BITTERS by Joe Fisher

Hello Joe

How do you know your toe is not just part of a dream, or that you are caught in The Matrix with a digital toe? As such, the essay lacks foundation.

Stephen Anastasi

Dear Joe, you have a unique style, only happened once. I believe I do have a mechanism that shows how our Existence happens once, never repeat itself. I know that you are busy with other things so if I may I bring it up to your attention that cited you with my comment to our kind and erudite fellow contestant Jonathan, and I wrote to him: "... We are living inside the long dead great man's thought as Lord Keynes pointed out. These among others are Keynes' idea that "demands create supplies" economic system that Bernanke, Obama, Abe and Wen Jiabao applied successfully in their resoective countries. But the greatest is Aristotle's Identity A = A. I myself wrote based on this premise with my KQID Ouroboros Equations of Existence: Ξ00☷ = ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) = KbΘln2 = hf = pc + mc^2 = p^2/2m + U(iLx,y,z) = 4πGρ- Kqid(ΑΘ-ΘS)gμν = (8πG/c^4)Tμν - Kqid(ΑΘ-ΘS)gμν = Τμν = E = A + S ⊆ T. I do said that A = A with so many equals signs (=) but if you look carefully I also said that A emerges out of 00 and furthermore the Existence like A=A is subset of or equal to absolute digital time T ≤ 10^-1000seconds that bags all Minkowski's events inside it and jump to the next Tn+1 and Tn+2 and so on following Feynman's sum over histories. Aristotle tried to demolish the sophist Protagoras out of the picture that everything is subject to man's measurement that miraculously reemerged in a new form as the Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation that is not surprisingly similar to Fu Xi's Yin-Yang Philosophy (Bohr's Yin-Yang logo) that everything is change or as Heraclitus put it " everything is in flux". Until Quantum Mechanics, we cannot build science out of A≠A, that A can be B or C or anything in quantum superposition. A = A is a fiction but real that is useful to science and progress for mankind. I am for it 100% however, it does not mean that it is the truth, the truth is as JOE FISHER put it: everything happens once, unique and it is not repeatable. This is because in order for Existence to exist it has to forever running away from its eternal nemesis Non-existence. In KQID, this Existence escapes barely as we must expect by T-step ≤ 10^-1000seconds. Due to space limitation I excluded one of the major explaination:1c. Moreover, the conscious and intelligent infinite being with unlimited storage capacity is behinds Existence. This infinite being is Planck's "matrix of all matter" and it is evolving at T ≤ 10^-1000 s. This means each T-moment, a unique Qbit emerges. Anything derived from this unique Qbit is necessarily unique. Then next T-moment, a new evolved Qbit reemerges. Similarly, all things derived from or emerged out of this new unique Qbit iare necessarily unique. As Kongzi and Heraclitus said that we can only step into a river once. Our Multiverse is flowing every absolute digital time T-step and each step is a unique Multiverse. We step into our Multiverse once every T-time present moment. In other words, in one second our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit has evolved at least 10^1000th generations and so do we, and at least 10^1000 all things are different from before and after. Thus, our block Multiverse is evolving at once every T-step ≤ 10^-1000 s. (Diagram 5) Therefore, All information is conserved or no new qbit is added within the T-moment and all matters are derived from this Qbit at Tn+x moment. During each T-moment, time is symmetry, thus it is conserved and reversible within this T-moment. One can go back in time backward and forward according to Law of nature. In this process, this infinite conscious and intelligent mind reunifies, reboots, reenergizes, retranslates, retransforms, renews and refreshes Existence. It collapse time-past-present-future into the NOW(00). Hence, KQID answers the most puzzling phenomena that is why the computer-like Multiverse does not crash like normal computers usually do. It is because the Qbit automatically maintains and reboots itself per T-moment ≤ 10^-1000s. That is why KQID concepts of the absolute digital time T is necessarily the fundamental feature of Existence, and how Existence escapes its fate of extinction from the ever powerful entropic dark forces and exists forever and ever in the light." Please let me know what you think and suggestion. Please comment and rate my essay if you have time. Thanks, Leo KoGuan

Hi Joe,

I have downloaded your essay, and I hope to get to it soon. Thanks for the kind comments on my page.

Jonathan

Hi Joe,

I still have not gotten to your essay, but your comments on my page prompt me to say more here. I acknowledge and agree with your uniqueness principle, insofar as we are talking about life in the world made of protons, neutrons, and electrons - the same basic stuff we are made of. While we may call other kinds exotic matter, to some extent 'normal' fermionic matter is more 'exotic' when considering the whole of the universe, as Physics now understands it.

But uniqueness and oneness are not the only archetypes that matter. I would say that uniqueness is absolutely necessary, and it is of course uniquely powerful among all the archetypes of form, but it does not tell the whole story - maybe something important that is often overlooked, but not everything. If we allow that in addition to uniqueness, completeness, nothingness, and enoughness or sufficiency are preserved, we can build a conceptual hierarchy to hold the fundamental forces of Physics. See my essay, from an earlier contest

In relation to this contest; it is especially important to see the role of a fifth quality or archetype which we can call agreement or equality, because this property is what maps information to form, or vice versa. I'm just observing that your main point is sort of like saying we can learn everything about Physics by studying Gravitation. Now if we really deeply understood Gravity, a lot of Physics we don't understand might fall into place, but studying the other forces is hardly a waste of time.

That's all for now, but I will comment once I get to read your essay.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Joe. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

Hello Joe,

I have rated you well already so this does not really apply to you. But I know I can count on you to give your answers to 4 bitter and unique questions...

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

Since I know you are busy, repost my answer to you also on your thread here.

Dear Joe,

I tried to relate KQID with your idea that everything happens once. At the bottom, everything is simple. We all know that even a simple living system like an amoeba or even our own cell is a complex piece of work that has evolved for billions of years on earth and if KQID is correct that it has evolved for trillions trillions years in our Multiverse. However, the mechanism of creating and distributing of this complex phenomena is simple at the bottom. It is based on what I defined as the Wang Yangming one bit of Giving first and Taking later as the unity of knowledge and action. I only say that KQID agrees with your idea that everything happens only once every absolute digital time T T≤10^-1000seconds. Each T contains all Minkowski events in our Multiverse. In analogy, one may compare it with our heart beat, each our heart beat is unique and only happens once for each beat. The beat itself is repeated if not this unit idea as the living dies. Because without exchanges of bits/ideas taking in the "good" fresh nutrient bits and getting rid of the "bad" waste bits, this living system dies. However, while alive this human lives beat by beat of his heart. Each beat is unique. Each embodies the whole human being with complex bits/atoms arrangements that combines the new and old bits. It is also like our breathing of air, each breath is unique and each breath creates and distribute a unique human being with difference bits arrangement that only happens once every breath. each breath renews and resynchronizes our living system. Each breath is the Giving first and Taking later complex activities. The mechanism of Giving and Taking is simple but the actual activities of Giving and Taking are complex. The process is simple but the outcome in the living is complex. We have known that complexities derived from simplicity.

Joe, you are not "a decrepit old realist" but you are a great outside of the box thinker. You are a Greek Cynic and a great human being. It is my honor to converse with you. I hope my explanation above satisfies your realist self. I would like to think myself as a realistic dreamer. I believe you are a realistic dreamer because you are in this forum to enlighten all of us. Good work and good fight of ideas. I share your good fight. May you do well in this contest of ideas.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Dear Akinbo,

I found your questions to Joe are very intriguing, I will wait also for his answers. You always ask deep questions. I will find your essay and read it. Thanks.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Joe,

I like your essay - it's funny too. I think what you say in your essay about your real toe is a much needed antidote to the picture of reality put forward in some other essays. The "official view" seems to be that the underlying reality is like a computer, or a horrific mathematical wasteland. Anyone whose essay disagrees is likely to have his head chopped off.

Thanks for a good read. Best wishes,

Lorraine

Post it here from my website.

Dear Joe,

If I may use the great Carlo Rovelli's metaphor from Democritus atom below( see my post to Carlo below): "To go back to Democritus metaphor: atoms are like an alphabet, but an immense alphabet so rich to be capable of reading itself and thinking itself." That what I envision of our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit is as the immensely infinite alphabet Qbit that contains all consciousness out there from the beginning to now and what Qbit will be. The Qbit is self aware of its constant state of being every absolute digital time T ≤ 10^-1000 seconds. Each T is the Democritus-Rovelli alphabet that contains Existence including itself, it is conscious and alive with energy in time or in KQID symbols ψI(CTE) as the bits-waves function of consciousness(C), time (T) and energy (E) that is capable not only reading and thinking itself but also doing itself! We think, talk and make love. The alphabet looks static but if it is conscious with energy with infinite time; Existence emerges and we are that Qbit in action. Again you cannot tell nature what to do, nature does in infinite ways, it cannot be limited by anything including itself! Yes, Qbit cannot limit Qbit. Is this Hume's not all too powerful being but an infinite being that is limited by its own infinity nature and by its own conservation laws. Yes, it is. We are also for example infinite beings in finite forms. We are wonderfully powerful being subject to conservation laws. We are becoming more powerful in time and shall be physically immortal beings once we can manipulate the conservation laws to reach a critically advance level like singularity technology as envision by the great visionary Ray Kurzweil. My dear friend, facts are still facts despite of being observed and interpreted by our subjective minds. Facts change every T. This "once" evolves to become whatever and whoever we are. Unless you deny the different between you and a stardust. Unless you deny who you are as a complex human being who brilliantly deduced from facts that everything happens once. Yours "once" and each "once" is a complex Democitus-Rovelli alphabet when you were once either in the womb of your kind mother or in this world once in a lone journey within yours erosverse reality.

Amen,

Leo KoGuan

Thanks Joe for at least graciously answering those questions without taking offence. Your 0-0-0-0 answer is simple and unique once! I love it. Have a nice day.

Hi Joe,

I enjoyed your essay greatly, but I had to laugh as I think you convincingly undid yourself. Except you did it in reverse. You see; when you talked about the utter uniqueness of the snowflakes in their individual journey to their once and only once existence; I thought it was the most elegant argument possible that each snowflake stores all of the information about its unique journey. The neat thing is that scientists can actually unravel part of that story, after the fact.

So thank you for your wonderful metaphor and insight. Although it contradicts what you said on the following page about the non-existence of information, that gem was definitely worth the effort to read your fine essay, and it stands alone as a great principle to remember. I look forward to reading your reply.

Regards,

Jonathan

I wanted to add this..

If some of your ideas were phrased in academic terms, they might be more appealing to academics. For example; you seem to have an objection to the idea that numbers just sit there, so they are repeatedly the same, and don't evolve with time. But that's just the Reals; if you consider quaternion and octonion numbers they DO display a sort of dynamism or time evolution. So in Math terms; one of your statements becomes "We can't assume that all quantities are like the so-called real numbers, as real quantities are sometimes non-commutative or non-associative, and they change over time."

Similarly; you seem to be making a strong case for the Heuristic method, and the idea that perhaps all knowledge is really heuristic in method. That is; it only applies for the unique conditions under study, and may not be applicable beyond a narrow spectrum of conditions. That again becomes a way to phrase things that makes your point more eloquently. By and large; I enjoyed your essay, but I think you went off the deep end a few times Joe. I still wish you luck in the contest.

Regards,

Jonathan