THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING & THE ITSY QUBITSY UNIVERSE by Vladimir F. Tamari

1. Why the bad rep. on S.R.? The theory tries to conserve the laws of nature from one frame to another, not make them subjective. This is the root of that limited theory of constant uniform motion. The Principle of Relativity is not doubted by anyone reasonable. Everything feels like it has a price to it. It's a price I'll pay, even with death.

2. What's so bad about being not absolute? It could be that reality really is not absolute, without this being from derived error (i.e. a triangle not observed doesn't necessarily have 3 straight lines with angles adding up to 180 degrees).

3. About nature dealing only with itself, just because something is self contained, I don't see that as being a reason for saying that's the whole story. That which is unseen is still real.

4. The platform you're building your computer on seems right, about the circular momentum, but the rigidity seems to dodge the real question with strictness.

Vladimir/Marcus

The point here is, irrespective of whether Vladimir is saying that, this distinction is spurious.

We only know of existence as it appears to us. That is, for us, physical existence. We cannot know of it in any other form. Whether there is another form or not. We are trapped in an existentially closed system. And science must concentrate on that, which is manifest to us by a simple physical process, ie the receipt of physical input. So does the brick wall next to you, but that has not been enabled by evolution, to be aware of it, ie subsequently process that. The physical circumstance is the same.

This distinction arises from a confusion as to what constitutes physical existence. It is what is potentially knowable to us. There may be alternatives, because, if A there is always the logical possibility of not-A. But we cannot know what we cannot know. Science is about the knowable, religion, and in many cases philosophy, involve belief.

Paul

Vladimir F. Tamari,

"Information is an artifact of human thought imposed on Nature to describe some of its aspects."

After reading your essay, I think that you say more than this sentence reflects. However, each time I read it, I question why you said it in your introduction. It reads like a conclusion. Yet, it suggests to me that you are not speaking about nature's information but, rather, about interpretation.

"Information about Reality, including BITs, is an artificial concept obtained by sentient observers who sample Reality (IT) using various very limited aspects of it through the senses or scientific instruments. This imperfect input is processed through various neurological, logical and mathematical means to form a concept, idea or image of the original. Fundamental Reality is diluted, distorted or lost. The process is exemplified by an optical imaging situation where the object (Reality) emits or reflects light (Information) to create an Image. In the case of an ideal lens the image is almost identical to the object, but most other situations involve imperfect instruments and fallible human perception and understanding. The image is often imperfect, and its interpretation heavily biased by the cultural, philosophical or even religious beliefs and preconceptions of the time."

Could you please give your opinion of this statement of mine: I think that this may be viewed in a different manner giving the opposite conclusion. The information we receive arrives in a storm of wildly mixed photons from innumerable sources and directions. The lenses and other interrupting devices do not, I think, pass on images. They pass on an alterred arrangement of that mix of photons. It is the processing that our minds do to it that draws a possible image out of the mix and forms it into a picture. I see that picture as being most usually an improvement of the information that was received. Our minds choose what to make of the information and proceed to make it.

You mentioned intuition in another part of your essay. What is 'intuition' in your view?

"Nature and information can then be regarded as one and the same thing. The state of the nodes on the surface of a volume of such nodes is the result of interference-like effects of all the nodes within, affirming the Holographic Principle. Another way of putting it is that the Universe is a sort of quantum computer. In this paradigm the Question can be readily answered: In the Universe it is neither IT from BIT nor BIT from IT, but rather IT=QUBIT."

The first part "Nature and information can then be regarded as one and the same thing. ..." seems to me to be questionable. Particles generate information and that information is delivered to us. The particles are not the information. I think you mean something other than what I read into your words. I know your paragraph is explaining your view, but, I don't see how it fits with nature. Nature no doubt computes but it cannot be a computer. Nature has the property of 'understanding'.

I have expressed opinions of mine, but, it is your opinion I am interested in reading. Whatever you think about what I have said would be appreciated to learn.

James Putnam

Thank you Sir Vladimir for the replies to my confused probing. After reading your paper that you linked in your reply, I think it's now evident at least that my statement on momentum meant more to you (mathematically and with working familiarity) than I knew at the time. That is the great risk in talking to a mind, one never knows exactly how much lies in there unknown or unexpressed.

With a little fuzz still left after the read.

I have just downloaded your Beautiful Universe Theory. I seems to be interesting...

Dear Vladimir,

I have just read your 'BEAUTIFUL UNIVERSE: TOWARDS RECONSTRUCTING PHYSICS FROM NEW FIRST PRINCIPLES'. It is not a work for one night. I have left some ad hoc comments at my essays' forum where you have recommended BU theory.

I see that you recommend very interesting content so I have to look immediately at Gabriel La Frenier website. Thanks!

Vladimir,

I love your 'cloud of unknowing'. Great essay, particularly as it extend what I'd assume is your main comfort zone. I particularly liked; "Experimental and theoretical knowledge and information about Nature should not be confused with Nature itself." Very similar to my own point about maths and statistics.

I also picked out;

"in arrogance and short-sightedness we have fallen into the trap of confusing our derived knowledge of Reality with Reality itself

"...misconceptions can easily arise even from correct data"

"...a Cloud of Unknowing obscures both the process of experimental observation of Reality and in thinking and creating theories about it."

"...Taking a hint from Shannon's Information theory it is useful to think of the Information about the subject as passing from Nature to the observer through an information channel. There is always the possibility of noise distorting the information as it is transferred from its original manifestation to a sensor, retina, (including the paraphernalia of data processing in a brain) or computer."

Excellent stuff. (and all consistent with my proposed new law I think?)

Peter

Peter

We only have knowledge of, we do not have any 'direct access' to reality. The issue is whether the knowledge compiled corresponds with what is knowable. Physical existence being what is potentially knowable to us, which is the function of a physical process. We may never achieve it, but that is a practical matter. The point is, if proven to correspond, which will be by default, ie nothing new arises after many years of further investigation, then all we can say is that the knowledge is the equivalent of existence as manifest to us.

Paul

Vladimir

Do not fret, because there are more than 5 senses anyway. Physical existence is not just the preserve of human beings. Any sense of any sentient organism is relevant.

Paul

Vladimir,

Nice looking essay. "An observer using an imaging

instrument such as a telescope or microscope sees only the final image". Rang close to my heart, because the fundamental theory I am working on (not included specifically in my own essay here), also suggests that reality is a result of Quibits - specifically geometric asymmetries, that relies on the observers unique frame.

Great work - well done!

Antony

Vladimir

c was just a constant, and he explained it as a ray of light. It was not observational light, just a ray. Later it was lightening, which is seriously difficult to see with! There was no observation in Einstein. You find me an example. What he said he was doing, and thought he was doing, is irrelevant, it is what he did which matters.

There is no relativity in physical existence. The 'relativity', or more precisely, variance in timing, is in the receipt of light, which although existent in its own right, is a representation of the reality which occurred. And that occurred in a definitive discrete physically existent state.

Paul

Hello, dear Vladimir!

You always write great essays! And most importantly - give beautiful drawings. "The truth is to be drawn ..." (A.Zenkin. "Scientific counter-revolution in mathematics"). You are right: «There is a necessity to examine our philosophy of knowing. By their very nature our best theories are merely our best guesses, and there is no guarantee that better theories may not be discovered contradicting present assumptions and / or presenting new ones. »Good luck in the contest! Regards, Vladimir