show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Jennifer,

Hi. First off, you're a very good, fun writer. After you become a famous physicist, I think you could make a second career in writing physics books for the lay person, like Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, etc. have. My only other comments are:

1. In regard to the quote "Physicists like to say that all science is either physics or stamp

collecting", because I'm a...

view entire post

Jennifer,

Hi. First off, you're a very good, fun writer. After you become a famous physicist, I think you could make a second career in writing physics books for the lay person, like Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, etc. have. My only other comments are:

1. In regard to the quote "Physicists like to say that all science is either physics or stamp

collecting", because I'm a biochemist/cell biologist, I resemble that comment! :-) This next part isn't meant in a critical way but only as an observation and a "Hey, biochemists are scientists, too"-type, rah, rah attitude. Given that I don't do physics, I can't say for sure, but from what I read, I do think physicists and mathematicians could learn some stuff from biochemistry in that:

A. We have to think in terms of physical mechanisms in which molecules and things are actually moving and doing stuff. Unfortunately, modern physicists seem to focus so much on the math that they don't really care about explaining phenomena in physical, "mechanical" terms. For instance, why does a negatively charged thing attract a positively charged thing. We can describe it mathematically, but what is the mechanism that pushes/pulls these two things together. Exchanging photons between them doesn't seem to explain anything to me. If you and I throw a ball to each other, we don't necessarily move closer or farther apart.

B. We have to think about possible artifacts interfering with experiments. Taking things out of the natural, physiological system can very often alter the results compared to what is obtained within that system. Many things in math and physics seem to ignore this possibility. Also, I assume physicists have positive and negative controls for experiments? We have to do this kind of thing for every experiment.

C. Many emergent phenomena may be ultimately derivable from physics, but I'm guessing it's faster to do biological experiments to figure out how a cell works than to derive the workings from electrons, protons, math, etc.

2. My view is that whether the universe is made of its or quanglements, both of these are existent entities. Maybe, faster progress would be made in answering questions like Smolin's "what matter really is" and "why is there something rather than nothing?" if we argued less about what to call these fundamental existent entities and worked more on how such an entity might produce the universe we live in. That's what I try to do in my essay and at my website:

sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite

Anyways, I think yours was a very good essay and I look forward to seeing your name in a future newspaper article about winning the Nobel Prize! Good luck!

Roger Granet

view post as summary

Dear Jennifer

An interesting description, but concluded somewhat "vague" - I enjoyed your excerpt: ""A hundred years from now, people will look back on us and laugh. They'll say, 'You know what people used to believe? They believed in photons and electrons. Can you imagine anything so silly?' They'll have a good laugh, because by then there will be newer and better fantasies. And...

view entire post

Dear Jennifer

An interesting description, but concluded somewhat "vague" - I enjoyed your excerpt: ""A hundred years from now, people will look back on us and laugh. They'll say, 'You know what people used to believe? They believed in photons and electrons. Can you imagine anything so silly?' They'll have a good laugh, because by then there will be newer and better fantasies. And meanwhile, you feel the way the boat moves? That's the sea. That's real. You smell the salt in the air? You feel the sunlight on your skin? That's all real. You see all of us together? That's real. Life is wonderful. It's a gift to be alive, to see the sun and breathe the air. And there isn't really anything else."10 – Michael Crichton,The Lost World" - Wish you success and happiness always.

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.

Hải.Caohoàng

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.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

view post as summary

Dear Jennifer

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

Dear Jennifer

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 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

Jennifer,

What an excellent essay; I tend to agree with Roger Granet above and the physics community could certainly use a few more feminine perspectives . . .

In your conclusion you state, "[...] It is not at least in the classical sense a 'put up job'; if we ever find it resembling one, it's generally because we put up the 'job' ourselves, and IT"S ALWAYS WISE TO CHECK FOR WHAT...

view entire post

Jennifer,

What an excellent essay; I tend to agree with Roger Granet above and the physics community could certainly use a few more feminine perspectives . . .

In your conclusion you state, "[...] It is not at least in the classical sense a 'put up job'; if we ever find it resembling one, it's generally because we put up the 'job' ourselves, and IT"S ALWAYS WISE TO CHECK FOR WHAT OUR LANGUAGE IS REALLY REPRESENTING." In order for models, mathematical or otherwise, to be ontologically meaningful, all variables must have a real-world referent! Certainly one learns this in Differential Equations and Daniel Schwartz delves into the subject rather formidably with his dissertation on approximate reasoning. So since the inseparability of Hilbert Space describes Quantum entanglement and Quantum entanglement is robustly supported by the Aspect experiments, the Mach-Zehnder experiments of Herzog et. al., and now the multi-simultaneity stuff, what real-world referent does the Hilbert Space refer to?

I posed this question to Phil Gibbs on his section of this forum but he doesn't feel the Hilbert Space needs a real-world referent. Thinking William Tiller's proposed "Deltron Moiety" might fit the bill, I asked Dr. Tiller, in a private correspondence, how the Hilbert Space fit into his theoretical framework. His response: "Since my duplex space model has both mathematically real and imaginary parts, it would seem to have to have a relationship with Hilbert space but I have not yet explored that." Perhaps he will explore it in the future . . . In any event, it seems to me the question deserves a bit of imagination thrown at it!

I thought the Crichton quote at the end of your essay was a really nice touch. I'm originally from Nebraska but after a stint in the Marine Corps I fell in love with the sea (I'm an old-school diver); so allow me to share a favored quote from Steven Callahan:

"I wish I could describe the feeling of being at sea; the anguish, frustration, and fear, the beauty that accompanies threatening spectacles, the spiritual communion with creatures in whose domain I sail. There is a magnificent intensity in life that comes when we are not in control but are only reacting, living, surviving. I am not a religious man per se. My own cosmology is convoluted and not in line with any particular church or philosophy. But for me, to go to sea is to glimpse the face of God. At sea I am reminded of my insignificance - of all men's insignificance. It is a wonderful feeling to be so humbled."

Best regards,

Wes Hansen

view post as summary

Dear Jennifer Nielsen:

I read your essay and your answer to Dr Corda I underestand you are a physic student. That it is why I writing you, because I did not understand one bit of your essay. Why I writing you? Why I sent my essay to the contest?. I am an old physician, I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. But your...

view entire post

Dear Jennifer Nielsen:

I read your essay and your answer to Dr Corda I underestand you are a physic student. That it is why I writing you, because I did not understand one bit of your essay. Why I writing you? Why I sent my essay to the contest?. I am an old physician, I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. But your discipline among the sciences, it is the one that make more use, of what everybody call’s “time” and it is being used, without knowing its definition and which is more important the experimental meaning, by the way is just a remnant word without physical existence.

So I sending you a summary of my essay "tHE DEEP NATURE OF REALITY" because I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( nobody understand it and is not just because of my bad English) “Hawking, A brief history of time” where he said , “Which is the nature of time?” yes he don’t know what time is, and also continue saying…………Some day this answer could seem to us “obvious”, as much than that the earth rotate around the sun…..” In fact the answer is “obvious”, but how he could say that, if he didn’t know what’s time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be “obvious”, I think that with this adjective, he is implying simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn’t explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure “time” since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure “time” from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental “time” meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls “time” and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the “time” experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the “time” creators and users didn’t. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein’s “Ideas and Opinions” pg. 354 “Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought” he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about “time” he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect “time”, he does not use the word “time” instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or “motion”, instead of saying that slows “time”. FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that “time” was a man creation, but he didn’t know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for “measuring motion” we should always and only use a unique: “constant” or “uniform” “motion” to measure “no constant motions” “which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of “motion” whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to “motion fractions”, which I call “motion units” as hours, minutes and seconds. “Motion” which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using “motion”?, time just has been used to measure the “duration” of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand “motion” is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

view post as summary

Hello Jennifer,

You obviously appreciate the relationship between (it) and (bit) in the classical computer science sense, that is, where (it) must precedes (bit), and Wheeler's proposition that (information-bit) precedes (material-it) in the quantum mechanical or primordial sense. Apart from the nature of the primordial bit I see no contradiction in these two positions because I see them as...

view entire post

Hello Jennifer,

You obviously appreciate the relationship between (it) and (bit) in the classical computer science sense, that is, where (it) must precedes (bit), and Wheeler's proposition that (information-bit) precedes (material-it) in the quantum mechanical or primordial sense. Apart from the nature of the primordial bit I see no contradiction in these two positions because I see them as complimentary.

You define "quanglement" as (nonlocal state sharing), but may I ask how absolute you believe this state sharing is? I ask this because it seems to me that two entities, whether material or not, and whether entangled or not, which are at a distance to each other, can not have the same state if the environment within which they exist is different in any way. In other words, are you talking about an absolute abstraction, or something which in reality would most likely be seen as the hidden inclinations of two quantum entities being entangled such that they are seen to have an external and identical nonlocal response to a change in the others state, even though these hidden inclinations after entanglement are not identical, but simply constitute a conclusive tendency?

I would also like to point out that the actual contribution of a neuron to a greater state is determined by a number of discharges which attempt to associate a set of like inputs with one or more output paths in a strong fashion, each post synaptic neuron resisting according to its own possibility of translating input into output in a strong fashion, thus giving rise to a hierarchy of resistance. And so even in neuronal translation of input into output there is a probability of success or failure dictated by a hierarchy of probabilities. When we remove a neuron from its natural environment we find it behaves in an "on/off" fashion, but that completely misses the point that its true nature and its information contributing power is only discernable within its neural arrangement, i.e. within its environment. I find myself agreeing with Prof. Unnikrishnan who in his essay (1883) brings to bear on the reader the relationship between the quantum's information carrying capacity and its environment, and how any measurement can not but effect both the entity and its environment. And in this I hope you see where the above question comes from.

Zoran.

view post as summary

Dear Madam,

Discovery of the Higg’s particle has not yet been confirmed with 100% certainty as the mass difference between the Atlas and CMS is huge. It does not provide mass to the universe, but is supposed to provide mass only through weak interaction. Most of the mass in the universe comes from the strong interaction.

Cutting across the clumsy jargon, it can be said that a bit...

view entire post

Dear Madam,

Discovery of the Higg’s particle has not yet been confirmed with 100% certainty as the mass difference between the Atlas and CMS is huge. It does not provide mass to the universe, but is supposed to provide mass only through weak interaction. Most of the mass in the universe comes from the strong interaction.

Cutting across the clumsy jargon, it can be said that a bit represents whether something matches a concept or a product by signaling 1 or 0, where the answer yes or ‘on’s are coded (written in programming language) with 1 and the no or ‘off’s with 0. The superposition of states is really not a ‘state’ – there is nothing like an ‘undead’ cat – but indicates our lack of precise information in a sensational way. Every quantum phenomena including entanglement, spin, tunneling, and so on have macro equivalents. There is no quantum weirdness, but only weird ideas to be discarded. You can read our essay: “INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776” published on May 31.

EPR sensationalized entanglement by stretching it to infinite distance, though in reality, it never exists beyond a limited distance. We cannot impose our ignorance or inability to measure to describe time evolution of the universe. The Moon will continue to exist and the up-down quark conversion will continue even when we are not looking at it. There is nothing like observer created reality, as observer is not part of any equation. It only observes and may be cognizes or communicates the state; but does not affect it.

The concepts of “information that isn’t information”, “outside of time” and “going backwards in time” are good fiction, but not physics. Consider: A + B → C + D.

Here a force makes A interact with B to produce C and D. The same force doesn’t act on C and D as they don’t exist at that stage. If we change the direction of the force, B acts on A. Here only the direction of force and not the interval between the states before and after application of force (time) will change and the equation will be:

B + A → C + D and not B + A ← C + D.

Hence it does not affect causality. There can be no negative direction for time or cause and effect.

“Quantum correlation is a basic (i.e. primary) concept”, because macro objects like molecules and above do not have creative chemical capability that micro objects like atoms or below have. The quarks combine to produce an object with different characteristics from that of the individual quarks. Hydrogen and oxygen combine to produce water, whose characteristics are different from the individual components. But molecules combine like mixtures: linearly adding their characteristics. But the characteristics of quantum particles are also ordered and not random.

The problem with Gödel and others is that, they relied on abstract mathematical structures to build physical theories. But mathematical structures are different from physical structures. Mathematics is related to the measurement of time evolution of the state of something. These time evolutions depict rate of change. When such change is related to motion; like velocity, acceleration, etc, it implies total displacement from the position occupied by the body and moving to the adjacent position. This process is repeated due to inertia till it is modified by the introduction of other forces. Thus, these are discrete steps that can be related to three dimensional structures only. Mathematics measures only the numbers of these steps, the distances involved including amplitude, wave length, etc and the quanta of energy applied etc. Mathematics is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph – the so-called mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space.

The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance – linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation.

How long will we continue with such fiction? When will we end the superstitious belief in the ‘established theories’ and start applying our mind? Why must we continue with a ‘cut & paste’ job? When will we start doing some original work? Is there no future for physics?

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

Hi Jennifer,

While I enjoyed your lucid essay, I had objections to a couple of points. You wrote:

> And we know, in a universe post EPR "spooky action at a distance" and post Alain Aspect's experiment to test for EPR's validity, that quantum systems possess another intriguing quality that is sometimes seen by entrepreneuring reality hackers as a potential workaround for the limits...

view entire post

Hi Jennifer,

While I enjoyed your lucid essay, I had objections to a couple of points. You wrote:

> And we know, in a universe post EPR "spooky action at a distance" and post Alain Aspect's experiment to test for EPR's validity, that quantum systems possess another intriguing quality that is sometimes seen by entrepreneuring reality hackers as a potential workaround for the limits of information: nonlocality.

While this is the mainstream view, there are approaches to QM that exhibit local realism despite Bell's Theorem. The problem is that Bell's theorem applies only to formulations of QM over complex numbers, whereas QM can be formulated over quaternions or other Clifford Algebraic numbers. These formulations have quite simple realistic models.

> If we trust Kleene's interpretation, since binary code represents such a formal system via which we can express elementary truth statements, what we can say with binary code is limited by Godel's theorem.

If I remember correctly (and it has been 40 years since I studied it) to meet the pre-conditions of Godel's Theorem your system has to be capable of representing ALL of arithmetic (i.e. addition and multiplication on arbitrarily large integers). Actual computers (having finite word sizes and finite resources) cannot do that, so I think the theorem applies only to abstract mathematical systems. I do not recall if there are some incompleteness results related to finite machines but that would be what you need for your argument.

> It is fascinating to realize that anything you or I perceive via sight or hearing each day may be represented in on/off neuron switches in our brains/minds... This information travels at the limit of the speed of sound-a physical limit. The ultimate limit on how fast we can get this sort of information across is via the speed of light.

There is a very interesting field of research termed Pre-Stimulus Response that demonstrates this is an overly simplistic view. From a meta-study of the field:

"More than forty experiments published over the past 32 years examine the claim that human physiology predicts future important or arousing events, even though we do not currently understand how such a thing could be accomplished... human physiological measures anticipate what seem to be unpredictable future events by deviating from a baseline before an event occurs, in the same direction that they will continue to deviate after that event occurs. "

> Are we living in a "matrix" ? Is digital information literally all everything comes down to?

In my essay Software Cosmos, I take the concept of a simulated world seriously enough to suggest how the simulation could work and propose (and carry out) a test to see if we currently live in such a virtual world. I hope you get a chance to read and comment on it!

Hugh

view post as summary

Enjoyable read, thanks. I got a pretty clear picture of your views on these matters, and on most of them I think you did a good job of conveying some

important things to a fairly general readership. I have some comments a few of which might be useful to you in polishing the essay for publication, and many of which are just me trying to figure out how our views differ on certain things,...

view entire post

Enjoyable read, thanks. I got a pretty clear picture of your views on these matters, and on most of them I think you did a good job of conveying some

important things to a fairly general readership. I have some comments a few of which might be useful to you in polishing the essay for publication, and many of which are just me trying to figure out how our views differ on certain things, like the nature of the quantum state (real versus encoding of information about aspects of reality), and of entanglement and nonlocality.

Don't take any critical comments below as harsh criticism, I liked the essay and will rate it highly...

It was very nice that you emphasize that quantum "nonlocality" does not allow signaling. To me, that is one of the more remarkable things about it, and occasionally is downplayed.

Why do you say "quanglement" is "more primary" than the sorts of physical processes that convey classical information?

Not sure I would agree that "nonlocality is the best explanation for

entanglement"... perhaps it's reasonable to say the reverse, if

nonlocality is interpreted as violations of Bell-type inequalities...

i.e. there being no "beables" in a relevant portion of spacetime (e.g. the intersection of the past light cones of the correlated events, or something along those lines, on which we can condition to remove the correlations...

I like your characterization of entangled particles as

"involved in acausal correlation" ... rather than "superluminally

causally related", etc...

I'm not keen on the term "quanglement", though... I think it will go the way

of Nick Herbert's "quon" for quantum particle.

"quantum correlations are directly caused by the quantum state"

... why not just say "described by the quantum state"?

"quanglement represnts an alternate form of is-ness" seems more ontological

than I'd prefer to be about the quantum state, but a nice way of

putting it. I guess I don't mind saying there's some is-ness to the quantum

state, in that it is telling you

what is in fact the right way to bet on events, and therefore telling you something about the world... this is an is-ness that is in many

ways quite different from viewing it as an object that exists in a sense

similar to the electromagnetic field in classical physics... or rocks, chairs,

and trees...but I think you were trying to convey in your essay, that it is indeed different...

"We can see via tests of multisimultaneity that entanglement doesn't

suffer being younger sister to any event containing her."

I wasn't quite sure what that meant... also it would be nice to hear more

about what a test of multisimultaneity is.

Again, very nice job.

view post as summary

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

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 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, again confirming the singularity of i.

As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory

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. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.

I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.

All this started with a simple question, who am I?

I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.

I super positioned my self or I to be me.

I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

I am phi, zero = I = infinity

I am human and I is GOD.

Love,

Sridattadev.

view post as summary

Hi Jennifer,

Your clear writing is refreshing, as are the whimsical touches.

I am sure, however, that you prefer to discuss content rather than style. So, let's do that.

One very important idea is on pages 7 and 8. Lee Smolin, and others, have asserted that things have an "itness" (i.e., inner reality) which eludes human knowledge. According to this way of thinking, science...

view entire post

Hi Jennifer,

Your clear writing is refreshing, as are the whimsical touches.

I am sure, however, that you prefer to discuss content rather than style. So, let's do that.

One very important idea is on pages 7 and 8. Lee Smolin, and others, have asserted that things have an "itness" (i.e., inner reality) which eludes human knowledge. According to this way of thinking, science gets at relations among things, or the structure of the world, but does not get at the actual being of things. Returning to the analogy at the top of page 8, we would say that physics dumps some entities out of the box, but what these things are, we don't know. Maybe they are stamps, maybe coins, maybe jelly beans, maybe positive integers, maybe something else, and maybe some combination. We don't know.

The next step is to argue that, for purposes of human knowledge at least, it doesn't matter what they are. The step after that is the big one. Some people would argue that reality is only the structure, the relations, the interconnections. There are no items in the box. Nonetheless, on this view, though the nodes are really non-existent, we can still trace the pattern of connections.

I think that the slogan "It from bit" is often intended to summarize this approach. Reality is at bottom an abstract mathematical object, contrary to what Smolin said. The world we experience, and indeed we ourselves, are built out of these abstract structures. By contrast, "Bit from it" is a slogan for the belief that the ineffable what-it-is does matter. Both we and our world are something other than mathematical or informational structures, where "information" is defined in Shannon's abstract sense.

I'm not sure how quantum entanglement (or "quanglement" in Roger Penrose's terminology) fits into this picture. The point might be that quantum entanglement is evidence for the "bit from it" view. The reason is that the relevant phenomena cannot be fully described by any standard informational structure. If the phenomena cannot be so described, then we should not think the phenomena are purely informational. As I said, I am not sure that I have interpreted the argument correctly. If this is something like what is intended, then this essay provides a new and interesting argument for "bit from it."

Laurence Hitterdale

view post as summary

Jennifer,

One way I've found to examine a problem is to consider the various mirror images and consider what anomalies arise.

What if we were to look at some form of universal wholistic state as the default. Then entanglement would seem logical and our point oriented reference frames would look haphazard.

Consider the concept of four dimensional spacetime; What are three...

view entire post

Jennifer,

One way I've found to examine a problem is to consider the various mirror images and consider what anomalies arise.

What if we were to look at some form of universal wholistic state as the default. Then entanglement would seem logical and our point oriented reference frames would look haphazard.

Consider the concept of four dimensional spacetime; What are three dimensions, other than a further abstraction of the coordinate system and don't they simply model space from the perspective of the center point, much as longitude, latitude and altitude model the surface of the planet? What is the time coordinate, other than the narrative sequence, which is an effect of change, as viewed from the singular perspective. It isn't that the present "moves" from past to future, but that the changing configuration of what is, turns future potentials into past circumstance. It is just that from the intellectually reductionistic perspective of the individual, we experience a sequence of events.

Supposedly entropy creates the "arrow of time," but entropy only applies to closed systems. Universally energy is conserved and is generally the medium to the message of information. Since energy is conserved, in order to create new information(a consequence of energy being dynamic), old information has to be erased and that is the "arrow of time." Meanwhile that energy continues to erase the old and eventually the past becomes as unknowable as the future. Events are understood to be subjective perspectives when they are occurring, so given perspectives continue to evolve, the idea of what is past being unchanging, is an idealization. The past and future do not ontologically exist, so it is an epistemic abstraction to consider either to be "set in stone."

So we have this "sea" of energy and information is an expression of its interactions and subject to the physical distinctions and connections, not our Escher sketch view of them.

For example, it is considered that "space expands," yet we conveniently have this constant speed of light against which to judge this expansion. Where does its metric come from, if space expands? "Space is what you measure with a ruler." If space expands, why is the "ruler" constant?

If you chose to climb the ladder of theory, test every step.

view post as summary

Hi Jennifer

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post

Hi Jennifer

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Good luck,

Than Tin

view post as summary

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

Thanks so much to everyone who commented ! I tried to respond to everyone but was somewhat flooded with summer teaching and other duties :) If you commented and I read your comment, I made an effort to look up your paper and read/rate (and comment if I had time), but I may have missed some of the comments towards the end.

In any case cheers everyone, good luck in the final rounds, or "good...

view entire post

Thanks so much to everyone who commented ! I tried to respond to everyone but was somewhat flooded with summer teaching and other duties :) If you commented and I read your comment, I made an effort to look up your paper and read/rate (and comment if I had time), but I may have missed some of the comments towards the end.

In any case cheers everyone, good luck in the final rounds, or "good game" if you are done now! I hope to see everyone here again next year!

Best wishes all,

Jennifer

view post as summary