Information Relativity: Times Stored in Spaces by Valentin Koulikov

Valentin,

I've looked at one link you posted, and will look at others you send. (My email is in my essay). We're certainly concerned with the same issues. As you know it's very difficult to treat complex things in 10 pages, so the essay you read is just the tip of the iceberg. In one sense of the word, gravity must be somehow 'aware of itself' to interact with itself, which it does. Therefore there is a sort of primordial 'subjectivity' built into the field. Several recent papers have focused on the fact that ALL energy has mass and hence all energy gravitates, thus gravity interacts with (hence is "aware of") all energy, even kinetic energy. In other words everything. Of course the level of awareness is so primitive it barely deserves the term, nevertheless I feel it sufficient to serve as the seed for the "Participatory Universe" that Wheeler proposed. [The comments on my essay blog develop related points.]

I believe this is compatible with your "pure monistic, materialistic foundation, [taking] the subject as a materialistic "point of view," i.e. as a reference frame, a system of material objects chosen to physically represent, to detect and to observe any other object."

As for your "elementary subjective time loop", I'm not sure I understand it, but at first reading it sounds more like the logic operation that I associate with 'intelligence', which is "consciousness plus logic" (as defined in my essay and elsewhere.)

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Valentin

'Time travel' is not possible, because of what the concept of time physically relates to. And that is not the timing device, or the timing system itself. In physical existence, difference occurs. Apart from what it is and why, and irrespective of what is involved, any such occurrence happens at a rate. Timing is the system which calibrates this rate of alteration. There is no physical way of reversing this. It occurs, and indeed has occurred by the time we are aware of it. Which means that the physically existent state being considered has ceased to exist, as it has been superseded by another.

Paul

Consciousness, or more generally the entire subsequent processing by sensory system/brain of physical input received, can have no effect on the physical circumstance. Because:

1 The physical circumstance occurred previously, so physical effect is impossible as the existent sequence order precludes that.

2 The physical interaction does not involve the existential sequence anyway, but an existent representation thereof. So apart from the fact that what is being considered has already existed and now ceased to be in existence, what interaction there is, is not with that. Physically, all that happens is that the existent representation ceases to exist in the form received. This applies whatever the circumstance of the interaction, ie whether for example it included a brick or an eye.

3 It is not a physical process, but involves the conversion of a physical input to a perception thereof.

4 The resulting perception can have no physical effect on the future, because the future does not physically exist, and is therefore not available to be so affected.

Paul

Valentin

I did not say your essay was about consciousness. I just picked up an indication that it was considered that the subsequent processing of physical input received by the sensory systems/brain had some effect on the physical circumstance. Which it does not, it determines the perception thereof, which is not physics. And listed a number of reasons why this must be so, what you refer to as a "bunch of statements".

Re 1, it does not matter what consciousness is for physics.

Re 3 "There is no "conversion" of physical input to perception".

So what is seeing, feeling, hearing, etc, then?? A brick receives light (which is physically existent), so does your mouth. But if your eye receives it then it can be processed and the possessor thereof become aware of the receipt, since it is the front end of an evolved system which can convert it to a perception. The physics ends at the interaction of receipt. Though, obviously, it is important to know how the sensory systems/brain works so that from the perception we can extrapolate (after eradicating individualism as well) what was physically received. Subjective references are irrelevant. Though, by definition, any statement (eg measurement) is a comparison to identify difference, which necessitates a reference. So if the reference is an observer, for example, then the key point is relative spatial position, because light travels from the occurrence, not what the observer thinks, etc. Since, as I said, one of the proofs that the subsequent processing has no effect on the physical circumstance, is the simple fact that that circumstance has already occurred. And in this reality, a subsequent physical effect cannot have a physical effect on a physical circumstance which occurred previously.

Re 4 "Again, in my approach past and future both physically exist in the present"

Only the present is existent. The past is a present that has ceased to exist. The future is non-existent, it is a present which will subsequently occur as a function of the previous present. You cannot have "different" forms of existence. Either something is physically existent, or it is not. What does occur, but this is not what you are saying, is that a physically existent representation of something which was existent can persist in existence. It is called light. And we can receive light that is up to billions of years old.

Paul

Valentin,

Dense but a good read. Do you see your findings also reinforcing/complementing Bohm/Hiley's concept/notion of an 'Undivided Universe'?

Thank you sir and take care!

Valentin,

My essay is finally posted here . I hope you will read it and comment.

Best Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Valentin,

I've only had time for a quick scan of your essay this evening, but will look more thoroughly over the weekend.

I like your conclusion that the truth, more likely lies in "It from Bit and Bit from It". Please take a look at my essay and consider if we have and common ground, as the conclusion suggests we might have.

I look forward to reading your essay in more detail - it certainly has caught my attention.

Best Wishes

Antony

Dear V. Koulikov,

I think your statement listed after k. is of the most physical importance to the fundamental questions in the physics community today. Your finding, or creation, of this new principle may indeed be of some value to those who believe in physical unification as a route. It seems evident that the scale of future contemplation must be smaller than what has been in the thinkers mind in the past. It's like we're looking for micro-reasons for the big picture view of things.

When I hear words like "observer causality" or "fragmented" and kaleidoscope, I think that I'm reading from a rich document. So it was an enticing read, no doubt!

But moving on, however legit your beginnings seem, there is a caution against stressing perfect symmetry that I feel should be sounded. This comes even though pursuing anti-symmetric views from the get-go may be problematic, for the insistence of symmetry remains, in my mind, an arbitrary creation of thought imposed on nature.

You have a very interesting fundamental question under 4. yet a voice says "further, farther back still." This view is supported by the fact of clocks going slower in a gravity field with a little consideration and all. Gravity would slow down this change then, with black holes as stationary lack of information exchange. Having space and time points must be avoided in our minds if we want to remain completely unbiased.

The paper looks like it is doing work on important questions- and the time dimension view is neat! But as a final word, I'd let nature speak, and if it says contrary, I would wonder if all the work amounts to anything... Which usually isn't the case. So I see a lot of math connections but where is the tie into nature?

Under heading 6. what is the driving force for these loops to spin? I ask because they seem too flat.

Also, at the risk of talking about a technical aspect without knowing the details, you made an analogy of energy and momentum to time and space, but do you have maths for this? I think this is the crux of the situation at present. The phase space view may be very tricky when electrons are considered.

Best,

W. Amos.

Dear Valentin

Your essay is very interesting and unique, the only regret is the lack of accurate conclusions.

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

Hi, Dear Valentin,

I have read your essay but it is difficult to well understand your work (perhaps because of my poor English!) Meantime I have find there main important thing that is in your conclusion:

,,All of what has been written in this essay tells us that the phrase "It from Bit or Bit from It" is a wrong dilemma"!

I think the same that you can see on the top of my essay (in bold)

Essay

Please find time to open it, I hope we can find common points.

Pishite mne ottuda, pojalusta.

Sincerely,

George

Hello, Valentin!

Great idea: "Times Stored in Spaces"! Est li u Vas esse na russkom yazyke i drugie raboty? Ne smog nayti vashu stranitsu v seti i vashu pochtu...Moya pochta v moem esse, S uvazheniem, Vladimir