Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 7:37am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/5/13 at 23:27pm UTC, wrote Dear Andrey, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Antony Ryan: on 8/5/13 at 13:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Andrey, Thanks for the reply above. My essay isn't very complex. If...

Andrey Akhmeteli: on 8/5/13 at 8:05am UTC, wrote Dear Paul, Again, thank you for your kind words. References to the...

Paul Borrill: on 8/4/13 at 1:22am UTC, wrote Andrey - you are welcome. Your essay is quite splendid. I tried looking up...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 8/2/13 at 8:04am UTC, wrote Dear Andrey, Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical idea. "The trouble...

john selye: on 8/1/13 at 22:15pm UTC, wrote Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to...

Andrey Akhmeteli: on 7/30/13 at 3:33am UTC, wrote Dear Antony, Thank you for your kind words. I have looked at your essay....


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

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

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

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

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

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

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


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
May 22, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: How Does Nature "Store" and "Process" Information? A No-Frills Legacy Model by Andrey Akhmeteli [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Andrey Akhmeteli wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 16:50 GMT
Essay Abstract

A no-frills model of quantum theory can be constructed - a local realistic theory that has the same unitary evolution as a quantum field theory. On the other hand, evolution in this model is described by a partial differential equation in (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. Therefore, at any time point, information in this model can be stored in space in the form of electromagnetic field. In this sense, this is a legacy model of information storage and processing in nature, as it is very similar, in principle, to classical electrodynamics. The main premises and steps of construction of this model are as follows. Schr\"{o}dinger noted that the complex charged matter field in the Klein-Gordon equation or in scalar electrodynamics can be made real by a gauge transform. An extension of these results to the Dirac equation and spinor electrodynamics is proposed here: the Dirac equation is generally equivalent to one fourth-order partial differential equation for one complex component, which can also be made real by a gauge transform. Furthermore, the matter field can be algebraically eliminated both from scalar electrodynamics and from spinor electrodynamics in a certain gauge (for spinor electrodynamics, this is done after introduction of a complex electromagnetic four-potential, which leaves the electromagnetic fields unchanged). The resulting equations describe independent dynamics of the electromagnetic field. It is also shown that for these systems of equations, a generalized Carleman linearization (Carleman embedding) procedure generates systems of linear equations in the Hilbert space, which look like second-quantized theories and are equivalent to the original nonlinear systems on the set of solutions of the latter. Thus, the relevant local realistic models can be embedded into quantum field theories. Possible issues with the Bell theorem are discussed.

Author Bio

Andrey Akhmeteli obtained his PhD in theoretical and mathematical physics from Moscow University and has worked there, in other research and education institutions, and in industry.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 11:33 GMT
Andrey,

As of 7-6-13, 2:33 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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 21:08 GMT
Andrey,

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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 05:37 GMT
Dear Andrey

Unfortunately I does not use the same methods with you to can discuss more. nonetheless wish you success.

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 ,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 20:52 GMT
Dr. Akhmeteli,

Please do not confuse nature with physics. Nature stores reality. Nature does not store information about realty because information about reality is not real. Please Wheeler your essay.

Is nature real? Yes.

Is information real? No.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 01:32 GMT
Dear Mr. Fisher,

Thank you for your comment.

I am afraid you are trying to kill the messenger. According to the rules of the contest, the possible topics include the following: ``How does nature (the universe and the things therein) ``store'' and ``process'' information?'' So why don't you explain to the organizers of the contest what you are trying to explain to me? Why don't you suggest that they please Wheeler their rules? If you are just not happy that sometimes I use the verbs "store" and "process" without the quotation marks (please note that there are the quotation marks in the title), you are much more detail-oriented than I am. Good for you!

Let me also note that I don't really discuss reality or irreality of nature or information - I just offer some realistic model, and this is a different thing. Whether information is real or irreal, it's important, otherwise why would it matter what I wrote in my essay or what you wrote in your comment?

I wish you every success

Andrey Akhmeteli

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 21:09 GMT
Dr. Akhmeteli,

I am not trying to kill anybody. The topic of the contest is "It from Bit or Bit from It. There are no possible topics I have been made aware of. Perhaps you should spend a little more of your time learning about reality and a bit less time offering abstract realistic models.

I wish you luck too.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 22:16 GMT
Dear Mr. Fisher,

Thank you for your comment.

With all due respect, the contest rules do not depend on what you have or have not been made aware of. You may wish to look at http://fqxi.org/community/essay and look, say, for the word "store". You'll see what "Possible topics or sub-questions include".

I wish you every success.

Andrey Akhmeteli

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 23:17 GMT
Dear Akhemeteli,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So 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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 14:38 GMT
Hi Andrey,

Firstly, I admire your humility despite your high academic qualifications as a theoretical physicist. A good essay, even though the academic content is high. Since you may also be inclined towards primitive, no-frills models, what will the most primitive 'It' having no charge, no color, no spin, no mass, just a minimum extension only look like? Then, wont you consider the most primitive 'Bit' or binary choice, as existence/non-existence since it lies at the "very, very deep bottom" (Wheeler), being a 'bit' coming before other possible 'bits' can be contemplated? Can any Bit or It get more primitive than this?

Secondly, as an expert can you give me your opinion about the 'Planck length'. Does it have any physical significance or is it just an artificial mathematical figure?

If you have time, you can see my model in my essay.

Good luck in the contest,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 20:20 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Thank you for your comments and kind words. Einstein said: "A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." What I offer is indeed a "no-frills" model, but I cannot call it "primitive", as that would mean that such parts of the model as the Maxwell equations and the Dirac equation are also "primitive" - I just cannot say that. So for a "primitive" model to be of interest it should be able to describe a significant part of what we know. I am not sure this is true for the model of your essay.

As for the Planck length, I should note that, while I don't know much about general relativity, I would expect the Planck length to be crucial for physics, as it includes the most fundamental physical constants, and nothing else.

Thank you

I wish you every success

Andrey

Bookmark and Share



Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 18:57 GMT
Dear Andrey Akhmeteli:

I can’t discuss your essay just because I am an old physician that does not know mathematics and almost don’t know physics either. So why I am writing you, just because you are a physicist and because of that you can be interested to find out what the experimental meaning of “time” is. I just sent you a summary , so you...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 19:51 GMT
Dear Dr. Gianni,

Thank you for your comment. I have read it (I have not received any e-mails from you), but, regretfully, I have no meaningful comments. Maybe other physicists can use your ideas, but I am afraid I cannot.

Thank you

Sincerely yours

Andrey Akhmeteli

Bookmark and Share



Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 21:16 GMT
Hi Andrey,

Very encouraging to see someone arguing in favor of a local realistic model for QM.

Do you see a connection between your approach and the local realism produced by quaternionic QM that Joy Christian and (separately) Carlos Castro have described?

In my Software Cosmos essay I cite these two formulations of QM to argue that a discrete foundation is sensible. I will have to add yours as another possibility.

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 23:43 GMT
Dear Hugh,

Thank you for your kind words.

I don't quite see a connection between my approach and Joy and Castro's work. Unlike them, I don't think there can be violations of the Bell inequalities in local realistic theories (I don't consider superdeterminism here), but I doubt that such violations are possible in nature either (as there has been no loophole-free experimental demonstration of such violations).

As for "a discrete foundation", recent work by 't Hooft might be of interest for you. He uses cellular automata.

Thank you

Best regards

Andrey

Bookmark and Share



Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 12:29 GMT
Dear Andrey,

It is good to see your essay here. Although I personally do not hold a "local realist" vew (To me, a better term would be "local spacetime realist") I appreciate efforts to illuminate the issues from all angles.

One thing I did not see discussed in your paper was contextuality. How do you make your framework contextual?

I personally take standard quantum mechanics at face value with one exception, and here there seems to be a surprising agreement between us: That the conjunction of the unitary time evolution and the wave reduction is a contradiction if one assumes that pre-measurement states and immediate post-measurement states are on the same footing. But to me that just suggests that the reduction represents a true transformation from one kind of quantum state to another that is altogether on a different footing.

In any event, I hope that you will get lots of useful feedback and wish you all the best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 18:00 GMT
Dear Armin,

It's nice to here from you, and thank you for your comment and a good question.

My approach is indeed contextual: while the fields are (fundamentally) always well-defined, that does not mean that observables of quantum theory, such as coordinates or spin projections are well-defined, and the measured values of these observables do depend on the instrument. Furthermore, strictly speaking, no measurement is ever final, if we take unitary evolution seriously - a pure state cannot turn into a mixture through unitary evolution.

Thank you

I wish you every success

Andrey

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 10:58 GMT
Dear Andrey,

Thanks for your comments. Leaving the 'No-frills' model for a second...

As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, can you kindly answer the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 00:36 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

With all due respect, this is an essay contest, not twenty questions. If you are too busy to read an essay, why do you feel you have to rate it anyway? And if you don't think it is enough to read my essay to rate it, it's fine with me. However, your questions are too refined for me: for example, my pocket is not deep enough to hold a million dollars, and if it were, why would I go to work if I had found a million dollars in my pocket?:-)

Thank you

Best regards

Andrey

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 09:58 GMT
Dear Andrey,

No offence meant but you have challenged me and I have read your essay. It is very nice. But many essays are off point and I wanted us to focus on the topic at hand. For example apart from your opening paragraph, information does not appear again till conclusion. 'Bit' does not appear at all neither does 'binary digit'.

All the best in the contest.

Cheerio,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 04:16 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

I tried to explain why my essay is not off topic in my replies to Joe Fisher. It looks obvious now that I should have explained that in the essay.

Thank you

Best regards

Andrey

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 15:16 GMT
Dear Andrey,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 18:11 GMT
Hi Andrey,

Your conclusion, "I show in this essay that quantum field theory can be just a disguise for a much simpler theory, as simple, in principle, as classical electrodynamics." I find to be in keeping with the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. Although you have a different approach to the essay topic than I do, I found your conclusion inspiring and most worthy of merit.

Good luck in the competition.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 16:41 GMT
Andrey - nice article. Thank you. I agree there is a much simpler theory somewhere in there, we just haven't perceived it yet. I especially liked your discussion of Bell's Theorem and Schlosshauer's summary of the issues and remaining experimental difficulties. I'm not sure we can "finally" close the book on this without a radical shift in perspective. Good luck.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 03:24 GMT
Dear Paul,

Thank you very much for your kind words. The issue of (ir)reversibility that you consider in your essay may be crucial for Bell-type experiments. In this context, I was impressed by the results of Allahverdyan ea (they also have a recent (very long) article in Physics Reports (and arxiv)).

I wish you every success.

Andrey

Bookmark and Share


Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 01:22 GMT
Andrey - you are welcome. Your essay is quite splendid. I tried looking up the "results of Allahverdyan" but could not find which paper you were referring to. He is quite a prolific writer, and I am astonished I have not come across him before. Do you have some specific references perhaps on the arXiv, and Physics Reports so that I can narrow it down to the one you are referring to?

Also, I would be most honored to receive comments on my paper. I understand that you may initially be put off by the complete absence of mathematical formalism. But that was deliberate. I can produce supporting math, but I have a significant concern over the abstract Hibert space representation in which entanglement "lives" in the minds of contemporary physicists.

I described more of my reasoning for a non-mathematical initial description on my web page. I hope that this will allow you to at least consider reading my essay, and I would of course be honored to receive your comments, critical or otherwise.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 08:05 GMT
Dear Paul,

Again, thank you for your kind words.

References to the relevant Allahverdyan's articles: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0702135 (maybe it's better to start with this article), http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2138 (published in Physics Reports, very long).

I have read your essay, but will try to write about it later.

Thank you

Best regards

Andrey

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 21:38 GMT
Hello Audrey,

I think your essay is extremely relevant and very well written. I noted in the comments above, my favourite Einstein quote - A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

You've dealt with QM in a very original, logical and imaginative way.

I like cutting edge ideas like this that push thinking forward. I am working on a theory which partly unifies the four forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. My essay however only looks at the exchange of information across different dimensionality constraints falling into a Black Hole. Please take a look if you get time.

Best wishes & well done,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 21:40 GMT
Apologies for the typo Andrey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 03:33 GMT
Dear Antony,

Thank you for your kind words.

I have looked at your essay. Unfortunately, I don't know much about general relativity, black holes, etc.

Good luck

Andrey

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:15 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

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

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 08:04 GMT
Dear Andrey,

Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical idea. "The trouble with physics" and the information revolution are pushing ... You have a very important analytical essays on the theme of the contest in the spirit of Descartes with new ideas on the physics of information, clear conclusions and parametric model in which information «can be stored in space in the form of electromagnetic field. In this sense, this is a legacy model of information storage and processing in nature, as it is very similar, in principle, to classical electrodynamics. » High rating.

I have two lyrical matter.

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

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.»

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.
htm

In the russian version of a article: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators.»

http://www.mmonline.ru/articles/1863/

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

And the second question: How should the physics go to physical picture of the world was as rich in meaning as the picture of the world lyricists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

Maybe matter physicists should see the soul and memory?

Please look also my essay and essay FQXi 2012 related to the ontology of "form" and "information», the ontological justification of "Absolute generating structure"

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1796

http://w
ww.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 13:54 GMT
Dear Andrey,

Thanks for the reply above. My essay isn't very complex. If you can follow the Fibonacci sequence then that would be enough!

Best wishes & thanks for you super essay!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:27 GMT
Dear Andrey,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

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

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

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

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

Good luck to the winners,

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

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:37 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.