Jacek,

"We can never in any sense, 'directly access' reality." Are you saying that we each have our own reality? If so, what is yours?

Jim

    Dear Jim,

    I am absolutely not saying that we each have our own reality. It is anthropic kind of approach. I think that there is only one reality but we perceive that reality by our perception. The perception is a composition of our physical limitations (senses, brain, technical possibilities), our culture and language we use and at last our misconceptions e.g. we know that the gravitation is not a force field but a manifestation of spacetime geometry but we are able to feel a force and we are not able to feel geometry.

    The sentence "We can never in any sense, 'directly access' reality." is not taken from my essay but my question is what does it mean 'directly access'? It is also the issue of our perception.

    Thank you Jim for reading and commenting. I will take a look at your essay even though there is not a lot of time to the end of the contest and the majority of us is normally working. It is not easy to read all essays and especially these submitted at the last moment.

    Best regards and good luck!

    Hello Jacek,

    I found your essay interesting and bold, and this for two reasons. I find it interesting because of the manner of presentation, i.e. tabulated. But you haven't mentioned where the meaning of "bit" originated, that is, in computer science, and so I suspect its original meaning is swept under the rug by most because it doesn't suit anymore.

    Secondly, and if I got this right, you suggest that all fields of force should be thought of in the same terms a gravity, and I quote:

    "**from Albert Einstein we know that gravitation is not a force field but a manifestation of spacetime geometry (only our perception causes that gravitation seems to be a force). Why not apply the same concept to the rest of known "force fields" i.e. electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear?"

    In Wheeler's universe it seems we are all required to jump in one direction or another. Here I find myself jumping in the opposite direction to you, and Einstein, that is, in Hierarchical Space-Time gravity has a particle-wave duality not unlike those of the other forces, moreover, centripetal gravity doesn't even start at the centre, and if I am right all the calculation in the world which depend on there being a "centre of gravity" will miss the point by this (' ') much.

    Zoran.

      Hi Zoran,

      That is possible you are right. There is only one way to check it out - the concept/theory shall generate clear predictions and an experiment shall verify it. That is the reason I have proposed such an experiment (possible to carry out) verifying predictions of my concept.

      In the current contest we have got more than 100 essays and it is impossible to read and comment all of them and I think we are tired. I do not know your idea but I will take a look and maybe leave a comment if I am competent in the field.

      Best regards

      Jacek,

      I believe you will appreciate my prediction concerning the relationship between the diameter of a black hole's even horizon and its gravitational attraction, but we may have to wait a few years to see how that turns out.

      Yes, there are a lot of entries, and more to come I believe.

      Zoran.

      Thanks for the clarification Jacek - I liked your essay - all the best Antony.

      4 days later

      Jacek,

      If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

      Jim

      Hello Jaceck

      I am very intriguing about you experiment and it is a very good idea but I can not agree with the definitions of the concepts and conclusions. Information and computation are physical concepts no mathemathical. Most people take historical roots of the concepts as an element to label the concepts but it is not correct. Information and computation depend on the universe in which we are living. If we were living in a different universe, information and computation would be different. However, transfinite numbers are independet of the universe where we are living because they are mathematical. I wrote an article talking about this "Nature from the bit and beyond" if u want to read it.

      Best regards,

      Sergio

        Hi Sergio,

        I think that information and computation are both physical and mathematical concepts. My (and also Einstein's and Wheeler's) idea is geometrodynamical (mathematical and physical at the same time). I assume that I will find an explanation and some arguments in your essay. I will read it soon and leave you some comments if I am competent...

        I feel that you are graduated in informatics. So maybe you will find it interesting to find why QM and GR are computable and deterministic, but the universe evolution (as naturally evolving self-organized critical system) is non-computable and non-deterministic? http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0026

        Best regards and good luck!

        11 days later

        Dear Vladimir,

        I have read, commented and rated your really interesting essay.

        Regards

        Hi Jacek -

        It is interesting to consider how we might define It, But, and Reality in terms of an evolving observer, one who makes decisions at every moment, and over a very long period of time, during which his relation to the physical world - his own biological configuration, if you will - is continuously altered.

        If evolution affects us at every moment (and it is impossible to argue that it doesn't) then It from Bit is true: We live in a Species Cosmos that is being evolved from ourselves. However, it can and should be countered that we do seem to possess a certain objectivity - that Bits appear to be founded upon a reality greater than the continually evolving Species Cosmos - a reality where our logical and scientific parameters are less applicable, and often not applicable at all.

        You might be interested to see how I treat this evolutionary argument as a realist interpretation of the field of reality, thus expanding the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler.

        I believe my perspective provides a structure you might find useful.

        I have rated your essay, and wish you all the best,

        John.

          9 days later

          Hi Jacek,

          I simply loved your "Three worlds connection analysis"! Although you have a different approach to information than I do, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit.

          Good luck in the competition!

          Manuel

            Dear John, thanks for your comment.

            I am just after my holidays and I am going to read some more essays (including yours).

            Best regards

            Dear Manuel,

            It is a great pleasure to get such comment.

            I am going to get acquainted with your approach to information as soon as possible.

            Best regards

            Hello Jacek,

            In addition to this summary of the analytical essay, made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, I have read your work vixra:

            Safuta J., Spacetime Deformations Evolution Concept. vixra.org/abs/1102.0026 (2011)

            Safuta J., Spacetime Deformations Theory. vixra.org/abs/1006.0005 (2010)

            Safuta J., A simple spin experiment. viXra.org/abs/1304.0027 (2013)

            You did well to reduced svao ideas to the table. Get crisp and clear, in the spirit of Cartesius. The general conclusion: deep philosophical approach to the ground of being, "to grasp" the nature of the information. Most importantly, you are trying to connect the spirit of Hegel and the spirit of Popper. Excellent, the secret of the world - in the triad! I invite you to visit my forum and evaluate essays. We're finding with you in the same mind.

            Only one question. Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

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

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

            Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

            Best regards,

            Vladimir

              I have just left some comments on your essay's forum and some more on your e-mail.

              Dear Vladimir,

              Thank you very much for reading my publications and for your appreciation.

              In a couple of days I will read your essay and leave there a comment if I am competent.

              Trying to download Alexander's publication I have found the link you gave me does not work. Try again.

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

              Best regards

              Hello Jacek,

              Here is a direct link A. Zenkin SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS

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

              I'm waiting for you on my forum.

              Best regards,

              Vladimir