Lev

Thank you for the clarifications. I have looked again at the diagram E1 in section iv and indeed a temporal sequential struct explanation is different than the physical one, and clearer inasfar as the cause-effect chain is concerned. I think I am beginning to see where you are heading. Now if everything in the Universe is connected as a lattice or network at the vacuum level and in matter and energy, such structs become a natural outcome...

Sorry I have a one-track mind - I was thinking of my Beautiful Universe theory. I am too old to be diverted from the task of developing this model - but I wish you luck with your interesting work.

Vladimir

Thanks Vladimir for your interest and your *effort*!

Unfortunately or fortunately it is mainly not for us but for young people to push the frontiers. But today, *unfortunately* for our times, for some historical reasons, it is the older man that have to "pick up the fallen banner and carry it into the battle". ;-))

My best wishes to you!

Peter,

Thanks! Good to hear from you!

I'll get back to you in your essay forum.

Cheers, Lev

Dear Lev,

I have reread your essay. ETS has a lot of promise but there is still a lot of work to be done. For example, 'spatial' and 'space' appears 42 times but no where do we know whether the resulting geometry will be Euclidean or a modified form. How I wish you could harmonize your struct with the 'monad' of Leibniz & the Pythagoreans. Then, things will be simpler instead of learning a whole new theory all over. But as I said your theory is quite fundamental.

Good luck in the contest.

Akinbo

*You can check a simple, translated Leibniz monadology referenced in my paper, especially his first 8 paragraphs. Then for space, Check Sir Heath's book on Euclid's geometry, since Geometry is the science of the nature of space.

Dear Akinbo,

I intentionally avoided the issue of the nature of space, since if the latter is secondary to the informational representation, we have to proceed with a *very great* caution.

As to the Leibniz's monads or Whitehead's "actual occasions", I feel that those may only confuse the reader.

My best wishes, Lev

Lev

"Of course, we don't know what "awareness" means scientifically"

Yes we do. You are falling into the same trap as Edwin and many others, by not first differentiating the knowable from the not-knowable. We can only know (be aware) of what is manifest to us (hypothesis being in effect virtual sensing). In other words , physical existence is that form of existence which is all that is potentially knowable to us. Whether we can attain knowledge of all that is doubtful, but another issue, the point is that the potential was there. Whether there is an alternative is irrelevant, because we cannot know it. And knowing it, ie being aware of it, involves the receipt of physical input (supplemented by the hypothesising of input which could have been received had some identifiable physical issue not prevented that). The subsequent processing of this input received is irrelevant, as that is not physics. The utilisation of representational devices to express this knowledge is another matter.

Paul

Lev,

Very interesting and definitely in sync w/ my entry in many ways. Forgive me if I'm completely misunderstanding, but would you agree that your proposal is something of an evolution/extension of qualitative analysis ushered in by chaos phase-space mapping?

    John,

    My proposal is more transparent than you described it. I propose to replace the ubiquitous numeric form of data representation by the new structural one. Moreover, the nature of this structural, or informational, form of representation (see Fig. E1 in the essay) strongly suggests that it is of non-spatial origin and should be responsible for generating the corresponding spatial representations, or spatial 'reality'.

    Hello, dear Lev!

    Excellent essay, great ideas. I agree completely, «we need to look for fundamentally new formal tools not offered by the present mathematics.» Category "structure" (in Russian, "structure"), "structural memory" to the heart of the new physics. But you must also update the category of "space" and "time", link them to the "matter" and its unconditional states and thus to "seize" the structure of space, understand the nature of time. Good luck in the contest! With respect, Vladimir

      Thank you very much Vladimir! I'll get back to you in your essay forum.

      Moi nailuchshie pozgelaniya, Lev

      • [deleted]

      • Post #93

      The roller coaster update:

      3, 1, 10, 2, 6, 5, 5, 1, 6, 2, 3, 8, 3, 1, 7, 9

      Lev,

      The "desire to see something 'mental'...emerge as the principal element in the structure of the Universe" is as old as the theistic religions. See my paper to see how Bishop Berkeley hoped to accomplish just that as he placed physics on the path of merely describing the contents of the observer's consciousness, as if no physical Cosmos existed. That path led to Relativity and QM. The Cosmos was replaced by the observer's information.

      You ask, "Which new non-spatial form(s) of 'data' presentation will reveal the recently invisible and allow us to understand adequately the formative processes in Nature?". We already have it, it is called "natural philosophy". It is the use of our full intellectual capabilities to reach beyond the "information" of your conscious experience and create theories about what the Cosmos is made of, what causes all its processes, and how it evolves its complex structures including ourselves.

      Your ETS formalism may prove to be a useful tool of philosophy. It will still, like mathematics, require human philosophical intelligence to abstract from reality and produce the symbolic representation, and then again to apply the representation to any particular real situation.

      Henry

      Dear Henry,

      Thanks for dropping in to my essay forum!

      1. I don't think that the "desire to see something 'mental'...emerge as the principal element in the structure of the Universe" "led to Relativity and QM." The "mental' is not really the "principal element' in their structure.

      2. "You ask, "Which new non-spatial form(s) of 'data' presentation will reveal the recently invisible and allow us to understand adequately the formative processes in Nature?". We already have it, it is called "natural philosophy".

      I'm afraid, you are confusing "natural philosophy" with science: they are complementary but not identical.

      3. "Your ETS formalism may prove to be a useful tool of philosophy. It will still, like mathematics, require human philosophical intelligence to abstract from reality and produce the symbolic representation, and then again to apply the representation to any particular real situation."

      I certainly hope that ETS "may prove to be a useful tool of philosophy", but philosophy is not its main orientation. Also, the whole idea of ETS is to try to move away from "requiring human philosophical intelligence to abstract from reality and produce the symbolic representation".

      Best wishes, Lev

      Obviously, somewhere closer to the end I missed some sores and hence made some mistakes. But, somehow, I don't want to give up with this experiment. ;-)

      Dear Lev

      Your analysis is very good, but no specific conclusions and further develop so many questions. Do you think:

      Information is defined as : The absorption and transmission the impact of material.

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

        Dear Hoang,

        Please refer to section 2 in my essay, in which this question is addressed.

        Thank you!

        5 days later

        Dear Lev Goldfarb,

        Your diagrams look somewhat similiar to the ones that appear as pictorial representations of dagger-compact monoidal categories. Is there a connection between your ideas and the work of Bob Coecke on understanding fundamental physical structure in the language of category theory?

        Best,

        Alexei Grinbaum

        Hi Alexei,

        Thanks for dropping in!

        I'm afraid, the answer to all your questions is "No".

        I have looked earlier into the links with the category theory but have not found any of interest.

        Please note that at the beginning of section 3 I have a warning:

        "Warning: The main difficulty for a scientifically mature reader is not to fall into the trap of the powerful habit of automatically interpreting the information presented (of necessity) n the pictorial form in a "familiar" way, independent of the main text."

        My main motivation in developing the formalism was to try to formalize the idea of *structural object representation*. This *very* gradually led me to the realization that one cannot rely on anything in the present mathematics to get some help. It appears that we have to start from the very beginning. ;-)

        Dear Lev Goldfarb,

        I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Mean while, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

        Regards and good luck in the contest.

        Sreenath BN.

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

          Dear Lev Goldfarb,

          I am working on somewhat different direction than your work is. However I find in your essay some approaches close to me and have decided just to ask you to check my work. Particularly, there are some short description about of drama that become share of Einstein and other luminaries of physics.Dumayu Vi vladeete russkim?

          I hope on your response.

          ESSAY

          Sincerely,

          George