken-and-egg Question was asked because everything looks like a nail to a person holding a hammer. Surrounded by our computers in this Information Age, we are tempted, as Wheeler was in his It from Bit essay to regard the physical universe-IT- in terms of BITs - binary 0 and 1 answers to yes-no questions.”

3. “One that I already answered elsewhere is whether Reality is digital or analog ?– it may be a bit of both. The second topic making up the substance of this essay concerns the necessity of examining our philosophy of knowing. How do we know what we know about Nature?”

5. “The human brain evolved over millions of years from primitive cells made of molecules that are identical to those making up the rest of the Universe.”

Because of differing life experiences, we put our thoughts in different styles. But the important thing is our essays are much alike. Nature is tolerant when it comes to styles, but stern when it comes to substance.

Best Wishes to You Too!

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share


Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 15:13 GMT
Vladimir

Sorry about the omission.

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Thank you Than

You left an interesting note on my page concerning Feynman and simplicity, and you also summarized by example your analogical argument. Yes it is amazing how we can express different ideas in physics in very different mathematical models. I have noted that independantly too long ago during my diffraction research - but I think it is important to hold on to the idea that some of these models are 'closer to nature' than others usually the simpler ones are the ones!

Your analogical arguments are a sort of clever intellectual exercise to categorize various ideas in physics. I see nothing wrong in that per se. I am not against that - but when you do that it creates artificial divisions. Some of us are trying to unify physics to show, for example, that both classical and quantum ideas are causal, linear and local. If that is so, i.e. if quantum phenomena are not actually probabilistic at heart, and if there is no duality, then putting these ideas into an analogical mold becomes unhelpful.

Of course it it all depends which aspect of physics one is working on. I wish you the best.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Than Tin wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 16:28 GMT
Dear Peter

I have downloaded many essays from the contest, yours being one of them. I tried to be dutiful by trying to read every essays, but I find it hard going when those essays contain concepts from advanced logic and maths. However, I promise I will struggle on until the dead line of July 31st.

Very Best Wishes to You too.

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 18:57 GMT
Than,

Thank you for your comment on my blog. I posted the below to you there, but my last paragraph was correct (it had asked me for my name), and it also fooled me by suggesting that I had not rated your essay when in fact I found had when I went to do so. The new server does not seem to have resolved the systems problems.;...

P

Post;

Excellent, yes. And the angels have dresses sewn by needles on which we can also dance with the angels with their white dresses...

I note I did't rate your essay with my first comment so have done so now. I still love your perceptive comments imagining QM without weirdness, and "Any slice through nature gives "answers that differ with the scales we probe and the premises we adopted. But Nature itself is quite agnostic and mum and plays no favorites"."

The screen tells me I'm logged in, but I suspect, like much of current physics, it is there only to fool, confound and confuse.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 10:04 GMT
Dear Than,

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


Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 01:01 GMT
Hi Than,

Nice work and I rate it highly.

I particularly like your ending paragraph:

One can only marvel at what a small constant can do, creating an impersonal cosmos of unimaginable dimensions out of nothing as it were, while not forgetting to populate a corner of it with conscious human beings like us, brimming with desire to know what it is all about.

I too have this notion, take a little time and space, then add a little h, shake it consciously and you can make anything!

Thanks for visiting my blog,

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 02:07 GMT
Dear Than Tin,

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. I like your enthusiasm and your explanations reach out to a wide audience. I think the analogy approach is good, after all we use them to describe the quantum world all the time. I remember my Chemistry professor explain duality as throwing a ball at a wall - in the quantum world, half the ball passes through the wall, half bounces back. But once we observe which, then this is the single result.

Anyway congratulations on a super essay - I think you deserve to be higher so I hope my high rating helps.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 21:25 GMT
Dear Antony

First of all, I want to thank you for your very encouraging high praise and high score to a newbie like me.

I can’t say I knew the etiquetts or the proper ways to conduct Q&A and other housekeeping necessary for managing the demands of the contest such as this.

However, thanks to the unexpected extension of a week for the contest and encouragements from persons like you, I breathe a little easier.

Best wishes to you too!

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 10:47 GMT
Dear Than,

I'm new too, so I'm just following the lead of the experienced authors on here! Hope you are enjoying the process as much as me - some super essays on here - like yours!

Well done and best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 20:11 GMT
Dear Than,

I'd replied here, but the comment seems to have vanished - not sure if comments from 31st july to 2nd August will return, but seems system wide.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 03:24 GMT
Greetings Than,

I shall be reading and commenting on your essay soon. Thanks for the kind remarks on my page.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 03:33 GMT
Dear Than,

Thanks for responding to my posting in your thread and I will shortly respond to you by posting in your thread my comments on your essay and also to your query.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 04:48 GMT
Dear Than,

I am fully agree with Fenman's genius observation (and with you also) that everything must gone to one general principle, which may be not so complicated to comprehend. Einstein, Schrodinger and others luminaries also has came to analogical/similar conclusions. The same thing saying me also in my work, and not only because to much famous people saying this.

There are a lot of weighty arguments on this direction, and anybody, who has the healthy brain, may to came to this idea. So, you and me can be happy - with correctness of our viewpoints and (with our healthy brains too!) I have rating your work on high core, and I thinking suggest it to my attherants also.

Best wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 21:00 GMT
Dear George

I appreciate your very kind observations, and thank you for saying it.

I believe in simplicity, the kind of simplicity involved in walking for instance. When you put your left foot down, the weight is on it, and so you move with your right foot, and when the weight is on the right, you move with the left. All is done with feelings, and we cannot tell it to a robot to emulate us even with hundreds of thousands lines of code. A child does not need instructions to start walking!

Feynman is famous for saying that what’s in textbooks is not new, and therefore he must think for himself. There is another iconoclast named Bob who said/sang “Don’t follow leaders, Watch the parkin’ meters.” (I wish to amend the parkin’ meter to pocket meter!)

Wish you the best,

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 08:44 GMT
Dear Than,

Following your post on my webpage

I found an excellent link to your topic

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

As a fun of group theory, the analogy/isomorphism is especially important.

Also in category theory that starts tobe widely used in quantum mechanics

"Category theory takes the idea of mathematical analogy much further with the concept of functors. Given two categories C and D, a functor F from C to D can be thought of as an analogy between C and D, because F has to map objects of C to objects of D and arrows of C to arrows of D in such a way that the compositional structure of the two categories is preserved."

But your topics also touches the idea of dialectic

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

Your point is

“Quantum is analogical, and classical is rational.”

that resonates with

"Analogy is about sameness, while rationality is about difference."

I don't know, on this matter the philosophical language may help.

For sure, we are always making use of analogies in exploring the world.

In my view, trichotomy makes sense as well

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

I hope you will analyze my essay as well

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

All the best,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 22:40 GMT
Dear Michel

The links you provided are invaluable, and I hope to study them ASAP!

So far, out of necessity and personal limitations, I’m staying close to the ground with commonsense as my theory of everything. If I remember it correctly, you are the second person to suggest that I can firm up my results and/or thesis with disciplines that are more grounded in rational and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 14:50 GMT
Than,

thank you for leaving comments in my blog and inviting me to read you essay. I appreciated the quotes and the links in your essay, especially Jim Al-Khalili - Quantum Life: How Physics Can Revolutionise Biology. I should have incuded how birds use the earth magnetic field for navigation in my essay. The full lecture is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwgQVZju1ZM

You have an unusual, for modern times, scientific approach. Analogies are very useful in introducing novel concepts, but are difficult to apply in practice. I largely concur with Armin's comments above and have read your thorough response to him. I agree with you that "we have not fully understood the full meaning of the quantum, wave-particle duality, or the problem of quantum measurement" and that " To wit, analogies are efficient for first forays into the unknowns, and for a person with good solid experience, they are no more error prone than reasoning. After all, analogy and reason are not absolute strangers, but members united by a single constant of Nature. Like wave and particle!"

Well said!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 23:30 GMT
Vasilyeva,

Thanks for paying attention: I appreciate it more than I can say.

The issues of: wave-particle, unification-nonunification, connection-noconnection, gene-protein, variation-selection, spooky or not, information escape or does not escape, etc-etc are being debated and analyzed for so long that we can begin to wonder whether these states of “inconclusions” (Professor Mermin’s word, not mine) are in fact the natural states of beings.

However, from the single-minded pursuit of unification all through these years, I am confident that we will be rewarded with fresh crops of new and interesting dualities.

With best regards,

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 08:01 GMT
Hi Than, Thank you for the nice words to my essay. Yes nature is very simple, in fact it is extremely simple if you have the right tools to analyize it with. Industry does not progress using 100 year old tools, so why should science?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 20:04 GMT
Dear Anton:

I really believe that Nature is simple, “extremely simple” as you said, and may I add it is also on “autopilot.” Sometimes, it says “Yes” and at other times, it says “No,” and if we were to continue down this road of similarities, we might find that “action-reaction” is a Newtonian way of saying “Yes” and “No.” Since our life experiences are different, we embody this verities differently, but if given enough time or diligence, we can begin to understand each other through these veils of differences.

Thanks too for replying to my note, and I’m glad that we are on the same wavelength.

Regards,

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 10:12 GMT
Dear Than,

Thanks for comments on my blog. Pardon my starting another thread as this matter is unrelated to your essay:

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

NOTE THAT in no other frame can circular motion between the bodies be described in this circumstance except in the 'observing' sub-atomic particle.

Regards,

Akinbo

*I will come back here for answer.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 20:07 GMT
Dear Akinbo

You ask deep and penetrating questions, and after the deadline of the contest, I am going to collect them, studied them, and if I can, I will try to answer some of them.

For now, I am stumped to give any kind of direct answer to your question. (I like the phrase “It’s above my pay grade” being used in this forum to avoid answering the question directly, but right now I cannot even find the reference to it!)

However, I can give you this indirect answer, and you decide whether it is even relevant to your question.

In Stephen Hawking’s “A Briefer History of Time”, page 32, para 2, I found the following statement: “Einstein’s fundamental postulate of the theory of relativity, as it was called, stated that the laws of science should be the same for all freely moving observers, no matter what their speed.” In other popular expositions, it has been also said that light travels at constant velocity in all inertial frames.

Based on my empirical findings of dualities in our discourses, I have said (for the the umpteenth times too many!) that “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” (including of course Wheeler’s “Bit-It” title of the Contest), would you not say that my catechism: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ Bit-It ~ gene-protein ~ analogy-reason ~ linear-nonlinear ~ … can be interpreted as inertial or freely moving frames of references?

I would love to hear your answer from the point of view of your essay “On The Road Not Taken”. I am intrigued by your learned dissertation on “the cues” from great philosopher-thinkers from the past. We will need to return to it again and again.

Best and Cheers!

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 16:47 GMT
Dear Than

Recomendation of book

http://books.google.com/books/about/Polarity_and_Analogy
.html?id=udiMgniEMlQC

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 20:08 GMT
Dear Yuri

Thanks, and I will go to it when I finish with the demands of this contest.

Than

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 22:28 GMT
Dear Than,

You gave me some valuable insights, and conforted my thoughts.

On first reading I thought to myself, this is someone who thinks like me, hear eDuality. But just after I discover that you fall into contradiction and you say that the eUniverse is analog.

Your essay is excellent, you defend your point of view. But I still wanted to show your contradiction that takes you away from the eDuality that I defend.

Why do you not agree with me that this eDuality is the universal principle, the first principle, the foundation and fundamental of all that exist.

It is wrong to think that Nature is hiding something, Nature defend any secret and when It shows us motion, obviously for everyone, that we followed to arrive at the modern physical.

The problem is, if there is one, in the interpretation.

How do you deny all you see discrete and attach to your idea of an analog world ?

First you admit that the eUniverse is made of opposites (eDuality), and at the first opportunity you refute everything.

If after deepen your study, because you are on the right path, you will come to the same conclusion, that all opposites you see, these are the essential elements of information, which we call the 0 and 1.

By following my intuition, I discovered the greatest theory, one of these theories that has never existed, one that summarize the whole universe, as many scientists have desired in their lifetime, including Wheeler.

In any case, I tinkered a consistent eUniverse, that works, and all the laws and principles that we know have been applied with consistency.

I will rate highly your essay, after that.

Thank you and good luck.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 20:15 GMT
Dear Amazigh

Quantum physics says “Yes” and “No” are indistinguishable at the start, when everything is small, like atoms. Maybe that’s what Schrodinger meant when he talked about live and dead cat in a box.

Other expositors of QM have used different words to describe the states of: “Up” and “Down” (J. Bell?); “Here” and “There” (S. Weinberg?) as being superposed in quantum theory. Measurement gives the classical results (Bohr) by cancelling the interference terms in the probabilities (as amplitudes) to give clear answer to the ambiguity and randomness inherent in superposed states. Think two-slit experiment.

It’s difficult to keep track of the terminologies, let alone able to resolve the contradictions and inconsistencies in our seemingly divergent approaches. (The director of FQXi organization Max Tegmark’s recent polling survey of physicists’ view of “quantum measurement problem” has found no unanimity at all!)

However, there is one thing I am grateful about, and that is Nature is tolerant: it allows us to be the same and different at the same time, if we were to wear a quantum mask. In classical physics, it is “Here” or “There”, not “Here-There” together!

If I have time, I will return to you again: It is all very interesting!

Best and thanks,

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share


eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 01:02 GMT
Dear Than,

Thank you for all these explanations.

And as promised, I rated you.

Thank you and,

Good luck with the contest.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 11:32 GMT
Dear Sir,

We do not understand why scientists should use terms that are unscientific. Something weird means it is strange, odd, unusual, uncanny, eerie, creepy, bizarre, etc. It implies that the theory is unclear. Then how can it be called great? Is it not a contradiction? Is it not superstition? And when such statements are followed by comic/fantasy characters and their achievements, does...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 20:43 GMT
Dear Dr. Basudeba

“God is subtle, but He is not malicious” is a famous quote from Einstein, and Google found 132,000 instances of it in 0.31 seconds on my computer. (Bing gives me 2,050,000 results, but not the time!).

Your “God is not Devil, who plays dirty tricks. Don’t blame God for your lack of understanding” is a facsimile of the same sentiments. (I put it a little differently as “Quantum is Analogical.” Or “Nature is Analogical.” Or “Nature is Tolerant.”).

I think we all are on the same wavelength as far as the central ideas are concerned, but we are finding ourselves facing different directions as we climb this helical stair case, be it in life or in physics, or in any other realms of thought. When we try to reconcile the difference, we end up with a different kinds of differences! An example: wave-particle and boson-fermion of Bose-Einstein condensate.

Yes, there are too many interpretations of QM, and Yes, there are logical holes in SR, but many of us are blissfully unaware of it for the longest time. Thanks for reminding us.

Best Regards and Good Cheers,

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



Richard N. Shand wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 21:23 GMT
Than,

I found your essay to be very clear and thoughtful.

Thank you for reviewing my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It". We are very much in accord regarding the Planck constant as the "Mother of All Dualities".

Your concept that "quantum is analogical" resonants with the global iterative process which "selects" a particular path out of an ensemble (via path integrals). Locally, we participate in this self-reflexive process by splitting into "self" (the observer) and "non-self" (the observed). In this way, the ontic "analogical quantum" is also dual to epistemic "rational classical" reality.

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 04:28 GMT
Richard,

People already may be tired of my “analogies”, but I can’t resist from introducing them wherever and whenever I can. Like Banquo, thoughts appear at the at the oddest moments, not when we try to summon them.

With that no-apology apology, I like to say that your essay is a banquet of ideas that need days for us mortals to digest. But I do not worry because people like E. E. Klingman and the two Vladimirs (you know who they are!) have done a thorough job of analytically rigorous reviews, which clarify and enlighten us further.

There is very little for us to say more, and yet I have a few things left to say. Bear with me if you heard it before.

A major aim of my essay is to remind people that analogy and its bretheren automatic ( therefore unconscious) thought processes are as valuable as conscious rational thought processes, which often in this day and age usually come dressed with the armors of logic and math. As I said in my essay, analogy is the flag ship of rationality. As quantum is to classical or as wave is to particle, they are inseparable elements of thoughts. We may argue how they are paired, but the pairing itself cannot be doubted. As mind is to body.

Analogy is our theory of everything (TOE), because fundamentally it is all about sameness, (about the wholeness), and rationality is fundamentally about differences (about the parts), and we must have been talking about it since the days we have the language for it. We now have the mathematical and physical languages to talk about it more precisely and accurately.

I can’t help noticing that the theme running through our essays and commentaries is of unity in diversity, and my heart is glad when I was recognized as part of the fraternity.

Feynman might well be applauding at our mutual admiration society!

All the Best,

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share



sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:18 GMT
Dear Than Tin,

Thank you for your wonderful analysis and yes it makes perfect sense. I concur with you on this and you can include "Duality-Singularity" in your list.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 20:21 GMT
Dear Sridattadev:

Thanks for the kind appreciation. I have visited your blog briefly, and what I get out of it is that you are concerned with the generations of duals with arithmetics and number theory.

You said “Truth is simple, accepting is not.” My own take is “Understanding is difficult” because it takes time and experience.

With Metta,

Than

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 16:02 GMT
Dear Than,

I have a special copy of 'Feynman lectures' and I want to send it to you. So, please, contact me at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in

All the best,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 20:23 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I appreciate your generosity, but your generosity would be wasted on me because I am not a physics major who is capable of using such an advanced text.

Also I’m at a stage in life that unloading the stuffs of life is a proper thing to do. A close-at-hand example would be my essay in this contest, which I had it in my “possession” for a longest time, and only now I am “unloading it” to all by entering the contest for the first time.

I have downloaded your essay and read it, and the style of presentation is the one I am at home with – no mathematical symbols or equations.

And you have clarified the many senses of that nebulous word “Information”, and I believe it will prove to be a big help in future discussion of the topic. Right now, I may not be the only one who is confused about the meaning or the many manifestations of that word.

With Metta,

Than

Bookmark and Share


Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 02:32 GMT
Dear Than,

Thanks for your nice comments on my essay and I read your essay once and I liked your motto behind writing this nice essay. After going through your essay once more I will post my comments on it and would like to give an excellent rating. Mean time, if you have any questions regarding this you can feel free to contact me at any time in my above address.

Best of luck,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael Alexeevich Popov wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 11:41 GMT
Dear Than,

I suppose that Physics as a science tries to establish truth but not poetics and political sense of argument.R.Feynman also suggested that physicists have a way of avoiding the politics and subjective tastes in science : if you have an apparatus which is capable of telling how many bits of information given thermal energy ( "termal information" )must contain in the terms of physical measurement, then you can say scientifically about entity information, indeed. Because there is no such thing as physical measurement of the bits of thermal information, then Hawking-like law of information conservation (' The information remains firmly in our universe. Thus, If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe but in a mangled form which contains the information about what you were like but in a state where it can not be easily recognized '( Hawking ,2005 )) and its consequences might be considered, unfortunately,as popular illusion.

respectfully

Michael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 20:25 GMT
Dear Michael

You said “I suppose that Physics as a science tries to establish truth but not poetics and political sense of argument”.

My take is “truth” can be approached from all sides, like Feynman’s all-path formulation of quantum mechanics. I do not believe there is a “soft” truth and a “hard” truth, but I have a preference of a path – poetics -- in trying to reach it. My essay in that sense can be characterized as “poetics” because it is full of analogies.

Thanks for taking the time to make a comment on my site.

Best Luck,

Than

Bookmark and Share



Patrick Tonin wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 20:30 GMT
Dear Than Tin,

Nice essay. I can't agree more, nature is simple and it is all about dualities. In fact, I would say that it is all about opposites.

Good luck with the contest.

Cheers,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 20:28 GMT
Hello Pat

Thanks for a very agreeable agreement. As you can see in my reply to Michael above, I call upon Feynman every chance I get, and may be that’s the reason why my rating is in the cellar, and changing like a yo-yo!

Cheers,

Than

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 09:23 GMT
Hi Than Tin,

I still did not fully read in complete detail your essay but wanted to give some comments on the parts I did get to. Your split of approaching things/problems via analogy and via rational reason reminded me a bit of Robert Pirsig's discussion of the intuition/romantic approach to the world vs. the analytical/scientific approach to the world in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" (a great book despite the somewhat funny title). Part of the book is trying to find or describe the balance between these two modes of thought. Anyway if you have not read this book you may find it interesting.

The second comment -- you discuss some constant on the last page of the essay and from what I understand you do a thought experiment to vary this constant ("A value of zero is certain to produce a fantasy world, but we could go just as wrong by going too strongly away from zero."). Then at the end you associate this constant with Planck's constant. This is an interesting thought experiment -- how would the world look of hbar, Planck's constant, where different? Taking hbar to 0 is generally called the classical limit since the world would be classical at all levels. If on the other hand if hbar were very large, quantum effects would/might become noticeable on large scales e.g. one might be able to "see" quantum tunneling. There was a paper by Adler and Santiago where they considered a variable hbar but I'm not sure what become of this. The original paper is available in the arXiv "On a generalization in quantum theory: Is h Planck constant?", Ronald J. Adler and David I. Santiago e-Print: hep-th/9908073.

Best of luck,

Doug

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Douglas Alexander Singleton replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 09:29 GMT
Opps forgot to login the above comment was mine.

Best,

Doug

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Than Tin wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 20:33 GMT
Hi Doug

I’m going to check out “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” pronto. A hell of a title too: no wonder everyone is talking about it, and I am beating myself for not even browsing through it. And how can I call myself a book lover straight face after this admission?

Yes, I have seen in the physics literature a statement saying “hbar” is zero in the classical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 01:02 GMT
Dear Than,

Thank you for all these explanations.

And as promised, I rated you.

Thank you and,

Good luck with the contest.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 05:37 GMT
Dear Amazigh

I have downloaded your essay and now sits with the essays from other contestants on my computer. I have read it, and I also hope to read all of them, perhaps not all in the time given to us.

The reason I wanted to read not only 2013 batch of essays (and also those that have been submitted to FQXi in the past 3-4 years) is that I really wanted to know “How comes the Two-ness?”. We found two-ness as you have listed in your essay and mine. But where do they come from originally?

Thanks for the rating, and Good Luck to You too.

Than

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 02:01 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

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

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 05:34 GMT
Dear John,

I’ve planted this particlular question “How comes the Two-ness?” at a few sites where I might find the answer.

I am glad to know that your essay also deals with two-ness, although your terms of reference is the binary nature of Hydrogen as a harbinger of Life.

But how does Nature comes to this very method of division in the first place?

Despite Feynman’s warning not to go beyond two-ness of wave-particle duality in QM, I am still curious to know.

Thanks for taking the time to reply as we rushed to finish before the deadline.

Than

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 15:13 GMT
Dear Than,

I have read your beautiful Essay, as I promised in my Essay page. Here are my comments:

1) I disagree with your statement that "quantum theory is the greatest scientific theory ever invented by Mankind". In fact, in my opinion general relativity is better, but this is very subjective.

2) The statement that "Einstein's Relativity theory forbids that nothing travels faster than light" is questionable. I suggest you to read this paper on Extended Relativity by my friends Recami and Mignani.

3) Your analogy "Without the benefits of automaticity accompanying the common sense and the analogy-making power of the mind, our behavior would be like a robot mindlessly following rules and instructions to do the simplest of tasks that a child of two instinctively know how to do. " is very beautiful.

4) Your idea to represent the state of one's mind through a transcient configuration of duals is intriguing.

5) Your idea of the Planck Constant as the Mother of all Dualities is fascinating, but I think that it can really work only for the microscopic world. Which is its connection with macroscopic dualities like some that you cited, for example Special Theory of Relativity-General Theory of Relativity, Linear-Nonlinear, Chance-Necessity, etc.

6) I do not think that Inertial-Gravitational is a duality. Einstein Equivalence Principle implies that they are the same think!

7) What do you think about my statement on the it-bit duality: "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"?

In any case, I found your Essay very interesting. Reading it gave me a lot of fun. Thus, I will give you a high score.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Than Tin replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 05:32 GMT
Dear Christian

I very much appreciate your detailed point by point analysis of my essay, and as people say I needed that. And I wish I had the background, especially the time, to reply to your questions with as much seriousness as you put into them. Anyway, here’re my tries:

(1) You are right that I gone way over board on that sentence. It’s an equivalent of a purple prose in the scientific literature, I guess.

(2) I have being hearing about superluminal light, but I couldn’t figure it out how light could have chosen to travel faster than itself, when it is already there. It is not physics, but “light and its meanings or its manifestations” remind me of W. Somerset Maugham’s version of “The Appointment in Samarra.”

(3) and (4) Thanks for the kind remarks: I am grateful beyond words.

(5) I believe there is only a thin line between microscopic and macroscopic, between quantum and classical, between unconscious and conscious, between same and difference. The nature of the thin line is a major obstacle in resolving the tension between dualities we are speaking about. It’s a problem since day one of quantum theory, and it may turn out to be the main obstacle to the technological achievements of quantum computation. I wish we could go back to the ferment of the old days when QMP (quantum measurement problem) was a rage.

(6) I was thinking of flat space-time and curved space-time, which kinda implies linear and nonlinear.

(7) Can I skip it for now? I promise to return to it even after the contest is over.

Cheers to you as well

Than

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:45 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 13:28 GMT
Than,

Super essay, a pleasure to read, super score applied.

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:09 GMT
Dear Than Tin,

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.