Dear Michael,

The ideas of John Wheeler, "trouble with physics" and the contest itself FQXi make every researcher to "dig" deep into philosophy. John Wheeler left a good covenant: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers".

I read with interest your analytical essay made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt. You have made a very interesting sweeping conclusions:

«Reality isn't soup. There is a "hierarchy of the real", where most of what we deal with is of a relative reality, of a relative truth, sprouting from an absolute reality that is fundamental to it. Likewise, our future theories and models of quantum mechanics will be layered sets of information: the absolute information of the algorithm and its data, and the relative information emerging from internal measurements. That latter information, the measurements the internal observer made of its world, are the model's predictions that we should compare with the measurements we make of our world. »

Totally agree with you. I only have two questions.

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

In the russian version of the paper that thought shorter: "the truth should be drawn and presented to" an unlimited number »of viewers".

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

And the second question: Why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

Please read my essay. I think we are the same in the spirit of our research.

Best regards,

Vladimir

    Hi Michael,

    Your essay is enjoyable to read and your critics is transparent. Main thing

    for my that you have understand what is what! I am saying: no need to mix independent physical realities with human's abstract creations!

    I have high rated your essay.

    George

    Dear Michael,

    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.

    Michael - Interesting essay; short but very thought provoking. Being someone who stands with one foot in computer science and the other in physics, I really enjoyed your combining the two in something other than a pot of soup.

    I also started out trying to solve a thorny problem in computer science, but then found I had to delve into the physics for an answer. 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).

    I would be honored to hear your opinion of it. Should I not quit my day job ;-) ?

    Kind regards, Paul

    Hi, Michael,

    Your essay is excellent: straightforward, getting the point across in a very effective, readable and at times humorous fashion. Top rating.

    And thanks for your kindness vis-à-vis my essay.

    In my time zone it is night, so I have no more time to comment, but must go to bed. (So yours is the last essay I read before the deadline.)

    All the best, David

    Motion is everywhere,

    Duality is everywhere,

    1 and 10 is everywhere,

    Our effectiveness reasoning is binary,

    With me or against me,

    And some refuse to believe in the reality of duality.

    Thank you.

    Dear Michael,

    thanks for your rating and I do the same for you.

    very interesting essay, I agree with you completely, information has a hierachical structure with many layers (including also its semantic).

    It was ghood that Matt brought us together.

    All the best

    Torsten

    Hi Mike, information is well defined in information theory (c. Shannon) and thermodynamics uses a similar form. My 2012 essay (now posted as vixra 1307.0082) cracked the code and gave the relationship to particle data and interactions. I don't where the code came from, but it might be interesting for a programmer to look at it.

    Dear Mike,

    Very interesting and entertaining reading! I like how you move between programming and physics (myself being part programmer, part studying physics).

    Best regards,

    Cristi Stoica

    Dear Mike

    I loved reading this essay. Light and airy and fun to read. Well done.

    Thanks for all the kind reviews everyone! Good luck to you all

    • [deleted]

    • Post #54

    Wow Michael,

    Right on. I greatly enjoyed the fun romp of your essay. Reality is not a soup, but is often treated that way by Physics folks, with Classical, Quantum, and Relativistic ingredients, all boiled down and simmered over a hot flame. Oh boy! Sounds yummy, huh? Perhaps some "Quantum Soup" a la Al Huang, but not exactly what Physics is about. So I like your idea better.

    One caveat though; Big Data alone is not enough. Geoffrey West, in the May 2013 Scientific American calls for a unified conceptual framework of complexity, without which we will not be able to use 'Big Data' effectively, to make sense of the world. West states that without a "big theory" to explain it, 'Big Data' "loses most of its potency and usefulness, potentially generating new unintended consequences."

    But if your goal was to make me think, it worked.

    Have Fun!

    Jonathan

      Hello again Michael,

      It's good to see you made it. Best of luck in the finals.

      Regards,

      Jonathan

      Write a Reply...