CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]
TOPIC:
First principle is eDuality ! by Amazigh M. Hannou
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 15:56 GMT
Essay AbstractInformation is at the heart of the DNA, the spirit of the arts, philosophy, science and technology, it is in the memory of the electronic machines. Would be information in basic science and cosmology? And if it was, how it manifests itself, how it works, how to see and detect, how to read, how is it organized, how is it formed? These are all challenges that our science must strive to clarify, because there is the secret, the mystery of our universe.
Author BioIndependent researcher, computer scientist, Questioning about Nature
Download Essay PDF File
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 21:27 GMT
Amazigh,
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
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 22:03 GMT
Jim,
Thanks, for taking a look at my work. This is true, it is difficult, but we try.
best regards
Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 11:55 GMT
Amazigh,
As of 7-6-13, 7:55 am EST, the rating function for your essay is not available. Sorry I can't help you out right now by rating your essay. NOTE: I have logged in using a PC and a MAC and different browsers but it appears to be a site function issue.
Manuel
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 18:40 GMT
Manuel,
Thanks, yes it's a site function issue. Later ...
Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 21:21 GMT
Amazigh,
I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.
My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online...
view entire post
Amazigh,
I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.
My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online competition which assures me that the competition will be back up and running soon. Ironically, the inability of not being able to rate the essays correlates with the TD experimental findings, as presented in my essay, which show how the acts of selection are fundamental to our physical existence.
Anyway, I hope that all entrants will be allocated the same opportunity to have their essay rated when they are posted, and if not possible due to technical difficulties, will have their opportunity adjusted accordingly. Best wishes to you with your entry.
Manuel
PS I will be reviewing and rating your entry after this function has been turned back on.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 01:11 GMT
Dear amazigh
Looking forward to your "Science today has an urgent need for a evolutionary theory, logical and qualitative, on the Functioning of the Univers and affects all aspects: mathematics, physics, philosophical, cosmological, sociological,economic, political, etc. ." also as what I have mentioned - a specific and detailed manner - at :http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802...
view entire post
Dear amazigh
Looking forward to your "Science today has an urgent need for a evolutionary theory, logical and qualitative, on the Functioning of the Univers and affects all aspects: mathematics, physics, philosophical, cosmological, sociological,economic, political, etc. ." also as what I have mentioned - a specific and detailed manner - at :http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802
I appreciate your essay and will to rate it when the rating system continues to operate.
And to change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition along with demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :
THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT
1 . THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES
A. What thing is new and the difference in the absolute theory than other theories?
The first is concept of "Absolute" in my absolute theory is defined as: there is only one - do not have any similar - no two things exactly alike.
The most important difference of this theory is to build on the entirely new basis and different platforms compared to the current theory.
B. Why can claim: all things are absolute - have not of relative ?
It can be affirmed that : can not have the two of status or phenomenon is the same exists in the same location in space and at the same moment of time - so thus: everything must be absolute and can not have any of relative . The relative only is a concept to created by our .
C. Why can confirm that the conclusions of the absolute theory is the most specific and detailed - and is unique?
Conclusion of the absolute theory must always be unique and must be able to identify the most specific and detailed for all issues related to a situation or a phenomenon that any - that is the mandatory rules of this theory.
D. How the applicability of the absolute theory in practice is ?
The applicability of the absolute theory is for everything - there is no limit on the issue and there is no restriction on any field - because: This theory is a method to determine for all matters and of course not reserved for each area.
E. How to prove the claims of Absolute Theory?
To demonstrate - in fact - for the above statement,we will together come to a specific experience, I have a small testing - absolutely realistic - to you with title:
2 . A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT :
“Absolute determination to resolve for issues reality”
That is, based on my Absolute theory, I will help you determine by one new way to reasonable settlement and most effective for meet with difficulties of you - when not yet find out to appropriate remedies - for any problems that are actually happening in reality, only need you to clearly notice and specifically about the current status and the phenomena of problems included with requirements and expectations need to be resolved.
I may collect fees - by percentage of benefits that you get - and the commission rate for you, when you promote and recommend to others.
Condition : do not explaining for problems as impractical - no practical benefit - not able to determine in practice.
To avoid affecting the contest you can contact me via email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com
Hope will satisfy and bring real benefits for you along with the desire that we will find a common ground to live together in happily.
Add another problem, which is:
USE OF THE EQUATIONS AND FORMULA IN ESSAY
There have been some comments to me to questions is: why in my essay did not use the equations and formulas to interpret?
The reason is:
1. The currently equations and formulas are not able to solve all problems for all concerned that they represent.
2. Through research, I found: The application of the equations and formulas when we can not yet be determined the true nature of the problem will create new problems - there is even more complex and difficult to resolve than the original.
I hope so that : you will sympathetic and consideration to avoid misunderstanding my comments.
Hải.Caohoàng
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 18:14 GMT
Dear Hải.Caohoàng,
Thank you for taking a look to my essay. I will do the same for yours.
Precision on what I think :
« Today, science has an urgent need for a " revolutionary theory ", " logical and qualitative ", on the functioning
of the universe and that affects all aspects : mathematics, physics, philosophical, cosmological, sociological,
economic, political, etc.. »
best regards,
Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 20:59 GMT
Amazigh,
Your conclusions match very well with the findings I have obtained in the 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. So your conjectures are not really conjectures for they are substantiated by actual empirical evidence. Although I would have like to see more contrasting arguments to support your position, I find your essay very clear and to the point.
I am pleased to rate your essay and wish you the best in this competition.
Regards,
Manuel
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 22:38 GMT
Thank you Manuel,
You're right. I did not try to prove anything, I only take the obvious things. The only positive point in what I am saying is that I will strengthen the camp of those who think like me.
I have many things to say about the functioning of the Universe, but we cannot say all things in a small restricted space.
But the more I said, the most basic, the most fundamental, the most important, the most essential is that Principle of eDuality, It is the first one, the founder of the Universe, and that nothing, absolutely nothing works without It.
Such is my irrevocable conclusion, so much the movement and play of opposites are there shining. And as I said it, if Science knew successful by following the one, it going to experience an unprecedented revolution in following the other one.
I wanted to be accurate in my article on one point and evasive at other points, as most of my work is to come.
You will be surprised to learn how duality governs our world, and how Wheeler was right on information.
But before arriving at a fair view of our universe and our world, we have to start by correcting what is not quite right in our Science, beginning with the name of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity.
Here is what I propose as a fundamental correction: "Quantum and Wave Mechanics" instead of "Quantum Mechanics" and "Theory of Relativity and Absolute" instead of "Theory of Relativity".
Accuracy: The "e" of "eDuality" is not a mistake, it is in anticipation of a new Science announced.
Good luck.
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 00:19 GMT
Dear Hannou,
Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. You put DNA in this . It is very good. And you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?
I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on...
view entire post
Dear Hannou,
Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. You put DNA in this . It is very good. And you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?
I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.
I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.
Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .
Best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.b
logspot.com/
Pdf download:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-downloa
d/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf
Part of abstract:
- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .
Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .
A
Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
……. I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT
. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .
B.
Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data……
C
Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT
"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT
1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.
2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.
3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.
4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?
D
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
It from bit - where are bit come from?
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
….And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?— in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.
Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..
E
Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT
…..Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.
I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.
===============
Please try Dynamic Universe Model with some numerical values, give initial values of velocities, take gravitation into consideration( because you can not experiment in ISOLATION). complete your numerical experiment.
later try changing values of masses and initial values of velocities....
Calculate with different setups and compare your results, if you have done a physical experiment.
I sincerely feel it is better to do experiment physically, or numerically instead of breaking your head on just logic. This way you will solve your problem faster.....
Best
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 04:22 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,
I read your essay. To be honest a lot of things I do not agree, but not right.
I see that we do not have the same idea about what may be the information. For me, and I hope for a lot of other information that is all that exists, all that is reality, everything is an object or phenomenon.
And I would like to have your opinion and so to get a better view.
Best regards
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 20:31 GMT
Dear amazigh mabrouk hannou,
Thank you for reading my essay and starting a nice discussion.
You said - - - - - I see that we do not have the same idea about what may be the information. For me, and I hope for a lot of other information that is all that exists, all that is reality, everything is an object or phenomenon.- - - - -
In my opinion, we have physical 5 senses and a...
view entire post
Dear amazigh mabrouk hannou,
Thank you for reading my essay and starting a nice discussion.
You said - - - - - I see that we do not have the same idea about what may be the information. For me, and I hope for a lot of other information that is all that exists, all that is reality, everything is an object or phenomenon.- - - - -
In my opinion, we have physical 5 senses and a sixth sense called mind. We form pictures of all the real things around us in our mind from these senses. Mind interprets these real things around us for forming these pictures. All these information will be lost when we die.
We invented the communication to transfer these pictures to fellow humans.
This communication uses information which is nothing but description of our mental picture.
But you say information is real, how it is real?
Is there any other information other than what I said?
Please reply in this thread so that I will get a communication from FQXi, and I can reply you, , , ,
best
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 00:11 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,
I did not make a mistake : we do not have the same idea of the word « information ». For me, any object is information. The word « information » is taken here in the large and extended sens, in the physical sense of the term and not in its abstract, symbolic and limited shape.
We define the word according to the conception which we have of the Nature and the reality. And not according to the common opinion, or its definition in a standard dictionary.
This is how I see the word « information » and I have my reasons which are directly related to a particular concept of the Universe.
If you design an object in your computer and you print it in three dimensions.
The object works, as if it was made at the factory. The symbolic information that you transformed into a physical information, is this real or an invention ?
You are free to have a different idea of the word « information », but I have another opinion.
With all my respects.
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 05:18 GMT
Dear HANNOU,
I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. FQXi also did not inform me. you also did not intimate me
According to your definition > the 3D printer will not print the object with out using any other material.
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
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 08:05 GMT
Dear amazigh,
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
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 14:41 GMT
Dear Sreenath BN,
In your Introduction : «CI is understood as a collection of bits whereas QI, by contrast, is a continuum.»
Is it a mistake ?
It appears to me to see good ideas. I will immediately read your essay and I come back to you.
Amazigh
Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 18:33 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
Your question, "CI is understood as a collection of bits whereas QI, by contrast, is a continuum Is it a mistake?".
No it is not a mistake but a scientifically accepted fact.
I will shortly post my comments on your essay; mean while, please, go through my essay and post your comments in my thread.
All the best,
Sreenath
report post as inappropriate
Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 07:33 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
In your brief essay you have raised too many questions and you have rightly said that to solve the problem of duality in all various fields, “Science today has an urgent need for a revolutionary theory, logical and qualitative, on the functioning of the Universe and affects all aspects: mathematics, physics, philosophical, cosmological, sociological, economic, political, etc.” You have rightly given equal importance to both information and reality, and that information pervades all fields in the universe including the whole universe, and reality, on the other hand, is objectively real and that it cannot be touched by information. This is also the conclusion that I have come across in my essay. So, please, go through my essay and post your kind comments on it in my thread. After seeing your comments I am going to rate your essay, written in a highly innovative style, with a very good score.
Best regards,
Sreenath
report post as inappropriate
Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 08:22 GMT
Hi Amazigh,
You wrote:
"Science today has an urgent need for a revolutionary theory, logical and qualitative, on the Functioning of the Univers and affects all aspects: mathematics, physics, philosophical, cosmological, sociological, economic, political, etc."
I agree with you and have been working to develop such a concept for several years. In the context of the simulation paradigm, I have developed a theoretical picture that has results consistent with observational cosmology. When I conducted a test to see if the paradigm is true of our reality I found that it was, and discovered a number of biological, cultural and historical aspects. While I was not able to survey all of this within nine pages, you can get a taste of it in my
Software Cosmos essay. Perhaps it will answer some of the questions you pose at the beginning of your essay.
Hugh
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:58 GMT
Thank you for your grateful comments and recommendation.
And best wishes
WANG Xiong wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 13:51 GMT
Dear Amazigh,,
Thanks for your nice essay, well done
I enjoy reading it and rate it accordingly
You wrote:
"Science today has an urgent need for a revolutionary theory, logical and qualitative, on the Functioning of the Univers and affects all aspects: mathematics, physics, philosophical, cosmological, sociological, economic, political, etc."
I agree with you and among all these what is the central idea?
i think is symmetry, my essay may interest you
Bit: from Breaking symmetry of itHope you enjoy it
Regards,
Xiong
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:59 GMT
Thank you for your grateful comments and recommendation.
And best wishes
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 22:04 GMT
Dear Joe,
« Information is not reality. Information has nothing to do with reality. Reality is an absolute. It is the ultimate condition. It is the only real condition. One cannot acquire any more of reality than one has already gotten.
The more information one collects, the less one will ever know about reality. »
Things cannot be quite good or quite bad. We cannot generalize like that.
My opinion is that the information is any object, any phenomenon.
And our reality and information are almost One.
Where there is no information, there is nothing to see, nothing to observe.
Good luck.
Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 15:01 GMT
Amazigh,
We see with our eyes as do all animals and fish. We differ from the animals and the fish in that we stupidly pretend to know what we are looking at. Each animal and fish has sense enough to know that it is an animal or a fish. Each man pretends to know that he knows more or looks better or is stronger or richer or is different than other men. He has to qualify and quantify everything he sees. All the information we use was imparted by men who have been dead for centuries.
Thanks for wishing me good luck.
Joe
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 13:29 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
Your essay is very interesting. So I will rate high. Try to read
my essay too.
You said to Joe above that if there is nothing to see, nothing to observe, there is no information? But if you put your hand in your pocket and find a diamond there, you have got information. But if later in the day, you put your hand in your pocket and no more diamond, have you not obtain an information also?
So what you said that if there is nothing to observe there is no information will not be correct.
Best regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 13:50 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
Very bold original essay. I have three questions for you.
First question: Did you try to draw a principle of Cusa "coincidence of opposites", the minimum and maximum?
The second question: Are you trying to make one more small step - from the "Dyad" to the "Trinity" and see in the single principle of the trinity symbol?
The third question: Why the picture of the world of physicists poorer sense than the picture of the world of lyricists??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY
I wish you success,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 20:02 GMT
Amazigh sorry, forgot to put a rating - 7
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 12:33 GMT
Thank you for your grateful comments.
I rated your essay too.
And best wishes
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 08:12 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
I invite you to comment my essay on my forum and rate it.
Best regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 21:07 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
I enjoyed your concise but original and very pertinent essay. I did question not your statement that 'object is information' which I agree by your definition, but whether your definition is useful as one that discerns and leaves a task for 'reality'. but then I saw what you proposed. And indeed putting 'real' under Religion twice certainly states you position!
Do you not however think we need to distinguish nature from metaphysics? Perhaps you might read my essay then answer that? I show the double helix produced from simple motion, proposing a universe of multiple spaces with no excluded middle. I hope this may found the revolutionary theory you essay rightly identifies as desperately needed.
I also found very valid and interesting your ideas for fundamental corrections to: "Quantum and Wave Mechanics" instead of "Quantum Mechanics" and "Theory of Relativity and Absolute" instead of "Theory of Relativity". Your present score seems ridiculously low so I'm pleased to give you a hike up. I hope the extended deadline allows you to read and score mine.
Well done and Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 12:27 GMT
Thank you for your grateful comments.
And best wishes
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 07:39 GMT
Very important ! Very important ! Very important ! Very important !
The eUniverse is a whole. A theory which does not consider the whole eUniverse would be unspeakable to claim to be the theory of everything. In physics only, it is possible. But not if it concerns the entire eUniverse.
The theory is there to gather a largest number of objects and phenomena, in larger and larger sets, and the dream is that only one set, the largest set that can exist and we call eUniverse, that collect all them and so they share the same language of communication, the same principles and laws.
Can this dream be reached ? My answer is a big YES.
It is a Theory which would include all other theories because it is a binary Theory, on the basis of the information, and information is the basis of eUniverse, its authenticity, its strength and its source.
This big Theory, the mother of all the theories, I found it, it is announced now, but it has been a long time since I work above and since I was convinced of my approach.
And a single concept claims to be able to gather all the fields, all the domains, to apply at every level and all the scales, Its name is eDuality.
From eDuality will emerge a new science, a new philosophy, and mathematics will be consolidated in their abstract role next to concrete of physics.
To work, the world needs its both legs, use its both hands, see with its both eyes, and to think, worry about the two contradictory points of view at its disposal.
Wheeler's dream has come true : "It from bit" ; to me : "It's a bit" ; this Theory such as predicted : A simple Theory to explain a eUniverse so complex.
I summarize the idea of Wheeler : Finally, it is also simple and we did not even think of it.
I apologize if the translation is not good.
Amazigh HANNOU
Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 08:37 GMT
Hello Amazigh,
Thanks for your comments over on my page. I'll reply moe thoroughly and read your paper by early next week. I like the look of your abstract, asking all the right questions, so look forward to it.
Best wishes,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 13:03 GMT
Dear Amazigh and all,
Thank you for posting in my essay. Here is some work I am doing to achieve what you are trying to do as well.
eUniverse = iSphere
Simple mathematical truth of zero=I=infinity, iSphere and iSeries as described below can explain all the aspects of reality mathematically.
I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows...
view entire post
Dear Amazigh and all,
Thank you for posting in my essay. Here is some work I am doing to achieve what you are trying to do as well.
eUniverse = iSphereSimple mathematical truth of zero=I=infinity,
iSphere and iSeries as described below can explain all the aspects of reality mathematically.
I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.
I give you all a cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.
iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.
One of the sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
the second sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.
Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation
Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i
Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".
Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.
Examples
starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5
-27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5
Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 2 5 13 34 ...
Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 3 8 21 55 ...
Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)
The above equations hold true for any value of I.
As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.
http://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin
d-super.pdf
Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off from a basic singularity. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 (singularity) and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.
Its also interesting to see the singularity is in the base seed of zero and how it is all pervasive all through out the DNA structure in the attached image. I have been telling that I is that nothing which dwells in everything and this DNA structure seems to prove that notion. Singularity is right with in the duality. Absolute is right with in the relativity. This proves that both of these states of singularity and duality are interconnected and are the source of life.
Love,
Sridattadev.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
sridattadev kancharla replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 13:21 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
Here is the attachment.
Love,
Sridattadev.
attachments:
10_iDNASeries.bmp
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 21:28 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
Thank you for appreciating my essay.
Interesting video with prime numbers in DNA.
Numbers and eDuality are in all things.
I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.
Respectfully, and good luck.
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 14:49 GMT
Dear Amazigh
Your short but intensive essay is to be linked to my ideas of reality.
The dualities you gave are indeed only a grasp of all the dualities that exist in our causal universe. Between all dualities there is energy, the essence of our existence, between birth and death there is LIFE. A battery gives no power when it is empty and both poles have no difference.
The e-duality you introduce I perceive as the qubit reality, in the quantum "reality" a qubit can be both ends of duality , the duality itself is displayed in the Bloch sphere.
So in-between these dualities there is the essence just as I am trying to describe in
my essay : THE QUEST FOR THE PRIMAL SEQUENCE , which I hope that you can read, comment and rate. I think that you will find there some indications to the answers of the questions you are posing and your comments are welcome.
I hope that you will be able to spare some causal time and give like I did (from 2.8 to 3.1) a rating that is in coherence with your appreciation.
best regards
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 21:03 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
Thank you for appreciating my essay.
If I suppose that the Universe is information. And if I also suppose that the Universe is built from simple to more complex. Which system, to choose, a simple binary, or complex decimal ?
My answer is clear : the binary.
I rated your essay.
Respectfully, and good luck.
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 21:04 GMT
Very important ! Very important ! Very important ! Very important !
The eUniverse is a whole. A theory which does not consider the whole eUniverse would be unspeakable to claim to be the theory of everything. In physics only, it is possible. But not if it concerns the entire eUniverse.
The theory is there to gather a largest number of objects and phenomena, in larger and larger sets, and the dream is that only one set, the largest set that can exist and we call eUniverse, that collect all them and so they share the same language of communication, the same principles and laws.
Can this dream be reached ? My answer is a big YES.
It is a Theory which would include all other theories because it is a binary Theory, on the basis of the information, and information is the basis of eUniverse, its authenticity, its strength and its source.
This big Theory, the mother of all the theories, I found it, it is announced now, but it has been a long time since I work above and since I was convinced of my approach.
And a single concept claims to be able to gather all the fields, all the domains, to apply at every level and all the scales, Its name is eDuality.
From eDuality will emerge a new science, a new philosophy, and mathematics will be consolidated in their abstract role next to concrete of physics.
To work, the world needs its both legs, use its both hands, see with its both eyes, and to think, worry about the two contradictory points of view at its disposal.
Wheeler's dream has come true : "It from bit" ; to me : "It's a bit" ; this Theory such as predicted : A simple Theory to explain a eUniverse so complex.
I summarize the idea of Wheeler : Finally, it is also simple and we did not even think of it.
I apologize if the translation is not good.
Amazigh HANNOU
Patrick Tonin wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 07:55 GMT
Hi Amazigh,
You wrote: "The first principle that governs the universe is Duality"
I completely agree with you. This is the conclusion I came to when I first started my theory, it seems so obvious to me now. If you are interested, you can take a look at it
here.
You can also read and rate my
essay if you have time.
Good luck with the contest.
Cheers,
Patrick
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 03:02 GMT
Dear Patrick,
Thank you and,
Good luck with the contest.
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 09:14 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
I enjoyed your essay because of its wide scope - it is refreshing to open the mind's eye and consider the entire Universe, life, philosophy, human activity...and physics. You are happy to find examples of opposites in these spheres, and most of the examples you cited exhibit the quality of dualism of one sort or another, but not all of them. How is reflection the precise opposite of refraction? They are related, but quite different phenomena - refraction is due to a change of speed of light, while reflection is a change of direction (and phase) but not of speed. ! And why is stream the opposite of flow?
In my
Beautiful Universe Theory also found
here I have explained why there is no basic duality in my model of physics. Please also look at
Eric Reiter's website where he showed that the photon is not a point particle, and that quantum duality (wave-particle) is not basic.
With best wishes to you.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 03:03 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you and,
Good luck with the contest.
Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 14:28 GMT
Amazigh,
I read your essay and just gave it a very good rating. Thanks for visiting my blog.
I find it and bit do from a duality, be it an ill defined duality, particularly the it.
Best of luck in this most interesting of events the FQXi essay contest!
Don L.
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 03:04 GMT
Dear Don,
Thank you and,
Good luck with the contest.
Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 14:49 GMT
Hi Amazigh,
I've finally had a chance to read your essay fully. Thanks again for the comments on my thread too. I think that duality is a very important concept too. I think you've touched on a lot, which is what makes it interesting and relevant to the contest. Well done I'll rate it highly. I can see a lot of effort went into this.
Best wishes,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 03:05 GMT
Dear Antony,
Thank you and,
Good luck with the contest.
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 13:30 GMT
Thank you Antony,
Your essay is very pertinent and relevant.
Bits of Wheeler are eDuality that we observe in everything.
I am writing a book about eDuality that explains all things, even our reasoning.
You said :
« By definition, the first two numbers in the Fibonacci sequence are 0 and 1, and each subsequent number is the sum of the previous two. »
and
« Both the Fibonacci sequence and Wheeler’s foundational question rely upon 0 and 1. »
I analysed Fibonnacci serie before and find the number « two », and eDuality is at the basis of it, sits at the core of this eReality.
You are in the right way, continue to developpe the idea of Fibonacci sequence in relation with eDuality.
Two, couples, pairs, opposites, ... are the bits « 0 » and « 1 » of our eReality.
The two dimensionalities are everywhere.
eDuality provides the basis upon which all the Universe is built.
From the First and Primary Principle (eDuality) we can say significantly : Thing never, absolutely never existed without its opposite.
eReality is a virtuality, and virtuality is our eReality.
For me : John Wheeler's dream is eReality.
« It » from « bit », or « bit » from « It », « It » is a « bit », and « bit » is « It », all have emerged from the same fundamental eReality.
I also rated highly your essay.
Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 13:20 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
I look forward to reading your book! Let me know as soon as it's published! I'd be very interested to read it!
Best wishes,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 03:07 GMT
Very important ! Very important ! Very important ! Very important !
The eUniverse is a whole. A theory which does not consider the whole eUniverse would be unspeakable to claim to be the theory of everything. In physics only, it is possible. But not if it concerns the entire eUniverse.
The theory is there to gather a largest number of objects and phenomena, in larger and larger sets, and the dream is that only one set, the largest set that can exist and we call eUniverse, that collect all them and so they share the same language of communication, the same principles and laws.
Can this dream be reached ? My answer is a big YES.
It is a Theory which would include all other theories because it is a binary Theory, on the basis of the information, and information is the basis of eUniverse, its authenticity, its strength and its source.
This big Theory, the mother of all the theories, I found it, it is announced now, but it has been a long time since I work above and since I was convinced of my approach.
And a single concept claims to be able to gather all the fields, all the domains, to apply at every level and all the scales, Its name is eDuality.
From eDuality will emerge a new science, a new philosophy, and mathematics will be consolidated in their abstract role next to concrete of physics.
To work, the world needs its both legs, use its both hands, see with its both eyes, and to think, worry about the two contradictory points of view at its disposal.
Wheeler's dream has come true : "It from bit" ; to me : "It's a bit" ; this Theory such as predicted : A simple Theory to explain a eUniverse so complex.
I summarize the idea of Wheeler : Finally, it is also simple and we did not even think of it.
I apologize if the translation is not good.
Amazigh HANNOU
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 09:41 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
(Google translate)
About opposites is interesting that the philosopher George Bosnjak said in its principle of opposites: Everything that has a maximum, has also a minimum.
I agree with you that the most important principle of duality.
I also agree with:
(Science today has an urgent need for a revolutionary theory, logical and qualitative, on the Functioning of the Univers and affects all aspects: mathematics, physics, philosophical, cosmological, sociological, economic, political, etc.) but it is too much for one person.
I wish you much success in this competition and in the writing of the book.
Regards Branko
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 12:23 GMT
Thank you for your grateful comments.
And best wishes
john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:34 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
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.
If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.
I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.
There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements – which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.
Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.
This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.
Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.
This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.
However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.
Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.
Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.
The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.
Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.
This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.
Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.
You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.
With many thanks and best wishes,
John
jselye@gmail.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 12:22 GMT
Thank you for your grateful comments.
And best wishes
Sreenath B N wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 07:42 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
I would like to rate your essay with maximum score but so far I haven't received any information from you regarding comments on my essay. For further details, contact me at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in, soon.
best,
sreenath
report post as inappropriate
Sreenath B N replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 01:21 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
Thanks for your rating and I have too rated your essay.
Best,
Sreenath
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:48 GMT
Thank you for rating my essay,
And best wishes.
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 17:36 GMT
Dear All participants.
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.
William Amos Carine wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 21:27 GMT
Hey Amazigh,
What does the lower case little e stand for in all of your words (e)Energy?
Also, in your essay you propose a duality of info (in binary digits) and energy-matter, or is it something else that you are saying? Saying that there is a duality makes sense, but stressing that it is one with matter-energy is would be more clear if they were shown to be the same thing.
Otherwise a nice read.
Amos.
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:33 GMT
Dear William Amos Carine,
Yes, (e) is a mystery.
(e) for eEnergy, for a new science in coming : a binary Science, dual Science, fundamental Science.
I have discovered the functionning of eUniverse : eDuality is in all things, like motion.
And all things arising, by couple, pair.
« simple, complex », « wave, particle », « space, time », « matter, antimatter », « electicity, magnetism », « Weak force , Strong force », « gravity, expansion of space », and so on...
Duality is in all cultures (Egyptians, Greecs, Indians, Chineses, ...) and in each one of us, but never explained and equaled like in China.
The « Yin, Yang » duality is full of truth, but this must be completed and reinterpreted, like our Science.
eDuality is present in physics, mathematics, philosophy, economics, biology, chemistry, religion, our thinking, in computers and mechanical machinery, linguistics, and so on...
Each one of us speaks with eDuality.
eDuality is the same everywhere.
There is one kind of eDuality when this concept is clear known.
eUniverse is very simple at the begining, very complex after.
This eDuality, these opposites, these contraries, are the 0 and 1 of information.
It takes a book to explain all these concepts : eEnergy, eInfo, eReality, eDuality, and so on...
Good luck,
Amazigh H.
David M Reid wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 03:36 GMT
Amazigh
Yes, most cultures have embraced duality. Zen considers it an illusion. True, Zen is in a minority. But is truth nothing but a vulgar democracy?
Yes, the acknowledgement of duality goes back millenia. However, already the ancient Greeks questioned whether the Law of the Excluded Middle must be accepted, and suggested that there could be more values than true or false. Since then, the studies of multivaled logics have flourished. Duality in it strict form is not longer evident.
You mentioned Bohr's Yin/Yang. But whereas Yin/Yang is a kind of duality, it is also not the same one as the clear-cut one which your other classifications suggest. That is the meaning of the two smaller circles in the Yin/Yang symbol.
Good luck in your further quests.
David
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:42 GMT
See above, answer to William Amos Carine.
Thank you for your grateful comments.
And good.
Anonymous wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 06:05 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
In particle scenario, information that is the transfer of energy, is duality; whereas in
string-matter continuum, transfer of matter with energy is the information, in that duality is with singularity. Thus information is continuum in nature.
With best wishes,
Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
Jayakar Johnson Joseph replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 06:11 GMT
This is posted by me.
Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:27 GMT
I do not understand very clearly your thoughts.
I hesitate before telling you no definitively.
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 12:00 GMT
Dear William Amos Carine, David M Reid, Jayakar Johnson Joseph,
Yes, (e) is a mystery.
(e) for eEnergy, for a new science in coming : a binary Science, dual Science, fundamental Science.
I have discovered the functionning of eUniverse : eDuality is in all things, like motion.
And all things arising, by couple, pair.
« simple, complex », « wave, particle », « space, time », « matter, antimatter », « electicity, magnetism », « Weak force , Strong force », « gravity, expansion of space », and so on...
Duality is in all cultures (Egyptians, Greecs, Indians, Chineses, ...) and in each one of us, but never explained and equaled like in China.
The « Yin, Yang » duality is full of truth, but this must be completed and reinterpreted, like our Science.
eDuality is present in physics, mathematics, philosophy, economics, biology, chemistry, religion, our thinking, in computers and mechanical machinery, linguistics, and so on...
Each one of us speaks with eDuality.
eDuality is the same everywhere.
There is one kind of eDuality when this concept is clear known.
eUniverse is very simple at the begining, very complex after.
This eDuality, these opposites, these contraries, are the 0 and 1 of information.
It takes a book to explain all these concepts : eEnergy, eInfo, eReality, eDuality, and so on...
Good luck,
Amazigh H.
Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:30 GMT
Amazigh,
Thank you for reading my essay and rating it so. I did the same for yours. At first it seemed more philosophical and out of my knowledge area, but after re-reading it again the beauty of what you are expounding jumped out at me as it directly relates also to my essay. You state "The first principle that governs the universe is Duality". This statement is insightful and powerful to me, in more ways than you know. Within my essay, I introduced Area Calculus which ALSO relies on dual functions. It is my hope in the future to expand my research on these dual functions to help explain how a wave can have the characteristics we associate with a particle, how an attraction can also be viewed as a reduced repulsion, and how a mirror image of General Relativity can be mathematically constructed. Duality indeed! Highest marks for a short but insightful essay!
Kindest Regards,
Jeff Baugher
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:22 GMT
Thank you for your grateful comments.
And good luck in your futur projects.
Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 01:19 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
In your essay, you have underscored an important point that is fundamental to understanding the universe - the duality of existence. Everything that 'is' exists against the backdrop of that which it 'is not.' Additionally, there is a 'balancing opposite' to all things, which is also referred to as duality.
I also took the time to read your post, "Very Important . . ." and I agree with you that the universe must be considered as a WHOLE in order to understand it.
Thank you for your contribution. I rated you kindly, and wish you the very best in the future.
Sincerely,
Ralph
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:15 GMT
Thank you for your grateful comments.
Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:59 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
Thanks for commenting and rating on my thread.
I already read your very precise text on "eReality".
I would also rate you.
I can only say regarding your "eInfo" and "eEnergy".
I think both are same and are create a 'digital' or
"eInfo" limitation in our basic perception about the
fundamental nature.
I hope all my best wishes for your essay in this contest.
Regards
Dipak
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:36 GMT
Thank you for your grateful comments.
And best wishes
George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 04:06 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
I am very thankful for your attention to my work and for support to me. I have read your essay and I want mark that we have put some different tasks. However your judgements and definitions looks to me very interesting (maybe somewhat disputable also!) and as deserved to attention/examination. I can say definitely that you have presented one nice essay in the contest, therefore I have rated your essay properly.
Good wishes,
George
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:13 GMT
Tank you for your grateful comments
Michel Planat wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 07:18 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
Interesting, very reasonable and relevant essay.
Do you think that Mao Zedong did well in his thought and action?
No opinion from my side, just a question.
I just found an excerpt on Internet.
"
(Bingshen August 21), September 25, 1956, Mao Zedong on the wrong duality.
1956, 25, 2009, Mao Zedong with some Latin American representative of the party's conversation, recalling some of the historical experience of the Communist Party of China. He pointed out: "The Communists do not be afraid to make mistakes. Errors duality. The error on the one hand damage the party, harm the people; on the other hand is a good teacher, a good education to the party, and education of the people, good revolution. Failure is the mother of success. Failure if no good, why is the mother of success? Errors committed too much, we must turn. This is Marxism. 'Extremes meet' errors pile up, the light will come. "
Best wishes,
Michel
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:51 GMT
Dear Michel Planat,
No comment about Mao Zedong.
I do not know his work.
His people will judge him.
In every man, in every action there is some bad, some good.
I know by eDuality, error is experience, what not to do. In some cases, extreme cases, unfortunately like the war, like confrontations, push people to excel.
Back to the duality of which I speak.
eDuality is Science, is qualitative science, is hard and deep physics.
eDuality is deep thought.
eDuality is the First and Primary Principle that drives eUniverse.
eDuality explains all things and phenomenon.
Newton : each action-reaction.
Quantum mecanics : wave-particle.
Relativity : Space-time.
Dirac : matter-antimatter.
Big Bang : Gravity-Expansion of space.
All mathematics, philosophy, and in every domain or field.
And so on...
eDuality is wherever you look smarter, unless you do not want to see. It's like saying I do not see motion.
I still do not say anything special about eDuality. I only show what is remarkable.
But the surprise is coming, in my next book.
Best wishes,
Amazigh H.
Michel Planat replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 12:19 GMT
Thanks Amazigh,
your essay is quite reasonable and I rated it accordingly.
All the best.
Michel
report post as inappropriate
KoGuan Leo wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 07:49 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
You concluded:
"The first principle that governs the universe is Duality. The principle of conservation has come after. Give the same interest to duality that to motion, and things will better.
-We know matter is dual as well as the light is. So if duality is everywhere, how to recognize this fact, as we did for the motion ?
-The Duality is the common...
view entire post
Dear Amazigh,
You concluded:
"The first principle that governs the universe is Duality. The principle of conservation has come after. Give the same interest to duality that to motion, and things will better.
-We know matter is dual as well as the light is. So if duality is everywhere, how to recognize this fact, as we did for the motion ?
-The Duality is the common language by excellence, the integral link between all the elements of nature, the machine code of the universe.
-Science today has an urgent need for a revolutionary theory, logical and qualitative, on the Functioning of the Univers and affects all aspects: mathematics, physics, philosophical, cosmological, sociological, economic, political, etc. "
Thanks for inviting me to your blog, I agree in general and if I may promote my theory based on this duality in answering your call for a new theory: KQID please comment my essay Child of Qbit in time and hope you give me a raise in ranking if you approve it. If I may introduce KQID with a long summary.
In summary, quoting my answer to Michel Planat and please forgive me for being respectfully and humbly boastful to counter the doubtful: First, KQID Qbit is (00,1,-1) which is singularity Qbit Multiverse in zeroth dimension at absolute zero temperature that computes and projects Einstein complex coordinates (Pythagoras complex triangles or Fu Xi's gua or Fibonacci numbers) onto the 2D Minkowski Null geodesics and then instantaneously into the 3D in Lm, our Multiverse timeline to allows Existence to move around 360 degree and its arrows of time or ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm). New informations are created and distributed per ≤10^-1000 seconds. No information is ever deleted. KQID is the only theory out there that can calculate the dark energy of our Multiverse ≤10^-153Pm/Pv and the minimum bits as the lower bound ≥ 10^153 bits in our Multiverse. KQID is the only theory that I know here that proves bit = it; KQID calculates Sun lights into Sun bits; calculates electron, proton and neutron in terms of bits; set up equivalent principle of bits with energy and matter. Therefore, Wheeler's it from bit and bit from it. Please correct me if I am wrong. And, KQID is the only theory in this universe has the mechanism on how Holographic Principle works. Also answer the mother of all questions, the why, how and what Existence.
KQID's Origin of Mass:
Furthermore, KQID is the only theory that can explain the origin of mass as A+S=E=ψI(CTE) that Wilczek said admittedly in 2012 after the discovery of Higgs boson mH ≈ 125 GeV in his tour the force article Origins of Mass arXiv:1206.7114v2 that human beings do not yet know the origins of mass and it is not even in sight. He concluded on page 32/35 and lamented like Einstein 51 years before: "We’ve passed some milestones, but the end of the road is not in sight." Einstein, after his landmark article 107 years ago on m=E/c^2 showing mass in terms of energy in 1905, “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy Content?” But this equation required us to know what is energy before we can define the origin of mass. Einstein truly like Socrates before him as the wisest man in Athens according to the Oracle simply because Socrates claims that he does not know anything, Einstein the wise similarly stated his own ignorance of energy in 1951: "All these fifty years of pondering have not brought me closer to answering the question, what is light quanta?"
KQID's origin of mass is simply A + S = E = ψI(CTE) that is Dao's Wuwei (the least action moves) maximizing the flow of A, anti-entropic time-future bits-waves function moving from future to time-present bits-waves function E in optimizing the E flow and minimizing the flow of S, entropic time-past bits-waves function moving from time-past to time-present in terms of both bits and joules SI. That also leads to Pauli's exclusion principle and the lowest amount of energy arrangement required in an atomic system. See KQID Ouroboros Equations of Existence.
Michel asked the heart of KQID: "Where is the FAPAMA concept coming from in your frame? I mean who is the influencial thinker?"
First from Fu Xi's gua(trigrams) Ξ ☷ as DIRECT representations of nature, from Pythagoras's all things are numbers, from Jesus's Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, from Hindu's Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, from Planck's intelligent mind as the matrix of all matter and from Maxwell's infinite being with infinite storage capacity who computes in bits/qbits to create and distributes energy that does works, and from Landauer who teaches us that information is physical and nature can freely create and distribute bits/qbits but to erase/deletes the created bits/qbits must incur entropy cost somewhere else in Multiverse. That is why our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit does not and can not erase any information. The computation of Holographic Principle must be within the one and only Qbit(00,1,-1) showing that Existence origin is from Non-existence and the calculations of Einstein complex coordinates can only be done at absolute zero temperature in which Bose-Einstein superconductivity perfectly happens without resistance or entropy. From Susskind and Hooft, who got the idea from Beckenstein-Hawking black hole entropy, proposed/discovered Holographic Principle and Hooft's quantum entanglements must be from the beginning. Thus FAPAMA Qbit must be there from the beginning (Hooft) and splits freely without cost (Landauer and Guth) to itself and Multiverse infinitely every absolute digital time T≤ 10^-1000 seconds. Moreover, every T-moment, our FAPAMA Qbit escapes extinction from its forever chasing companion Non-existence to be reunited only just barely by rebooting, resynchronizing, refreshing, renewing and reborn itself, so that it is forever just newly born evolved immortal baby. This gives us the arrow of time. Ξ00☷ = < S | E | A > = ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) ⊆ T. Time reemerges every digital T-moment. Every T-moment Qbit resynchronizes all Minkowski events in time-present. This is the KEY in re-entangling everything and keeping things in order and not crashing down. Complementarily, KQID also supports block Multiverse within T-moment in which all time-past-present-futures are forged into the NOW that in turn enabling resynchronization above! Time disappears. Yes, Einstein-KQID relativity rules (8πG/c^4)Tμν - Kqid(ΑΘ-ΘS)gμν = Τμν block Multiverse. Yes, Existence is the founder of creativity, it must invent new ways to escape from the grip of its Non-existence complementarity-companion. Dear Akinbo, KQID answers your immortal question if our founder is it or bit. The Founder Qbit is both bit and it simultaneously. Existence-Non-existence is one Qbit. This Qbit is It as Existence. FAPAMA: FA in Chinese means law like law of gravity that gives Existence order in time, PA from the concept of papa or the Holy Ghost or Brahma or Fu XI heaven Ξ that connects everything with everything else as one meaningful whole that manifests in quantum mechanics as Hooft's physical quantum entanglement. Yes, quantum entanglement phenomena must be instantaneous with infinite speed because it is within that one Qbit, there is no gap, no space, no time, no dimension, no locality but it is everywhere locally in physical forms that are derivative from MA as mama trigram earth ☷ that gives birth to mass and structure of Existence in ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) relativistic Multiverse in which time contracts, thus length contracts and mass/energy increases. So you see KQID gives picture of Existence as fantastically magical Disney's world, a holographic but physically relativistic fiction but real Multiverse. We are active game changers in our Wheeler's participatory magical kingdom, the Leibniz's happiest Multiverse possible. Because we are limited, we have choices to make including mistakes that lead to man/nature made miseries; so that we have free will to enjoy this wonderful make-believe holographic world. Let us sing and praise Xuan Yuan's Da Tong song and dance.
Amazigh, we do have similar idea not only as co-passenger on timeship earth but also co-mind sharing adventurers.
Best wishes,
LeoKoGuan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 12:18 GMT
I can not position myself in relation to your comments because too long. It takes me a long time to translate.
But there is much truth in the theory of Yin Yang.
Thank you for your grateful comments.
And best wishes
Christian Corda wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 09:23 GMT
Hi Amazigh,
I have read your elegant Essay, as I promised you in my Essay page. Here are my comments/questions.
1) I find that your Essay is quite poetical, and, in turn, very particular.
2) I like that you emphasize the importance of duality and your statement that "The first principle that governs the universe is Duality" is intriguing and could be really correct.
3) What do you think on my statement concerning the duality between it and bit, i.e. "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"?
In any case, your Essay is very peculiar, beautiful and enjoyable, thus, I will give you a high rate.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 03:12 GMT
Dear Christian,
Thank you very much for your encouragement.
You saw very fair.
Actually I insist, as I know now, the first principle of all is duality.
You'll find out, hopefully in a few months.
Regarding the third point:
« 3) What do you think on my Statement Regarding the duality betweens and bit it, ie" Information physics tells how to work. Physics tells how to information flow "? »
If you permit, there is what I think:
« Information tells Energy how to flow. Energy carries Information. »
Here's how I see it, but not exactly. : Energy is the horse, the rider is Information.
Because Information is organised Energy.
In other words. All things in the Universe are information, even the space. Then, what information is ? It is the organized Energy.
Ok, what is the Energy then?
We know how it manifests itself, but we do not know what it is. This is the first reality, impossible to fundamentally explain or define.
Good luck and best wishes,
Amazigh H.
Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 10:56 GMT
Dear Amazigh: In his essay makes an interesting collection of the emergence of the principle of duality as you define it.
Do you make this definition: "-The Duality is the common language by excellence, the integral link between all the elements of nature, the machine code of the universe."
I totally agree with the importance of the principle of duality. But we need a description of the same physical and mathematical.
In principle one could start with a definition of duality at the level of mathematical functions. For example, a mathematical function and / or algorithm has duality, with a sense applicable to the physical world, if you meet certain conditions or axioms.
1) must be multivalued. 2) adopts the dual and complementary values 0 and 1. Ie represent truth values of logical functions.
One of these functions, within the core of the quantum theory is: EXP (i2Pin) = 1 = cos (2Pin) + ix sin (2Pin) (= 0)
This function is implicit main duality of all: truth function 1, 0. 1.0 etc probability. I Rate your essay days ago with a high punctuation. Thank you for your comments on my essay. And I wish you the best of luck. Angel Garces Doz
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:59 GMT
Dear Angel Garces Doz,
I totally agree with you.
I still do not say anything special about eDuality. I only show what is remarkable.
But the surprise is coming, in my next book.
Best wishes,
Amazigh H.
Antoine Acke wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:14 GMT
Dear Amazigh H.,
Thank you for posting in
my essay where I characterize "information" as the substance of fields, and consequently as a substantial element of nature.
I read your essay and APPRECIATE your interesting ideas and the way you express them.
Antoine.
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 12:09 GMT
Dear Antoine Acke,
You can characterize "information" as the substance of fields, in the sens of it is 0 or 1.
Best wishes,
Amazigh H.
Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:57 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
interesting essay. I agree that duality is important and for me it is a cornerstone in philosophy too.
Thats the reason why I rated you rather high.
Best
Torsten
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 12:05 GMT
Dear Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga,
Yes, philosophy is confrontation of two viewpoints : the 0 and 1.
Best wishes,
Amazigh H.
Michael Alexeevich Popov wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 12:50 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
Thank you for your visit.
Some your observations :
'… the duality was obvious to the Egyptians, Greeks, etc.. , And especially the Chinese…
For me the question is quite different : why we do not have yet flushed the irrefutable arguments that prove that the universe is binary, dualistic…
Today, Einstein's relativity is well understood in the...
view entire post
Dear Amazigh,
Thank you for your visit.
Some your observations :
'… the duality was obvious to the Egyptians, Greeks, etc.. , And especially the Chinese…
For me the question is quite different : why we do not have yet flushed the irrefutable arguments that prove that the universe is binary, dualistic…
Today, Einstein's relativity is well understood in the physical domain. It explains very well the two points of view of two people moving relative to each other…
Finally, I would like to conjecture that:
-The first principle that governs the universe is Duality. The principle of conservation has come after. Give the same interest to duality that to motion, and things will better.
-We know matter is dual as well as the light is. So if duality is everywhere, how to recognize this fact, as we did for the motion ?
-The Duality is the common language by excellence, the integral link between all the elements of nature, the machine code of the universe '
may suggest some analogies with field findings of structural anthropologists. In particular,French anthropologist Levi-Strauss made reference to 353 duality based different myths in order to prove that the human brain does have a tendency to operate with binary oppositions in all sorts of situations. This result is foundation of structural anthropology and semantic algebra of myths today. However, the sceptics were right as well, because human brain can operate in other ways also. Thus, a fully satisfactory model of the human mind would contain many unknown features which do not occur merely in digital computers. I suppose you can improve your structural linguistic analysis of oppositions by Jakobson’s technique based on conjecture that ' in all the languages of the world the complex systems of oppositions between the phonemes are no more than a multi-directional elaboration of a more complex system which is common to all, namely the contrast between consonant and vowel, which through the working of double opposition between compact and diffuse, acute and grave…'
with the best wishes
Michael
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 02:34 GMT
Dear Michael,
Thank you very much for this information and your comments.
I did not know this work.
As I said, duality is everywhere. The elders also said.
What changes now, today we can explain things with the best of science.
It is like the motion. Aristotle advanced things, but it was necessary to wait for Galilee, with the experimental science to know more about it.
About your essay that is very relevant. I think duality is the basis of symmetry, what is your opinion ?
Best wishes,
Amazigh H.
Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 12:54 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
Agree that -Science today has an urgent need for a revolutionary theory, logical and qualitative, on the Functioning of the Univers...
Good luck
Regards Koorosh
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 02:14 GMT
Thank you very much for your encouragement.
This theory exists, it is called eDuality.
Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 14:05 GMT
"Science today has an urgent need for a revolutionary theory, logical and qualitative, on the Functioning of the Universe and affects all aspects: mathematics, physics, philosophical, cosmological, sociological, economic, political, etc."
Do you think such a theory is actually possible? I enjoyed your thoughts though I feel the essay could benefit from some organizational work. Cheers and thanks for rating my essay!!
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 01:19 GMT
Yes, the theory exists. I am writing the book.
If somebody ask me to speak about it, I am ready.
This is not an essay for having the best ranking. I just wanted to draw attention to the subject of duality and see what scientists think about this important subject.
I'm glad I participated. And I had a favorable response. Some refuse to see any track to be the theory of everything. But the truth is that it is the first theory that explains everything.
Quantum mechanics and also relativity, mathematics, philosophy and our reasoning, and so on ...
Best wishes,
Amazigh
Don Limuti wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 14:24 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
I liked your essay, it was right at the heart of the question, and right at the heart of physics. Wheeler was hopping on Descarte's thesis "I think therefore I am". Thinking is informational, and thus information comes first, producing it from bit. But as you indicate thinking is only possible via the duality of opposites and thus "It from dualities". I hope I captured your thoughts correctly.
I am essentially a non dualist, yes dualism is the hard reality, however there is a level above dualism that is not very amenable to conversation. You are, not much to be said about it.
Now, if you are going to do physics, dualism is the reality. And your conclusion is quite appropriate: -The Duality is the common language by excellence, the integral link between all the elements of nature, the machine code of the universe.
I hope that was not too confusing? Bottom line: I like your work and give it a high mark.
Don L.
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 01:54 GMT
All things in the universe are information. Then, what information is ? It is the organized energy.
Ok, what is the energy then?
We know how it manifests itself, but we do not know what it is. This is the first reality, impossible to fundamentally explain.
Amazigh
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 02:29 GMT
Thank you for rating my essay Amazigh,
I shall try to read yours promptly and rate it before the deadline. I'll also comment if I have thoughts or questions to share.
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 10:37 GMT
Richard N. Shand wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 02:45 GMT
Amazigh,
Thank you for a very succinct and direct essay.
I agree with you about the Yin and Yang of duality. It is the reciprocity between the Bit and It that generates the phenomenal universe (re: my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It", which you have reviewed.)
Best wishes,
Richard
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 10:35 GMT
Thank you Richard,
With Yin and Yang correctly understood and modified in good manner.
Best wishes
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:41 GMT
Hi,
votes are vanishing again.
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 09:49 GMT
TAO and eDuality are like brother and sister.
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 10:06 GMT
For a long time I had noticed that the dice were loaded.
Michael Alexeevich Popov wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:53 GMT
Amazigh,
Short remark about your statements.
'It is like the motion. Aristotle advanced things, but it was necessary to wait for Galilee, with the experimental science to know more about it'
Comm.Physicists can say that Galileo experiment with free fall bodies rejected Aristotle philosophical illusion on motion.Moreover, Galileo first formulated new fundamental principle ( principle of equivalence of inertia and gravitation ) used later by Newton and Einstein.Thus, this example can demonstrate an existence of opposition - wrong speculations vs scientific experiment.
'duality is the basis of symmetry'?
Comm.I think there is difference between physical and mathematical subcultures on notion duality based symmetry.It is complex definition.Dirac believed that physical symmetry could be connected with mathematical beauty. Schrodinger produced beautiful equation, but was not able to solve it ( mathematician Weyl brought it to perfection ).
Michael.
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 12:06 GMT
Thank you for your grateful comments.
And best wishes
Michael Helland wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:27 GMT
Not sure I follow it all, but I rated you a ten because it seems like the thing to do.
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT
motion is everywhere, duality is everywhere, 1 and 10 is everywhere.
Thank you.
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:30 GMT
Motion is everywhere,
Duality is everywhere,
1 and 10 is everywhere,
Our effectiveness reasoning is binary,
With me or against me,
And some refuse to believe in the reality of duality.
Thank you.
Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:50 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
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
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:02 GMT
Motion is everywhere,
Duality is everywhere,
1 and 10 is everywhere,
Our effectiveness reasoning is binary,
With me or against me,
And some refuse to believe in the reality of duality.
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:31 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
I agree with your essay that dualism is certainly a major aspect of reality, although I don't necessarily agree that the world is binary. The existence of almost any feature or property of anything is typically defined in contrast to its opposite, hence duality. Thus it seems not unreasonable to view duality as a basic principle of the universe.
In fact, I discuss dualism in my essay and point out a little recognized duality associated with the gravitomagnetic field.
Thank you very much for reading my essay and commenting. Good luck in the contest.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:14 GMT
Hello Amasigh from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder
I enjoyed your essay but I felt it was a poem - a literary work of art rather than a scientific paper.
I also agree with Edwin Klingman's comments that daulism is certainly a major aspect of reality although I too do not believe that the world is binary.
Thank you for rating my essay. Here again is a synopsis of it...
view entire post
Hello Amasigh from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder
I enjoyed your essay but I felt it was a poem - a literary work of art rather than a scientific paper.
I also agree with Edwin Klingman's comments that daulism is certainly a major aspect of reality although I too do not believe that the world is binary.
Thank you for rating my essay. Here again is a synopsis of it :
In the closing moments of this most auspicious event I feel driven to add the following remarks.
Some of the positive-rate-worthy features of my essay are the following:
(1) I provide a clear & easily understood definition of information, which is that it is the full set of real, not abstract nor hypothetical, geometrical objects present here in our universe;
(2) These (real) geometrical objects are properly observable phenomena – that is to say, easily observed, measured, quantified & verified phenomena. Therefore as such my hypothesis is a readily testable one. Even a well informed (sic) 8 year old child could verify it.
I demonstrate how these entities can be observed – measured, quantified, verified - & contrast this ease of verification to that of the essentially impossible task of observing & verifying any of the quantum phenomena suggested by many to be units of information.
(3) As David Deutsch puts it, ‘information’ is ‘something’ that can be transferred from medium, to medium, to medium & yet remain unchanged – see quote in my essay. One of the many proofs of my hypothesis – that information is geometrical objects – that I have marshaled in it defense is that they are not only something that can be transferred from medium to medium in this fashion, but are the only things which can be so transferred.
(4) Underneath its meaning each of our own human-made units of information – all of our own signs, codes, symbols, words, letters & languages – is a geometrical object plain & simple, or an assembly thereof. Which fact proves that geometrical objects are capable of carrying units of information on their backs. Literally.
(5) Each of the many & various left-over scratches, scars, dents, bump-marks, vibrations & residues still remaining on previously impacted solid bodies present here in our universe, is, one, single naturally-occurring geometrical object.
Geometric-cum-informational objects exist throughout the universe in several different grades or orders. It is useful to designate all of these left-over bump-marks as belonging to the class of ‘secondary geometrical objects’. (I itemize some of the other classes in my essay.)
Examples drawn from this secondary class of geometrical-cum-informational objects are : craters on the Moon, ripples in a pond, heat in a sun-warmed rock, vibrations in the air emanating from a bumped hollow log. And the biggest - & longest-lasting - bump-mark of all time has to be the Big Bang ripples still remaining in the MWBR.
No great difficulty attends the task of recognising that each & every one of these simple geometrical objects (all of these simple shapes), ‘carries’ some information on its back – each literally ‘tells’ ‘a story’ – a ‘tale’ not only concerning the identity of the solid object which created it, but where, when & from which direction the creating solid object approached the impacted one & how fast etc.
Which set of easily observed facts proves that, just as do all of our own human-made signs & symbols carry information on their backs, so also do all of the naturally-occurring geometrical objects ‘out there in the wild’ too.
To sum so far : Every unit of (known) information (as are our own signs & symbols) ‘sits’ on top of some one or another or ensemble of, geometrical object/s; & on each & every geometrical object here in our universe – human-made or naturally occurring – there ‘rides’ some one or another particular meaning – some one or another item of information.
In this manner do geometrical objects show themselves to be ‘dual-purpose’ phenomena.
(6) Observation of the manner in which geometrical objects are USED within our cosmos quickly apprises one of the fact that they are not only used by interacting solid bodies to guide & direct their responses to one another during those interactions, but are so used in this fashion by every solid object every time it interacts with another solid body - & this obtains regardless of the size, shape, composition, location, animate status of the interacting solids.
This conclusion obtains due to the fact that attendant on any impact/contact event the bodily SHAPES (the geometricities) of the participants involved always play a critically-determining albeit not sufficient, role in the outcome of that impact/contact event.
This observation regarding the universality of the manner in which geometrical objects are USED within our cosmos – as guides for action – provides a definition of ‘thinking’ which is ‘using information to guide & direct action’; or in its long form – ‘thinking’ is ‘using information (which always exists as some one, another or assembly of geometrical objects) to guide & direct action, such action as taken by some properly thinking/acting agent specifically in regard to whatever object/s &/or event/s the information being so used, concerns’.
Although we ourselves use a very great deal more information than the rocks & stones beneath our feet & the atoms & molecules in the air nevertheless we are only doing exactly what they are in kind which is using information to guide & direct our every interactive encounter with whatever other solid body any of us encounters during our existential history here in our cosmos.
So then, this observation regarding the universality of the manner in which geometrical objects are USED within our cosmos – to guide & direct action - apprises us of the fact that ‘thought’ – as the use of information-as-geometrical-objects to guide action – is an innate capacity of solid matter & occurs ubiquitously here & on the most routine of bases, no less than each time any two solid objects interact with one another.
As such ‘thought’ is no longer a mysterious phenomenon, indeed, can be readily seen to be a ‘perfectly natural’ one – that is to say one which in no way requires either magic or miracles to execute. This realisation massively narrows ‘the God gap’ within our understanding of everything ‘inside’ our universe - if not quite entirely banishes ‘him’.
And although knowing all these (easily demonstrated) facts about information & as to all of these information-related phenomena, elucidates any number of presently highly mysterious phenomena including thought, mind & consciousness, this knowledge does not illuminate any of the so-called first & final causes – including why matter was made in such a manner so as to make ‘thought’ an innate capacity thereof. And this lack of knowledge as to all & any first & final causes exists in spite of the fact that coming to this understanding that everything thinks – some just at a ‘higher’ level than others – does verily indeed narrow the so-called ‘God Gap’ as it pertains to all inside phenomenon.
(7) The fact that geometrical objects are observable entities allows their involvement with, or their passage through the thinking-machinery of, any properly thinking entity to be ascertained.
Performing this particular ‘tracing’ exercise as to our own thinking process, with no great difficulty not only allows us to identify & define all thinking related phenomena such as thought, mind & consciousness, it also apprises us of the exact location of where our own most valued cognitive self-conscious awareness resides.
As there exists at this location ‘only’ a little bit of water – more usually designated ‘interstitial fluid’ – this discovery strongly compels the conclusion that we live in a panpsychic universe, that is to say, one in which ‘knowingness’ exists at the pen-ultimate quintessence of matter (at the quantum level ?), for, nothing other than its location marks out this small amount of interstitial fluid as being special in any way.
Moreover & due entirely to its location, it is the only thing here in our universe privy to each & every one of our own conscious thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions & imaginings.
(8) Observation of our own thinking process quickly alerts one to the fact that it – our own thinking process – is NOT digital, but wholly analogue; the thinking machinery of all higher (animal) thinkers – which thinking machinery includes all sensory equipment as well as all motor machinery & not just the assembly lines central processor – handles all of the information it does so handle in analogue format – specifically in individual geometrical objects or ensembles thereof .
I provide several more proofs that geometrical objects are information in my essay & again I here point out that these proofs – unlike any leveled at such difficult if not impossible to observe quantum phenomena – are easily recognised to be what they are – confirmations of my principle claims on information’s behalf.
These determinations rather unproblematically allow an understanding of, by any sufficiently careful (& objective) investigator, any number of information-related phenomena, one of which is the fact that ‘thinking’ is a completely different phenomenon from ‘computing’. Digits are quite suitable entities with which to compute – to count, calculate & compute, but are not at all suitable for real thinking – for the latter, information in the form of geometrical objects alone suffices. The particular devices which perform each of these different tasks are also very different.
As surprising as it may seem, thinking machines even our own, which phenomena being thinking machines obligately operate analogue-ly with geometrical objects as their ‘fodder’, are not, in & of themselves in any sense intelligent. Only the user/owner/operator can possess this particular quality.
‘Intelligence’ is ‘using the available information in existentially efficacious ways; intelligence increases as the kind & amount of available information increases & also as to the efficacy to which that information it utilised’.
Although thinking machines (& straight-thinking rocks & stones, which do not need specially-built add-on machines to enable them to think) are different from computing devices, nevertheless some ‘overlaps’ exist. ‘Specially-built thinking machines such as our own, do verily indeed ‘process’ the information being ‘shunted’ through them. But ‘processing’ only means ‘sorting’; it does not mean ‘executing algorithmic contortions on whatever is being processed/sorted – which latter is something computing devices do very well.
That being said probably all specially built thinking machines also count, calculate & compute as to some of the operations they perform on whatever is passing through them – digits &/or geometrical (analogue) entities.
As false modesty has never been a vice of mine, I un-ashamedly hope that my essay receives high ratings all round. But with apologies . … ..
Margriet O’Regan.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 02:12 GMT
Dear Margriet Anne O\'Regan and Edwin Eugene Klingman,
And if the eUniverse was a work of art ?
The eUniverse conceiving the woman and the man, the flowers and the smiley faces, is a recognized Artist.
The evidence is there and will remain forever. The motion was obvious for Aristotle, also for Galileo, Newton and Einstein. What has changed is the understanding and interpretation.
For the eDuality the same thing : wave-particle, space-time, matter-antimatter, and so on ..
Everybody recognize that duality is everywhere. But without generalization, some do not agree that our eReality is binary. They refuse to believe, to recognize in the eReality of the eDuality, and that eDuality is our eReality.
The question is how to see, to understand and to interpret this eDuality, this blatant evidence, this shrill obvious fact.
Our eReality is made of evidence that we must know how to read.
The eUniverse is such as It is. We cannot fundamentally change It. It is our approach, our conception that must change.
Here comes a One Theory of eDuality, which is the most modern, and which concerns the whole eUniverse in its entirety, and in its smallest details, and that applies to all domains of human knowledge.
The Theory that is going to revolutionize the world of ideas. A new Science, quantitative and qualitative is going to emerge.
Such a statement has something shocking for the one who discovers or who hears for the first time about it. For me it is a eReality that I live since I discovered it, for years now, and I will publish soon.
The contest ends and I did not come to occupy the top rank. In all cases not with three pages of poetry as you say. In addition there was inside only remarks and not scientific declarations.
But what I assert results from my current work concerning this famous Theory of Everything.
But I took the opportunity for testing the ground and seeing of what the scientific community thinks on this subject.
Now that it's done I have yet to publish and prove.
So good luck to the rest of the program.
And sorry if something is badly translated by Google.
Good luck and best wishes,
Amazigh H.
Paul N Butler wrote on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear Amazigh,
It has taken some time for me to get a chance to honor your request to visit your essay, but things finally came together enough to allow me to do so now, so here I am. I read your paper and I found it to be overly general and vague in structure. Much is made of duality, but in fact many of the concepts that you give in your paper as examples of duality are not true duality...
view entire post
Dear Amazigh,
It has taken some time for me to get a chance to honor your request to visit your essay, but things finally came together enough to allow me to do so now, so here I am. I read your paper and I found it to be overly general and vague in structure. Much is made of duality, but in fact many of the concepts that you give in your paper as examples of duality are not true duality structures.
In some cases you label the extremes of a continuum as duality when in fact they are just two points on a continuously variable structure. An example of this is “plain, mountain”. You do not go directly from a plain to the top of the mountain. You must go up a distance that would of course vary according to the specific plain and mountain involved. In addition to that, the plain is actually the middle with valley at the bottom. Looked at this way, mountain, plain, valley is a trinity and not a duality. Also, “short, tall” and “short, long” are just the ends of a continuous range of size that would have medium at the middle of the range and “hot, cold” is similar with warm at the center of the range.
In some cases you used examples that actually are trinities as though they were dualities. When talking about time, “before, after” would have now as the center third member of the trinity and in, “past, future” present would be the center member of the trinity. In, “x-axis, y-axis”, there would also be z-axis in a three dimensional world such as this one presents to us visually. Of course, if one considers that this world could have other unseen dimensions also, then there could be more than three. In, “lower ()”, equal (=) is the center of a trinity of concept.
I know that many desire to justify the concept of duality as a basic and important part of the structure of the world because they desire to justify that concept to explain the supposed wave/particle duality of energy photons and matter particles, but in fact neither energy photons nor matter particles are truly waves or particles in the sense of the traditional concepts of water or sound waves and solid point or billiard ball type objects. Energy photons are motion structures that carry their own motion within themselves and can, therefore, travel through empty space where those other waves are merely motions propagating through the structural components of a medium and cannot travel outside of such a medium. Matter particles are composed of dynamic cyclical motion structures that can act in interactions with variable outcomes that can look somewhat like wave properties in some cases and also can act in ways that look like solid particles under other conditions of interaction. It just depends on the positions and interrelated phasing components, etc. of those dynamic cyclical motions at the point of interaction.
The world that we can see and perceive is composed of motions. Motions are very simple structures, so the structure of the world starts out simply. When you begin to combine various motions in various places in the dimensional system together to make energy photons and matter particles, etc. things get a little more complex, however. Wave functions work somewhat with energy photons and matter particles because traditional waves also possess cyclical motion components. This works pretty well for describing some aspects of energy photons, but matter particles also contain an additional cyclical motion component that acts simultaneously with the one that is also a part of it that it gets from the energy photon(s) trapped within it. Once this additional cyclical motion is taken into consideration the mystery of the multiple outcomes from interactions is solved and understood. Man in this world has just not mastered that concept yet, but all things must come in due time.
If you want the true duality of the visible structure of the universe it would be motion, no motion. This is synonymous with existence, non-existence, but from there everything branches out into multitudes of structures that increase at each higher level of motion structuring. I hope this will be of some help to you.
P.S.
In your comment on my page you mentioned eEnergy, eInfo, eUniverse, and eReality, but I did not see anything about them in your paper. Are they in some other paper of yours? I know that the answer may be somewhere in the comments on this page, but I have not yet had the time to read through them and I must now go to get other things done. If you give me the answer after my comment to you it will make it more likely that I will be able to get the time to look at those things also later.
Sincerely,
Paul B.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.