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.

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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Michael Helland**: *on* 8/8/13 at 0:14am UTC, wrote Imaginative. I rated it a ten, hopefully you like my essay too. ...

**Cristinel Stoica**: *on* 8/7/13 at 7:43am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.

**sridattadev kancharla**: *on* 8/7/13 at 1:55am UTC, wrote Dear Andrej, Your essay beautifully describes that I have simply...

**sridattadev kancharla**: *on* 8/7/13 at 1:34am UTC, wrote Dear Andrej, Please see the universal mathematical truth of zero = I...

**Paul Borrill**: *on* 8/6/13 at 4:20am UTC, wrote Andrej - excellent work. Out of the last twenty or so papers I read, it was...

**eAmazigh HANNOU**: *on* 8/6/13 at 1:38am UTC, wrote Dear Andrej, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 8/2/13 at 19:58pm UTC, wrote Andre, Beautifully written and illustrated. I agree "Everything is a...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 7/31/13 at 18:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Andrej, I was fascinated by your proof, well written, presented,...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Robert McEachern**: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**James Putnam**: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..."
*in* Black Hole Photographed...

**Steve Agnew**: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Robert McEachern**: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Steve Agnew**: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..."
*in* The Nature of Time

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**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.

**Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes**

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

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.

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

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.

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.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM

May 20, 2019

CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]

TOPIC: The Proof by Andrej Rehak [refresh]

TOPIC: The Proof by Andrej Rehak [refresh]

If the result of the product of zero and infinity is not defined then the system located within dimensions of their ideas has no definition. On a scale between zero and infinity, we establish the system. Universally valid definition of its geometry of motion proves its validity. We prove that the system is. We establish a platform for its unification.

Andrej Rehak finished High School for Mathematics and Informatics and graduated sculpture on Academy of Fine Arts in Zagreb. He does computer animation and searches for patterns in motions and shapes.

Dear Andrej

If your proof are that equations, how do we can demonstrated and applied in practice ?

And 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...

view entire post

If your proof are that equations, how do we can demonstrated and applied in practice ?

And 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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrej,

Interesting analysis. I am sure some mathematical and physical truths lie underneath. Read my essay and I will appreciate some feedback.

The point I want to discuss in your essay is "Let's imagine that we are located in the system from whose centre goes 'n' lines.... Only at the position of the centre, we'll see 'n' points"

Does the circumference about the centre have a definite size or is it infinite in size? Is there a maximum number to the number of 'n' lines possible from the centre? Are the lines imaginary or real lines that you can draw and see?

Best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Interesting analysis. I am sure some mathematical and physical truths lie underneath. Read my essay and I will appreciate some feedback.

The point I want to discuss in your essay is "Let's imagine that we are located in the system from whose centre goes 'n' lines.... Only at the position of the centre, we'll see 'n' points"

Does the circumference about the centre have a definite size or is it infinite in size? Is there a maximum number to the number of 'n' lines possible from the centre? Are the lines imaginary or real lines that you can draw and see?

Best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Dear Akinbo

Interesting question. The idea about the centre came to me while constructing something similar to crop circles. For their construction one needs sticks and ropes, but to check their shape and their precision one has to see them from the above. Of course, one relies on the same method, scaled in proportions, used when constructing them on a piece of paper or computer. With some experience, one is quite certain that enlarged geometry corresponds to its scheme. One of these constructions had star like geometry and it was easy, even for someone who didn’t build it, to conclude how it looks like and how precise it is only from observing it from its centre.

The centre in geometry is, as you know, the idea of a dimensionless dot, and the circumference of any circle consists the infinity of dots. So the abstract idea placed in an abstract planar world is as abstract as considering the constant acceleration of a falling object. Each orbit, has its unique acceleration, thus, with exception of its orbital velocity equilibrium, falling entity is never in the same orbit. In other words its acceleration is never constant. For small differences in comparison to Earth’s radius we approximate it as being constant, but experiments like Pound – Rebka measure its variability. So your feet actually fall faster than your head.

In “real” world, the mentioned idea of the centre is approximated at least to the radius of the observers head :). And thank you for pointing to n lines problem. n stands for a number (the countable entity), so n can be any value between one and infinity but not the infinity since it is not a number but the idea containing all of the numbers. Lines can be infinite or finite, imaginary or real.

I am looking forward to read your essay.

Best regards

Andrej

Interesting question. The idea about the centre came to me while constructing something similar to crop circles. For their construction one needs sticks and ropes, but to check their shape and their precision one has to see them from the above. Of course, one relies on the same method, scaled in proportions, used when constructing them on a piece of paper or computer. With some experience, one is quite certain that enlarged geometry corresponds to its scheme. One of these constructions had star like geometry and it was easy, even for someone who didn’t build it, to conclude how it looks like and how precise it is only from observing it from its centre.

The centre in geometry is, as you know, the idea of a dimensionless dot, and the circumference of any circle consists the infinity of dots. So the abstract idea placed in an abstract planar world is as abstract as considering the constant acceleration of a falling object. Each orbit, has its unique acceleration, thus, with exception of its orbital velocity equilibrium, falling entity is never in the same orbit. In other words its acceleration is never constant. For small differences in comparison to Earth’s radius we approximate it as being constant, but experiments like Pound – Rebka measure its variability. So your feet actually fall faster than your head.

In “real” world, the mentioned idea of the centre is approximated at least to the radius of the observers head :). And thank you for pointing to n lines problem. n stands for a number (the countable entity), so n can be any value between one and infinity but not the infinity since it is not a number but the idea containing all of the numbers. Lines can be infinite or finite, imaginary or real.

I am looking forward to read your essay.

Best regards

Andrej

Andrej,

Thank you for reading and rating my essay BITTERS, and for the kind comment you made about it. I found your essay to be exceptionally well written and I thought that the graphics were very well executed and thoughtfully explained in the text.

The only question Wheeler ought to have asked was: “Is the real universe simple? The only rational answer to that question is yes. It follows that only simplicity is real. once The simplest reality is unique, once.

Real Nature has never produced real identical snowflakes; there must be a reason for that. The reason is that it is physically impossible for real Nature to produce real identical states in a unique, once, reality. For some peculiar reason, man does nothing else but tries to produce identical states. From laws to prayers to beer cans, practically everything. Although abstractly 1+1 always perfectly =2, to conform to mathematical logic, it should only do so once. Actually, each of the depicted 1’s is physically unique, once. Real unique , once, is not a perfect abstract equation.

Unique reality is simple, once. Any scientific abstract deviation from unique, once, must be unrealistic. Unique reality, once, is not the result of an experiment. Nature does not conduct experiments, and to think for one moment that reality can be excluded from the laboratory proves that everything the scientists do is unreasonable and unrealistic.

Joe

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for reading and rating my essay BITTERS, and for the kind comment you made about it. I found your essay to be exceptionally well written and I thought that the graphics were very well executed and thoughtfully explained in the text.

The only question Wheeler ought to have asked was: “Is the real universe simple? The only rational answer to that question is yes. It follows that only simplicity is real. once The simplest reality is unique, once.

Real Nature has never produced real identical snowflakes; there must be a reason for that. The reason is that it is physically impossible for real Nature to produce real identical states in a unique, once, reality. For some peculiar reason, man does nothing else but tries to produce identical states. From laws to prayers to beer cans, practically everything. Although abstractly 1+1 always perfectly =2, to conform to mathematical logic, it should only do so once. Actually, each of the depicted 1’s is physically unique, once. Real unique , once, is not a perfect abstract equation.

Unique reality is simple, once. Any scientific abstract deviation from unique, once, must be unrealistic. Unique reality, once, is not the result of an experiment. Nature does not conduct experiments, and to think for one moment that reality can be excluded from the laboratory proves that everything the scientists do is unreasonable and unrealistic.

Joe

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joe

As you have red in my essay, our concepts are in perfect agreement. Everything is a Change. What we are witnessing from our unique, dynamic and elusive now and here, our one, are different velocities of genesis of all other ones. We approximate constant acceleration although each infinitely different orbit has its infinitely unique space-time properties, thus different acceleration... Each new now and each new here is a new orbit. Our time slows down, our speed increase, our space expands... we measure them unchanged... we accelerate. What we can do in mathematics and geometry, we can freeze the described dynamics and see the law of that change.

Instead of grasping concepts, boys with their “toys” brake the particles of our world apart to “touch and see” its structure. We developed extremely precise instruments to measure... Thus, irrational √2 and π are infinite. Regardless of how precise our technology, or how fast our computers gets, we would always have to round them up to a certain depth. Iteration of that imperfection, limited by inability to count infinities is a butterfly effect. The truth that we are facing is that our predictions would never be exact. But then, knowing that the immense complexity of the universe arouses from the iteration of the simplest possible relation, relating to literally all other relations might ignite our consciousness.

Whatever I perceive, I perceive it’s past. Whatever perceives me perceives my past. I am the centre of my time and my space. I am the one winding my space-time and measuring my radius of one. My “mass” is the infinite container of my memory. I am the unique-verse witnessing myself.

We are not our inhibitions, we are not the imprinted paradigm and we are not our implanted fear... Are we, the unique-verses simple? Are fractal functions simple? I guess it depends whether you look at its appearance or its code. Simplicity is the way to Simplicity.

Best regards

Andrej

As you have red in my essay, our concepts are in perfect agreement. Everything is a Change. What we are witnessing from our unique, dynamic and elusive now and here, our one, are different velocities of genesis of all other ones. We approximate constant acceleration although each infinitely different orbit has its infinitely unique space-time properties, thus different acceleration... Each new now and each new here is a new orbit. Our time slows down, our speed increase, our space expands... we measure them unchanged... we accelerate. What we can do in mathematics and geometry, we can freeze the described dynamics and see the law of that change.

Instead of grasping concepts, boys with their “toys” brake the particles of our world apart to “touch and see” its structure. We developed extremely precise instruments to measure... Thus, irrational √2 and π are infinite. Regardless of how precise our technology, or how fast our computers gets, we would always have to round them up to a certain depth. Iteration of that imperfection, limited by inability to count infinities is a butterfly effect. The truth that we are facing is that our predictions would never be exact. But then, knowing that the immense complexity of the universe arouses from the iteration of the simplest possible relation, relating to literally all other relations might ignite our consciousness.

Whatever I perceive, I perceive it’s past. Whatever perceives me perceives my past. I am the centre of my time and my space. I am the one winding my space-time and measuring my radius of one. My “mass” is the infinite container of my memory. I am the unique-verse witnessing myself.

We are not our inhibitions, we are not the imprinted paradigm and we are not our implanted fear... Are we, the unique-verses simple? Are fractal functions simple? I guess it depends whether you look at its appearance or its code. Simplicity is the way to Simplicity.

Best regards

Andrej

Thanks for your attention Dear Andrej

I have read your work (in first approximation!) I have opened your site also and I see you have doing impressively job. I will suggest you read my post to Antony (see above in my forum) and I have rate your work as (7) I hope on your response.

Best wishes,

George Kirakosyan

report post as inappropriate

I have read your work (in first approximation!) I have opened your site also and I see you have doing impressively job. I will suggest you read my post to Antony (see above in my forum) and I have rate your work as (7) I hope on your response.

Best wishes,

George Kirakosyan

report post as inappropriate

Mr. Rehak

I am one of the authors in this contest. My essay is available and

I want to rate Your own essay but before I have to discover how to do it...

I had idea quite similar to Yours. Especially the graphs in Your essay.

I should add graph like Yours to my script .

Very nice, but why the essay is incomplete ?

What If I joint my essay to Your own, but after page 9 ?

So Now I invite You to read mine. I am sure won't repent.

My Best Regard.

report post as inappropriate

I am one of the authors in this contest. My essay is available and

I want to rate Your own essay but before I have to discover how to do it...

I had idea quite similar to Yours. Especially the graphs in Your essay.

I should add graph like Yours to my script .

Very nice, but why the essay is incomplete ?

What If I joint my essay to Your own, but after page 9 ?

So Now I invite You to read mine. I am sure won't repent.

My Best Regard.

report post as inappropriate

Andrej

Your opinion is very deep, which is the difference in my theory - I use the principle as criteria for measures.

Thank you again.

report post as inappropriate

Your opinion is very deep, which is the difference in my theory - I use the principle as criteria for measures.

Thank you again.

report post as inappropriate

Andrej,

I found your essay engrossing and insightful. As an artist, I can related to your visuals which I found to be somewhat reflective of the findings of a recently concluded 12 year experiment I have conducted.

I will rate your essay highly but would like to run a question or two by you if I may via email before I do. What is your email address or if you prefer you can send an email response to my email address at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

I found your essay engrossing and insightful. As an artist, I can related to your visuals which I found to be somewhat reflective of the findings of a recently concluded 12 year experiment I have conducted.

I will rate your essay highly but would like to run a question or two by you if I may via email before I do. What is your email address or if you prefer you can send an email response to my email address at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrej

I like game [0, 1, Inf]...

Once when I play with values of mass elementary particles revealed some interesting angle 18 degrees.It was connected with Golden ratio.

See part Symmetries... PSL(2,Z)etc

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

Do you have any idea about it?

Yuri

See also my essay.

report post as inappropriate

I like game [0, 1, Inf]...

Once when I play with values of mass elementary particles revealed some interesting angle 18 degrees.It was connected with Golden ratio.

See part Symmetries... PSL(2,Z)etc

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

Do you have any idea about it?

Yuri

See also my essay.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrej,

I think your essay is excellent You are genius! There is something that jumps out about the "inseparable component of zero and infinity, their cause and their

consequence: the vector trinity of space, velocity and time".

Further, the superb illustrations help the reader understand visually your fantastic concept.

You deserve to do well in the contest, so hopefully my rating will help.

Please take a look at my essay based on information exchange, Entropy, Black Holes and the Fibonacci sequence. I hope you will like it.

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

I think your essay is excellent You are genius! There is something that jumps out about the "inseparable component of zero and infinity, their cause and their

consequence: the vector trinity of space, velocity and time".

Further, the superb illustrations help the reader understand visually your fantastic concept.

You deserve to do well in the contest, so hopefully my rating will help.

Please take a look at my essay based on information exchange, Entropy, Black Holes and the Fibonacci sequence. I hope you will like it.

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrej,

I was fascinated by your proof, well written, presented, argued and illustrated so of great worth. But I think it may contain a fundamentally flawed assumption which prevents it's completion, which I discuss in my own essay.

Firstly I agree most of what you propose. "Everything is a Change", "geometry of motion..". as a platform for unification. But suggest there is; "a way to express space (and) time independently,"

I think you are absolutely right in saying "The truth that we are facing is that our predictions would never be exact." and this is what I think I have rationalised by challenging the assumption, or questioning your statement 1=1. I agree it's absolute truth mathematically, when manipulating symbols as cardinalisations, but suggest nature is different, there being no two identical physical entities at observable scale, as Leibnitz Law and possibly contrary to the assumption of QM. I identify this fundamental assumption as the root of all confusion and 'background noise' in science.

This is why computation can't handle "the ideas of infinity, i.e. computer doesn't"think"."

The 'described mechanism' may not; create grids from zero to infinity. But perhaps changes down to a minimum of gamma or the plank length, between 0 and 1.

I hope you will read my essay and justification, and see the power of an ontology based on a Bayesian 'included' not excluded middle for nature.

None the less a good score is due for your essay. I look forward to your comments here and/or on mine. please ignore the dense offputting abstract but believe the nice blog comments.

Very best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I was fascinated by your proof, well written, presented, argued and illustrated so of great worth. But I think it may contain a fundamentally flawed assumption which prevents it's completion, which I discuss in my own essay.

Firstly I agree most of what you propose. "Everything is a Change", "geometry of motion..". as a platform for unification. But suggest there is; "a way to express space (and) time independently,"

I think you are absolutely right in saying "The truth that we are facing is that our predictions would never be exact." and this is what I think I have rationalised by challenging the assumption, or questioning your statement 1=1. I agree it's absolute truth mathematically, when manipulating symbols as cardinalisations, but suggest nature is different, there being no two identical physical entities at observable scale, as Leibnitz Law and possibly contrary to the assumption of QM. I identify this fundamental assumption as the root of all confusion and 'background noise' in science.

This is why computation can't handle "the ideas of infinity, i.e. computer doesn't"think"."

The 'described mechanism' may not; create grids from zero to infinity. But perhaps changes down to a minimum of gamma or the plank length, between 0 and 1.

I hope you will read my essay and justification, and see the power of an ontology based on a Bayesian 'included' not excluded middle for nature.

None the less a good score is due for your essay. I look forward to your comments here and/or on mine. please ignore the dense offputting abstract but believe the nice blog comments.

Very best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Andre,

Beautifully written and illustrated. I agree "Everything is a Change".

But I challenge one assumption, from which I suggest all the problems of failure to accurately describe nature by 'manipulating representative symbols' results.

I propose our symbols are too large, so 1=1 in not true in nature. I show how A=A and all such derivatives are false. Except of course in mathematics.

You can falsify the proposition if you can think of any two observable things in the universe that are precisely identical.

I hope you're able to read my essay, where A~A is just one limb of a powerful new ontological construction, eating the EPR paradox for breakfast! Ignore the Abstract and go by the recent blog posts, the essay is very readable.

Very well done for yours.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Beautifully written and illustrated. I agree "Everything is a Change".

But I challenge one assumption, from which I suggest all the problems of failure to accurately describe nature by 'manipulating representative symbols' results.

I propose our symbols are too large, so 1=1 in not true in nature. I show how A=A and all such derivatives are false. Except of course in mathematics.

You can falsify the proposition if you can think of any two observable things in the universe that are precisely identical.

I hope you're able to read my essay, where A~A is just one limb of a powerful new ontological construction, eating the EPR paradox for breakfast! Ignore the Abstract and go by the recent blog posts, the essay is very readable.

Very well done for yours.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrej,

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.

report post as inappropriate

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.

report post as inappropriate

Andrej - excellent work. Out of the last twenty or so papers I read, it was nice to come across another one worth reading.

Kind regards, Paul

report post as inappropriate

Kind regards, Paul

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrej,

Please see the universal mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity. Theory of everything is that there is absolutely nothing but I.

LOVE,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Please see the universal mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity. Theory of everything is that there is absolutely nothing but I.

LOVE,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrej,

Your essay beautifully describes that I have simply theorized as the universal truth. I also welcome you to read a short essay in this contest,

Consciousness is a sphere of universal Schwarzschild radius (ranging from zero to infinity) with a central cosmological constant of the conscience or the singularity or the soul or the absolute (i), Universe is an iSphere. .

I can absolutely guarantee that your work will be recognized by everyone and I encourage you to incorporate the truth of zero = I = infinity in it. I wish you all the very best.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Your essay beautifully describes that I have simply theorized as the universal truth. I also welcome you to read a short essay in this contest,

Consciousness is a sphere of universal Schwarzschild radius (ranging from zero to infinity) with a central cosmological constant of the conscience or the singularity or the soul or the absolute (i), Universe is an iSphere. .

I can absolutely guarantee that your work will be recognized by everyone and I encourage you to incorporate the truth of zero = I = infinity in it. I wish you all the very best.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Imaginative. I rated it a ten, hopefully you like my essay too.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616

report post as inappropriate

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.