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

William Carine: on 8/17/13 at 21:23pm UTC, wrote Hello, An interesting spin of lots of categories and different aspects of...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 21:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Ralph, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Ralph Walker III: on 8/7/13 at 17:00pm UTC, wrote Hi Jim, I do think that we see things differently. I am not sure that...

Margriet O'Regan: on 8/7/13 at 16:29pm UTC, wrote Hello Ralph, from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder ! Did you know that...

James Hoover: on 8/7/13 at 15:45pm UTC, wrote Ralph, Am I unfairly taking this out of context? "John Wheeler was right....

George Kirakosyan: on 8/7/13 at 6:10am UTC, wrote Dear Ralph, Unfortunately I have open your essay now only when the time is...

Manuel Morales: on 8/6/13 at 20:34pm UTC, wrote Ralph, I agree with your conclusion, "Collapse of the wave function occurs...

Anonymous: on 8/6/13 at 16:14pm UTC, wrote Hi Ralph, I've left this most interesting rating game too late. I enjoyed...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
October 24, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: This is IT - Information Theory by Ralph Waldo Walker III [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 17:20 GMT
Essay Abstract

What if John Wheeler was correct - that the central idea of it all is so simple, beautiful, and compelling, that we will all wonder how we could have been so blind for so long? This essay offers a fresh, new perspective of the universe as a whole. It follows Mr. Wheeler’s advice to, "build everything on the foundation of some 'grand unified field theory'" and is an...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 11:19 GMT
As of 7-6-13, 2:16 am EST, the rating function for your essay is not available. Sorry I can't help you out right now by rating your essay.

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 17:27 GMT
Thank you, Manuel. I've read your essay a couple of times and look forward to rating it. I'm particularly impressed with your graphics, which helped me better understand the concepts you've presented.

I'm also unable to access the rating function; looks like we'll have to wait until they get things up and running again.

Best,

Ralph

Bookmark and Share


Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 20:59 GMT
Ralph,

I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who entered this competition 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

Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 16:08 GMT
Ralph,

I was told that the this essay competition will not be extended as requested... sorry for that.

Anyway, I will be reading and rating your essay today. At first glance, I can assure you that you can expect a high rating from me. Since you have read my paper already, I was wondering how the "Information Field of Intelligence" relates to my findings? I am looking for correlations...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 09:28 GMT
Dear Ralph

An essay interesting and the practical significance,i am will be rate 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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 01:03 GMT
Hello Ralph

Nice writing style! I found this essay to be an interesting read. To me, while the essay considered information and matter as in some way fundamental, the core nature of these foundations was not really considered as specifics.

Arguably, the essay seems to require that the universe have humans in it; kind of Berkelian. The system proposed is a descriptive explanation of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 08:13 GMT
Ralph,

Thanks for your friendly post on my essay, and I am delighted to read yours!

For future reference, you will note that most scientists are very skeptical of anything claiming to be a grand unified theory, but that shouldn't discourage people from actually examining your paper. :)

"Stars transform Information from Matter into Light and Energy, living things transform it...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 14:24 GMT
Jenny,

Thank you so much for reading my essay, and I appreciate your kind remarks. I'm going to look up Ilya Prigogine.

I wish you the very best in your future. Certainly, your students will benefit greatly if you continue to teach, but whatever you choose, I'm certain you'll be successful and the world will be a better place.

Sincerely,

Ralph

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 23:02 GMT
Dear Walker

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 mainly...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 00:04 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,

Thank you very much, and I promise I will read your essay and comment and vote on it. In answer to your question, I do NOT think that you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter; that is not what I'm saying. When you read my essay you'll see that I'm saying something entirely different.

I'll comment on your essay...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 00:19 GMT
Dear Walker,

You are correct,

I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. FQXi should have issued a notification that you have replied....

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

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

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

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

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 06:02 GMT
Dear Ralph,

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


Chris Granger wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 19:09 GMT
Ralph,

This is such an interesting perspective, certainly an out-of-the-box approach towards addressing the primary question. Though I do have many reservations, some of the unique aspects of your paper are quite intriguing. I've always argued that we have a woefully inadequate definition of life, and I like your approach towards that definition. While I don't necessarily agree in totality with its conclusions, it's an insightful viewpoint and speaks to the character of definitions themselves which can often mislead with random circularity. Thanks for posting this essay; I sincerely hope you continue developing and contributing such unique abstractions to the world.

Chris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 22:24 GMT
Chris,

Thank you for your kind comments and the fact that you took the time to read the essay. I very much appreciate your reservations, but what I really appreciate most is the fact that you wrote a very insightful essay and have interesting ideas you've put forth, while at the same time are able to embody the spirit of genuinely considering other people's thoughts and ideas, including those with whom you may not share like-minded opinions. I also hope you'll continue to develop and contribute your thoughts and ideas to the world.

Best to you in the future, and perhaps, if you are so inclined, we'll keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Ralph

Bookmark and Share


Chris Granger replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 15:33 GMT
Ralph,

Thanks! And certainly feel free to send a note anytime...

Chris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Darrell R. Poeppelmeyer replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 11:43 GMT
I concur with Chris on his initial insights concerning Ralph's essay. The essay represents good, expansive thinking utilizing Wheeler's concerns which is the point of this contest. There is quite a bit of analogical material which is both a strength and a weakness in discussing scientific or philosophical issues. It is a strength for it lends to clarity. It can be a weakness as analogies prove little. This essay is worth a read. -Darrell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 10:24 GMT
Hello Ralph,

I am surprised I have not visited here! Nevertheless,...

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, though we should try, I pose 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


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 18:27 GMT
Ralph,

Great essay. You have a wonderful smooth writing style that I envy as it's a pleasure to read. I also found the essay original, relevant and interesting. I certainly think you deserve to be higher up the list and I'll oblige.

I totally agree you and Wheeler's basic premise, though I feel, and have found, that a rather more 'reality based' simple solution may be available to explain the current mysteries, an underlying mechanism unifying physics. That's the foundation of my essay, actually laid here 2 years ago and developed last year. I do hope you'll read (and score!) my essay this year that constructs an ontology to show the power of the model.

But well done for yours, an exceptional piece from a non professional, a camp in which I have a bit more than one foot. Congratulations and best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 04:06 GMT
Peter,

Thank you so much for your kind comments. I really do appreciate you having taken the time to read and rate it. I look forward to reading and rating your essay immediately.

Again, thank you for the encouragement; I know there are many of us who are non-specialists in the area of physics or closely related sciences, but are nevertheless deeply interested in the nature of reality.

Best to you in the future, and perhaps we can keep in touch if you are so inclined.

Ralph

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 18:59 GMT
Hello, Ralph,

Your essay is excellent, in the spirit of Descartes.

You cite above are good words of John Wheeler: "Instead, attempt to build everything on the foundation of some 'grand unified field theory'. . . Hope to derive that theory by way of one or another plausible line of reasoning. "

Next, a great depth of thought and the eternal questions: «John Wheeler believed we...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 09:48 GMT
Hi Ralph,

At last a contribution that is not stuck in the general thinking.

We are both non-professionals but what does it mean to be a pro, only that you earn you money with science ? Or does it mean that pro's have to follow the rules that are set out by the majority ?

When reading how you let consciousness "surround" reality, Plato's "UNMOVED MOVER" came in my mind, and as a matter of fact my own "non-causal consciousness" is playing that kind of role.

You are adding two senses : happiness and pain, but I think that these two are "feelings" and not senses, because the 5 senses are the instrumentation of the human being to become aware and conscious.

It is a nice idea that you propose about dark matter, a new approach that needs attention and encouragement, so I rated your essay high.

I hope that you will take some time to read another non-conformist essay "THE QUEST FOOR THE PRIMAL SEQUENCE" and if you like give me a rating, but I am sure that you will be intrigued.

We are 100 essays away from each other (yours 1910, mine 1810) but our thinking is very close.

Best of luck and

respectfully

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 09:54 GMT
Sorry I made an error in the link text but it works , so I await your valued comment and rating.

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 02:38 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

Thank you so much for taking the time to read this essay and I appreciate the fact that you don't mind considering other people's ideas that are different. I'll be reading and rating your essay in just a few minutes.

I also wanted to clarify something that you mentioned, and I really appreciate that you pointed it out, because I can see where the word(s) I chose...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear Ralph,

I found the idea of classifying the existing world (the material world as well as the knowledge) interesting and potentially helpful. Sometimes good analogies have far reaching consequences.

But I don't understand all your points

"Our universe requires two separate theories to describe its behavior. The Theory of Relativity describes the hardware; Quantum Theory describes the software."

I would say that the hardware of the universe has more to do with the qubits (atoms, theis spins, polarization states of light...) and we need quantum theory here. May be you have in mind observer participancy when you think qubits as software?

Then

"The answer is surprisingly simple. The universe uses three classes of objects as its Information Transformers: stars, living things, and human beings. Stars transform Information from Matter into Light and Energy, living things transform it into Intelligence, and human beings transform it into Consciousness."

To me this distinction is very artificial, living things have much to do with human beings in managing the material world.

On the other hand, I perfectly agree that

"Hardware is needed for parts; software for instructions. But a self-synthesized information system has additional requirements. Its software must be able to operate the hardware as well as instruct the system on how to create itself."

I find it a good translation of 'observer participancy' coined by Wheeler.

In my essay, I treat 'observer participancy' in a different way

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

Best regards,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 00:09 GMT
Dear Sir,

The fundamental assumption in your essay is that the whole is a sum of its parts. In a self-synthesized information system, there are additional requirements, but the same basic principle holds. But does nature operate in that way? A mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is not water. All parts of a human body hold as long as we breathe. Once that stops, the parts of the body decompose and disintegrate. Reproduction is not the same as “creates its own software”. The offspring is another hardware with software embedded in it. Communication requires a sender and a receiver. Hence it cannot be a self-synthesized information system. Hardware, software and energy are not enough to run a system. Who does the programming? Can we program it to create ourselves? Even if it is possible to create a replica, will it not be limited by our knowledge, making us omniscient, which we certainly are not? After all, computers are GIGO – garbage in, garbage out. There must be an operator to not only to run the system, but also feed data and use the information to achieve tasks outside the system. “If a system’s parts are physically separated”, where does it leave humans? All our body parts are physically joined. We are not like solar system.

How can “Almost everything about our universe indicates that it is indeed an information system?” Information must be about something. The universe is that something. How can anything be made out of information? Is it physics or fantasy?

Reards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 08:10 GMT
Basudeba,

Thanks for your comment that has been ignored by the author. I will not read his essay. Enthusiasm and positive thinking are perhaps not a sufficient basis for science.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 00:47 GMT
Dear All,

It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the 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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 15:07 GMT
Dear Ralph,

Thank you for your appreciation, you are totally right that in quantum theory scientists neglected the plan and that much more can be gained by looking at the problem as a whole. Your idea of harware/software somehow fits my approach. the dessins are the plans. More to come soon.

I will also rate your essay so that it becomes more visible.

Best regards,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 20:39 GMT
Dear Ralph

Compliments for your successful essay, which is full of enthusiasm and positive thinking.

With my best regards and compliments

Mauro

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 03:55 GMT
Dear Ralph,

Thanks for your kind compliments on my essay and I have down loaded your essay and going to post my comments in your thread shortly. I will rate it too accordingly.

Sincerely,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 09:44 GMT
Dear Ralph,

I am, too, sorry to have missed reading your logically consistent essay for so long. Yours is one of the few essays that are consistent in their approach from the first sentence to the last one. You have clear vision of what you want to say when you start your essay with the quotation of Wheeler, “…attempt to build everything on the foundation of some ‘grand unified field...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 11:11 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I am grateful you took the opportunity to read my essay and saw the remarkable parallels between your "Biological Network" and the "Mental Network." I was so impressed with your logic, and was excited to find someone else who was thinking along the same lines.

Also, thank you for pointing out that the extraneous words I used in my definitions, particularly the 'else' with regard to 'universal substance.' I can see that using 'else' alters the meaning I intended to convey. (And, my mother was an English teacher!)

I sincerely appreciate your kind remarks, Sreenath. As a non-scientist, it means a lot to me that someone of your educational background, interests, and intelligence would take the time to really read what I wrote and offer such positive, constructive feedback. I'm so glad I came across your essay. (I'm even more impressed with how articulate and well-written your essay is, if English is a 2nd language for you . . .)

Thank you, Sreenath. I look forward to corresponding with you in the future. I've already found you on 'Research Gate' and will look into joining right away and connecting with you there.

Best,

Ralph

Bookmark and Share



KoGuan Leo wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 10:20 GMT
Dear Ralp,

Brilliant essay! I rated it the highest possible rating. I enjoyed very much reading it. Succinct but comprehensive! Remarkable piece of work. Please comment and rate my essay Child of Qbit in time. In this essay, i believe KQID realized Wheeler's dream using different language than yours that the origin of Existence is so shockingly simple that it is under our nose all along. KQID: To rephrase Pythagoras: All things are one Qbit. This bit is Planck's matrix of all matter and Maxwell 's nfinite being with infinite memory storage. In short, Qbit is Existence and Existence is Qbit. This Qbits A + S = E = ψI(CTE) projects its computed Einstein coordinates(numbers) onto the 2D screen Minkowski Null Geodesics in the zeroth dimension that instantaneously project these coordinates into the bulk υτ(iLx,y,x, Lm). Then Existence exist as we perceive it to be as is. You wrote: "...all human beings are meant to understand, awaken to, and embrace the purpose of our existence." Similarly, in KQID, Existence is our Ancestor Qbit's way to experience, to walk, talk and make love.

Live long and prosper,

Leo KoGuan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 08:41 GMT
Dear Ralph,

Thanks for your comments on my blog. I had earlier rated your essay a 7. I didn't know from your bio that you were an attorney because I needed advice on use of words like *prima facie* and *res ipsa loquitur*, etc.

I recall attorneys can usually be the source of great things in physics and who knows what may eventually come out of your nice essay. Edwin Hubble was one.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Ralph,

Nice essay and some great ideas around information. I like the participatory approach with regard to humans and the computer and Internet analogy. Also the quote that different individuals describe the same event in different ways. Please take a look at my essay, given the time to do so, as it deals with observation too.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 16:42 GMT
Thanks Antony,

I'll read and rate your essay today! Thanks for the kind remarks.

Best,

Ralph

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 21:52 GMT
My pleasure Ralph! Cheers

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 07:52 GMT
Hi Ralph,

I've rated your essay now - thanks for reading mine, the kind comments and rating.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 16:16 GMT
Dear Ralph,

As I told you in my Essay page, I have read your beautiful Essay. Here are my comments/questions.

1) Your sentence "the discovery of how the universe is assembled and operates would reveal our role within the system" looks to be an elegant finalization of the Anthropic Principle.

2) If the central idea of existence is so simple also Einstein was correct: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is comprehensible"

3) Can you clarify your statement that claims "The hardware’s wave aspect is evidence of its connection to software"?

4) Your statement that claims "The Theory of Relativity describes the hardware; Quantum Theory describes the software" is intriguing!

5) You claim that "The hardware systems of communications and fuel equal 24% of the total resources of the universe; they represent the "dark matter" of the universe. The software systems of Intelligence and Consciousness equal 72% of the total resources of the universe; they represent the "dark energy" of our universe"- How do you explain that dark energy is negative?

I appreciated your pretty Essay. Therefore, I am going to give you an high rate.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 17:07 GMT
I sign the above comment,

Christian Corda

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:07 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


john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT
Dear Ralph -

This is a very beautifully written and compelling narrative for which you should be congratulated.

You employ a broader definition of 'software' than is usually the case, but this is permissible: Because you so convincingly describe the cosmos as participatory, 'forces' truly can be described as software, and as fundamental to physical reality as life itself.

Elsewhere, you state - 'The Theory of Relativity describes the hardware; Quantum Theory describes the software.' This expresses the difference between the two very well, and clearly shows why they cannot be reconciled. They are fundamentally not the same thing.

Your treatment of c2 is also excellent - I too have considered the existence of such a speed, and have written about it in my book - 'The Nature of Particles in the Unified Field.' I see c2 as establishing certain borders and Zones in the cosmos, so that space-time occupies one Zone only, and its dimensional parameters un-ravel in the more peripheral Zones.

I also agree that stars, living things, and human beings are 'information transformers' - and I loved how you showed that these elements are very finely inter-dependent. Life is indeed fundamental to the universe.

Please see my second post to remind yourself about my essay - it's interesting to see how our two approaches correlate.

Thanks for reminding me to visit your page - this is an excellent and illuminating work for which I was happy to give high marks!

Best Regards,

John

jselye@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 22:03 GMT
Hi John,

Thank you so much for reading my essay. I saw so many parallels in your essay. As I mentioned earlier, I would enjoy keeping in touch with you if you are so inclined. At any rate, I wish you the very best and hope to hear from you in the future.

Best to you, John.

Ralph

Bookmark and Share



Hugh Matlock wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 05:44 GMT
Hi Ralph,

Thanks for your vision of an information-based universe. I had a question about it, though. You wrote:

> A universe containing only four dimensions is completely un-survivable

Why?

> This means that they must be composed of the smallest possible 'constituents' available to the universe, and can be linked together into three-dimensional 'sheet-like' screens upon which they can be displayed and perceived by the living thing.

This concept is discussed in detail in my essay Software Cosmos in which I describe a software architecture and physics of a cosmos based on the simulation paradigm. I also carry out a test to determine whether we currently live in such a universe. Like you, I think of intelligence animating the physical universe. I hope you get a chance to read it an compare my concept to your own.

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:33 GMT
Dear Ralph Waldo Walker III:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:36 GMT
Dear Ralph Waldo Walker III:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 05:13 GMT
Greetings Ralph,

I appreciate the kind remarks on my page. I'll make every effort to read and rate your essay. And of course we can keep in touch afterward. You can reach me at jonathan@jonathandickau.com, if you like.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:41 GMT
Dear Ralph,

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


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 16:14 GMT
Hi Ralph,

I've left this most interesting rating game too late.

I enjoyed your essay & would love to discuss more with you about self-organising entities. I don't like talking about 'systems' - what in heavens name is a 'system' - 20th century scientific literature is full of 'systems' which I think is a very serious weakness.

Indeed I dislike 'systems' so much I set about to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 20:34 GMT
Ralph,

I agree with your conclusion, "Collapse of the wave function occurs when a selection is made, but the un-selected choices are, in essence, 'all else.'" and have held off giving your essay the maximum rating till now in hopes that your essay rating will survive the final hours of this competition.

I hope you will find the time to rate my essay in kind.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
Dear Ralph,

Unfortunately I have open your essay now only when the time is restricted for everybody. Your work devoted not only to problems of physics and you have touched so many very interesting aspects of nature and human' problems as well. To read and proper discussion of your approaches is need serious time and more peaceful situation. Now I can say honestly that your work interestingly for my personally.I think read it in my vacation time coming soon. If you send your e-mail (my email you can find in my essay: Es text) then I will tell you something more certainly latter. Now I just going to rate your work on ,,high,, score. Hope my work my deserve your interest and you will find time to check it also.

Best wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 15:45 GMT
Ralph,

Am I unfairly taking this out of context?

"John Wheeler was right. We live in a participatory universe.

The universe created human beings to help create the universe. We depend upon the universe; the universe depends upon us. We are here to transform Intelligence into Consciousness."

Obviously we seem to be on opposite ends of the reality spectrum as "It's Great to be the King" indicates. Where am I wrong and you are right?

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:00 GMT
Hi Jim,



I do think that we see things differently. I am not sure that you are unfairly taking what I've said out of context, however, I’m not certain as you seem to be that we are at opposite ends of the reality spectrum, as your question, “Where am I wrong and you are right?” seems to indicate. Regardless of our respective positions, I would think a more fruitful...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
Hello Ralph, from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder !

Did you know that imputing a 'purpose' to human beings is simply not done in recognised scientific circles !!!

But bravo you did it anyway !!!

Although it doesn't appear in my 'info' essay what follows is what my own investigations into 'life, the universe & everything' led me to conclude regarding 'human purpose'. I too believe that we were destined to be nature's finest work - with our own cognitive self-consciousness awareness our most shining jewel helping us 'understand, awaken to, honour and embrace the purpose of our existentce !!

Evolution is a process of adaptation & given enough time & raw materials will eventually produce a fully evolved, perfectly adapted organism, which particular fully evolved, perfectly adapted life form will be evidenced by the fact that it will be able to live - indeed thrive - any where at any time under any conditions, or relocate or terra form to suite - doing so, moreover, without experiencing or inflicting any waste, loss or damage to either itself or its surrounds.

In short this fully evolved organism will live in perfect harmony with itself & its environment.

00000000000000

We humans are of course, this pinnacle-dwelling entity - at least we would be if we stopped inflicting so much waste, loss & damage on ourselves & everything in our surrounds !!

Of course we ourselves are POTENTIALLY this fully evolved entity. We can live any where at any time under any conditions or relocate or terra form to suite but presently we are inflicting so much 'waste, loss & damage' on ourselves & our once glorious planetary home - there seems to be very little hope for us now.

Unless we start using our potentially great intellect & great cleverness to get us out of the now near terminal mess in which we currently find ourselves.

Best regards

Margriet.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear Ralph,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


William Amos Carine wrote on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 21:23 GMT
Hello,

An interesting spin of lots of categories and different aspects of science deserves a thank you. I liked the quotes and the final words after the conclusion. I see M-thepry as being too hodgepodge, but that may be an impression of my mind projected onto the state of physics and existence at this time. One point which stood out, however, was that in special relativity, time is constant, but that proposition is dropped in gr when gravity is considered. I noticed an absence of the discussion of gravity is not considered, so I thought these two not discussed points were needing to be brought up. Can you talk more about them?

Best.

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.