Dear John Merryman,

You have written a very brief article but the points to be understood from it have deep depth and make one to ponder over them. The essence of your argument can be understood if you go through the biology section of my essay, where I have discussed how living organisms came in to existence and evolved and I have discussed the notions of information, knowledge, intuition, mind (brain), environment, consciousness and other related concepts. So, please, go through my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and try to visualize how the theme of your essay follows from it. The distinction between the classical world and the quantum one is clearly stated when you say "there is no middle ground view that effectively encompasses both. Those Bits are what we know of It." There by establishing the relationship between It and Bit. You have rightly pointed out the distinction existing between both worlds when you say "this separation goes more to the nature of knowledge, than of reality"; thus showing of our ignorance of a unified theory. The origin of the concept of Time and its relation to energy is notable. Regarding the origin of the concepts of knowledge, brain, reality etc. is to be understood, I feel, from my essay and then to be compared to what you have said on them in your essay. Feel free to post your comments on my essay in my thread. Since the theme of your essay is based on mine I have rated your essay with maximum honors. Thanks for producing a thought provoking brief article.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

    Sreenath,

    I have finally found the time to read your essay. It is in many ways, a full course meal of an examination of the topic. Unfortunately I'm one of those people who do more intellectual snacking than really have the time and concentration required to develop and absorb such a multifacted treatise.

    This was a problem I have with the topic to begin with; It really did require a broad analysis of the entire subject of information, knowledge and how they relate to reality, to fully respond to the issue.

    You have done an admirable job, though a bit too broad for my tendencies.

    Dear John,

    As I am remembering we already have discussed the time problem.

    On this I just want one more time emphasize my understanding of it.

    - The concept of ,,time,, are used in physics arbitrary (I mean a priori, without connection of it with the physical objects of study) It means we have accepted the existence some of absolute klock, independ from anything, that giving us the equal/invariance intervals of events. In practice however we are forced to use some local material objects, which have property to give regularly - repeatedly events. The intervals between them we accept as INVARIANT (but we have no any proof for it!) Thus, we must not excluded that these can be not equal i.e. the ,,time,, may be VARIABLE. At last, the analyze of question shows that ,,time,, is directly depend from density of mass/energy. I want mark - this concept becomes justified as per as it WORKS!

    I am really appreciate your efforts on this very important cognitive problem and with pleasure I have rated your work on ,,high,, core.

    Best wishes,

    George

    Hello John,

    I agree. But obviously not enough «intuitio» and «ratio» to get to the deepest meanings. Constant cutting of the whole into parts direct ratio to the other side of the truth to construct an image of the world as a whole. This is necessary both physicists and lyricists. The ideas of John Wheeler pushes our ratio and intuitio to see the world as a whole in a single symbol, which includes all of the fundamental meanings of the Universe. I'm waiting for you on my forum.

    Best regards,

    Vladimir

    Hi John,

    You wrote on my thread - "Given all the major patches to keep it working, from inflation to dark energy, not to mention everything from time traveling wormholes to multiverses springing out of it, it is all bizarre beyond belief".

    It being current cosmology. I agree with you wholeheartedly that there are too many patches, and I don't think inflation, dark energy multiverse nor wormholes make any sense.

    In fact my model only partly explained with regard to information around black holes,bodes explain things more simply. It partly unifies the four forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony.

    My essay doesn't hint at agreeing with any of these classical phenomenon, but does agree with current empirical data.

    Best wishes,

    Antony

    Vlad,

    Reading the abstract, I remember why I hesitated. To me, an ontological memory would be a form of platonism and I have issues with the various forms of that. For one thing, given my views on time, past and future are not ontologically real. In this current essay, I do make the argument that perspective is inherently subjective and thus epistemic. There is no such thing as an absolute perspective/"God's eye view." An ideal is not an absolute. The concept of memory simply doesn't apply to the ontological level, because memory is information and the creation of new information requires erasing old information, since the medium of energy is conserved. This effect creates the "arrow of time." Past is erased in order to create present, which is then erased in order to create future. As I point out in the prior contest, the "thread of time is woven from strands pulled from what was previously woven and eventually the past becomes as unknowable as the future."

    I will read your entry, but if I find I can't agree with the premise, I can't score it. (I'm only giving high scores to those I agree with and not scoring others, to counteract those fools giving everyone else low scores. )

    Regards,

    John

    Dear Merriman:

    I must say that I agree with most of your essay, is excellent with, the exception of the "time" subject.

    "This process is what we call time. The presence of the energy is like the hand of time,

    constantly moving onto the next configuration, as these forms, as their own units of

    time, come into being and dissolve."

    "While we have this sense of forward motion through the events, it is the presence of

    the energy that is constant, so it is the events forming and receding, going future to

    past. As when the unit of time that is our lifespan is over, we too recede into the past".

    In my essay I explain that what people call "time" in fact is "motion" and "motion" precedes energy or is energy. "motion" existence needs of something that moves, "motion" is a quality or property of every physically existing thing, and not the quality itself, but the things that moves, change to different configurations and forms. If you mean changing to the next configuration and forms are the "time/motion units" of those configurations, I am not agree time/motion . "Time" probably born as a system to measure "motion" created by men "time units" which I say are "motion units" also were created by men. What I think probably are the same are "motion" and energy, and I am not sure, I don't think is probable but it is maybe possible that energy can dissolve.

    There is not forward motion through the events, events usually change and transform in the place were they are. If energy is constant, then would not dissolve. Events always change like everything else. Future and past don't has physical existence they only exist in our minds, when we are considering them. When our period of transformation as living beings finish, this is our duration ,we recede into the past into the minds of living beings.

    Héctor

      George,

      Thank you as well. It does seem as though we are futilely knocking our heads on the wall, but eventually it is one more bubble that will pop and someone has to call these people to task. History will be more kind to our efforts, than theirs.

      Regards,

      John

      Hector,

      I think we are very much in agreement on the issue, just looking at it from our different perspectives. Motion creates change and time is a measure of change.

      Keep in mind that essay is addressed to the vast majority of people for whom time is not only primary, but primal. The temporal sequence is the basis of narrative and linear logic, which are foundational to humanity. It is no wonder it should be including in theory of elemental nature. Time is as every bit as real as temperature and that is what regulates our bodies, as time forms our minds. People are much further up the scale of emergence than qualities such as time and temperature.

      Hello John,

      Probably because you were one of the earliest entrants I am just getting to read your worthwhile essay.

      In your list of binary relationships would you consider including existence/non-existence. It appears more fundamental because something exist before you start asking whether it is black or white or what do you think?

      But I agree that no essence of one of the pair without the other.

      All the best,

      Akinbo

      *You may want to read and rate my essay, and the judgement that followed in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT.

        Akinbo,

        You raise quite a number of deep questions in your essay and that is the main reason I chose not to tackle it, time being a significant constraint for me. I will though go through some issues on your thread.

        As for being/non-being, it is likely the most primal dichotomy and far more complex than all the others. A bottomless void of interrelating issues.

        Notice that sentence doesn't even make sense, using void, not pit, but that is the degree of the problem.

        John,

        I found your approach to the topic at hand succinct, logical, and intuitive and would like to rate your essay highly. However, before I do may I run some questions by you via email? Please let me know at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

        I look forward to hearing from you.

        Regards,

        Manuel

        It would appear the last several days of posts have vanished. This is a test.

        Dear John

        It seems that our conversation was erased. Do you have any idea what happened?

        With respect to the conversation, I remember you mention that you chose energy because it is conserved. There are some other quantities that are conserved such as momentum, but momentum although a physicial quantity is not a substance. Are you having in mind that energy is some sort of substance? This is one of the reasons, I prefer to select matter (in the sense of Aristotle) and not energy.

        Regards

        Israel

          Israel,

          That was weird. It seems all posts of the last two days have vanished, but they managed to replace the missing scores. Just my luck, as I went from a 4.2 to a 3.9. Oh well.

          I pick energy because it really has no features, other than dynamic and conserved. This makes it a perfect dichotomy for information, which is the very nature of definition, is necessarily inherently static and according to all experience, if not various physics theories, is mostly not conserved. In fact, the creation and transmission of information requires erasing prior information, as in, "You can't have your cake and eat it too." As in you can't have something, without using all necessary input. Since it is conserved, the energy cannot manifest both prior and succeeding forms, thus no "blocktime." This creates the asymmetric "arrow of time," as the energy is not going to turn on itself.

          So in order to have information, you need energy to manifest it and if you have energy, it must have some form, ie. information. So it's not as though I see energy as something substantial, but as the yang to the yin of information. Can't have one, without the other.

          Matter, on the other hand, is a conceptually a composite of energy and form.

          Regards,

          John

          Dear John,

          Your one approach to this whole debate is interesting because it is very easy to presume meanings. What is "it" and what is "bit"? If we can agree on a definition a major part of this debate would have been resolved.

          In What a Wavefunction is I try to define too. I have download of your essay. See if you can read through mine and let have your reaction. I'll be back here to rate.

          And just in case you find it dense at first. Then please read through my exchange with Marcoen. I think it is a good starter with regard to my definitions.

          Regards,

          Chidi

          John,

          I can be fully agree with you but there are some ,,trifles,,. The ,,new bubbles,, really is not necessary. Moreover, I am calling clean the physics from a lot of bubbles, which are introduced from air.

          And I am calling to return to a normal-natural way of thinking - without new creations and new things, and this approach give us the RESULTS. However, you do not care all of this and just have attributed to me things when I am saying just the opposite!

          I am very disappointed from such level of discussion. I give you ,,high,, score!! It will be more better if you will not send to me such comment and your thanks.

          George

            George,

            There will always be bubbles. People sketch their castles out in the air, before they try building them of stone. There will always be more dream castles than stone castles though. We are in the business of popping some of those dream castles. What would you be doing otherwise, if those silly fools were not out talking up multiverses? There wouldn't be as much to make fun of. I did rate you highly as well, but I'm just trying to understand the much larger context and that includes many other people, with many other views on the subject.