Dear Sir,

Thanks for the complement.

Regarding number as a property of all substances, first let us define property. Since everything has come from the same primordial stuff, there must a commonality in all, which is not directly evident. That means, during recombination, the same stuffs combined in different proportions due to inertia and conservation laws (we have shown the detailed mechanism elsewhere), which shows a particular combination as different from other combinations. We label such different combinations and call it property. In that way, we can label different properties, which are concepts that can have independent existence of its own without linking it always to material objects. But when we look at any object, we always link that concept to the observed behavior of the object. In that case, properties cannot exist without objects. The property by which we differentiate between similars is labelled as number.

There are no references because of two reasons. Firstly, we do not follow others blindly, but do our own assessment of what others say. Finally, we come out with our exclusive views only. Most of our ideas are inherited from our father. Secondly, we have taken ideas from some ancient books as interpreted by our father, which either no one reads or even if they read, no one understands it in the proper context. In any case, those books are not directly related to science. For example most of our submission on information was derived from an ancient treatise on grammar. As we have said in our biography, we are looking at the commonalities in everything.

Pseudo-code (derived from pseudo and code) is a compact and informal high-level description of a computer programming algorithm that uses the structural conventions of some programming language, but typically omits details that are not essential for the understanding of the algorithm, such as subroutines, variable declarations and system-specific code. Pseudo-code cannot be compiled nor executed, as there is no real formatting or syntax rules. It is simply one step - an important one - in producing the final code. Pseudo-code augments the programming language with natural language descriptions of the details, where convenient, or with compact mathematical notation. The purpose of using pseudo-code is that it may be easier for humans to read than conventional programming languages, and that it may be a compact and environment-independent description of the key principles of an algorithm. It does not require strict syntax, but instead serves as a general representation of a program's functions. Since each programming language uses a unique syntax structure, understanding the code of multiple languages can be difficult. Pseudo-code remedies this problem by using conventional syntax and basic English phrases that are universally understood. The benefit of pseudo-code is that it enables the programmer to concentrate on the algorithms without worrying about all the syntactic details of a particular programming language. In fact, you can write pseudo-code without even knowing what programming language you will use for the final implementation. In our classification of information, we have used it as an important factor.

In case you are interested in developing some ideas, we can offer our services and provide you with whatever is necessary information. You can write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba

Hi Basudeba,

I guess we will never agree on the definition of number. That is OK, but I do have a problem with your philosophy on references. It is OK to not blindy follow others as you put, but apply it to references is not helping others. I can't say this is my philosophy, but it is OK not to blindly follow others but it is mandatory to help others if you can. I just think that references help others. I thought of the argument of just Googling for the references myself, but I may not find the exact reference you referred too. As for pseudo code, you reminded me that I used to do the same thing when I was taking programming classes in college, but we used a different word for it, which I can not rememeber now. Thanks for the information, but you need to revamp your ideas on references.

Jim Akerlund

Dear Sir,

We have no hesitation in giving you the references if it helps you. The only reason why we are hesitating is to avoid bias. You can mail in our email id the references you want and we will send those to you. You will never find those references in GOOGLE.

Regards,

basudeba

Hello, Basudeba!

Good analytical essays, read with pleasure, as well many of your comments on the forums. I agree completely with your conclusions: «Both space and time co-exist like the fundamental forces of Nature .... Energy is perceived only through its interactions. Hence it cannot be dark (non-interacting). Similarly, information cannot be dark (without answers). It shines in full glory blinding us. We should have the eyes to see it.»

Good luck! Vladimir

5 days later
4 days later

Dear Basudeba,

The subject matter of the essay you have written, I feel, is as a result of build up of your thought for over a period of more than two decades. So you have better grip over what you have written. In the beginning of the essay itself you have made it clear that Reality = Answer and also that it sits at the center of every question. It is true that we often ask a question to know the reality hiding behind it. Your idea of quantum weirdness as due to observer's inefficiency may not be appealing to all but yet it could be right individually. You have analyzed both classical and quantum worlds from the point of view of a classical physicist. Your classification of 'information' in to different categories is interesting. Your idea on the motion of galaxies and dark energy is worth noting.

For the enormous strain you have taken in writing this essay, I would like to rate it highly.

Sincerely,

Sreenath

    Dear Sir,

    Thank you for the gracious comments. But the credit goes to our ancestors, whose ideas we only presented in our language. Most of what we have written are contained in the first chapter of Maha Bhashya of Patanjali. The rest are from Shatapatha Brahman, as interpreted by our fore-fathers and received by us from traditional sources. It is a pity that there is not a single book that interprets the texts correctly. Those like Raja Ramanna or presently Sridattadev Kanchrla have tried to show off their knowledge of Vedanta in a wholly inappropriate manner. In any case, they have not understood what they are talking about.

    We find that the Westerners are more interested to secretly study our ancient works and publish whatever they understood as their original work or at best Buddhist thoughts to misguide others. But since they have not understood it properly, they are often misled. This creates the confusion. For example, string theory was developed on the basis of "vayurvai tat sootram". But the Vayu here has 11 pairs of subdivisions unknown to them. Thus, they are talking about 11-dimensions in vain. In various threads here we have shown that dimension can only be three. It is a pity that scientists and Sanskrit Pundits in our country shun our work equally. Scientists due to bias and Sanskrit Pundits to hide their ignorance.

    We have published a book on Vaidic Theory of Numbers, which discusses many subjects of physics apart from Number theory. The book is free of cost. In case you want a copy, you can send your postal address to: mbasudeba@gmail.com,

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Sir,

    Your idea about absoluteness of the theory is correct though it can have various interpretations.

    Regarding the TEST, we will be glad to cooperate with you.

    Regarding fees, we do not believe in selling knowledge. Hence we are not interested in the monetary part. But we can help you or anyone else in any manner we can. Our email id is: mbasudeba@gmail.com.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Basudeba,

    If you are talking of Maha Bhashya of Patanjali and Shatapatha Brahman, then you have a very good knowledge of Sanskrit. Sanskrit is such good language that it is very rich in vocabulary, literature and grammar. But it is almost forgotten in modern India. I am moved by your courtesy to send me a copy of your book by post. For that I will send my postal address later to you.

    Thanking you and best of luck in the contest.

    sreenath

    6 days later

    Dear Sir,

    Your essay is a good analysis of various prevailing thoughts - most of them fiction than science. Till date we have not come across a precise definition of "what" an electron is - Bohr's description of an enigma notwithstanding. In our essay, we have attempted to do just that. You are recommended to go through it.

    In one previous essay "Is Reality Digital or Analog" as well as in the present essay, we have defined three characteristics of reality. Two of those were knowability and describability - reality must be capable of being known (what lies beyond the universe is not real, because we can never know it) and composed in a language for communication to others. Of these, the first is confined to the observer and the second is between observers. Though both are information, their difference must be recognized. There are some 'knowledge', such as intense emotions, that cannot be communicated properly. We have classified information into 5 categories.

    The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. Thus, it is a limitation on the knowledge of individual observers and not real. The collapse postulate leads to the measurement problem.

    We have discussed the double slit experiment using protons and come to the same conclusion. Can you give us any reference to the experiments cited by you? We have shown that there is no quantum 'weirdness' in this experiment.

    Wheeler's physical unit of quantum, like his bit, indicates a class or a set. There can be many elements conforming to this set. If we choose a jigsaw puzzle and intelligently arrange the pieces, we will get the picture right. All pieces or random pieces cannot be so arranged. Similarly, generalizing his "surprise version" of 20 questions may not be correct. Our consciousness loops back into the past (memory) to compare the present impulse with it and finds its similarity or otherwise past experience with yes-no questions. It does not create reality. We have discussed it elaborately in our essay.

    The content of all observations is of a form: " 'I' see or feel or perceive 'it' as 'such' ". Here 'I' is the observer, 'it' is the observable and 'such' is the result of measurement expressed as a concept through a language for communication. In this format, 'it' and 'such' change with each perception, but the observer 'I' remains invariant. Communication proves that all 'I' perceive in the same manner (what one sees, others also see the same thing), though the concept 'such' may vary due to defects in the mechanism. Since there is no means of differentiating one 'I' from another 'I', it is one. But since we can not count or perceive all 'I' that exists, it is infinite.

    The brain cells and microtubuli within the cytoskeleton of the brain, though belong to the micro world, are instruments of measurement or hardware and not conscious, because they exist as such even immediately after death. The electrochemical energy of one conscious mind that carries information in 100 billion neurons with 1000 trillion connections can channel countless sub-atomic particles like an inert super-computer, but not into a consciously assembled reality. Our body including the neural network of the brain or our eyes etc. are not the observer, but only an instrument for observation. Equating an instrument with the observer is not correct. It is because consciousness never acts, it only observes. It is the 'I' part of observation, neither the hardware nor the software. It remains invariant as 'I' in all perceptions, just like space and time - they do not interact with objects, objects evolve in them. The "conscious mind before encased in a human body, itself an assemblage of some seven octillion atoms (7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 7*1027)", does not "create physical reality", but merely observes it. The Moon continues to exist when we are not looking at it. Observation is meaningful only to the observer for his information and does not change physical reality. The cat will lead its life. Observation will only report its state, neither will it kill nor make it come alive. There is nothing like a 'undead' cat. Our ignorance of its state does not change its life history.

    How do they define consciousness? If it evolved from fish like ancestors, then either the fish would have been most intelligent or the humans would have evolved out of fish - both of which do not stand scientific scrutiny.

    We do not accept inflation, but have repeatedly advocated the opposite mechanism - rapid expansion leading to a bow-shock effect slowing it down till it stops at a boundary and retards - gaining momentum to repeat the process again and again within these boundaries, so that at the present rate of expansion, the positioning of galaxies would appear to be more than it could have shifted had it moved at a steady rate. We also do not accept Big Bang, but advocate the Big Bounce - a self recreating universe that is not "dependent on extra dimensions, string theory and branes, or a Multiverse with all probable outcomes".

    We have also refuted the idea of singularity by showing here in various threads and elsewhere that division by zero is not infinity, but leaves the number unchanged. We derive the Big Bounce from simple laws of conservation and inertia and not loop quantum gravity.

    We have repeatedly asserted that entanglement is not an exclusive quantum phenomenon and does not continue ad infinitum. It's over in a few kilometers. A pair of socks or gloves is also entangled. We impose our ignorance to an imaginary superposition of all possible states. The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. In the case entanglement, there are only two fixed states and once our observation determines the state of one, the state of the other is automatically known - it does not come out of a superposition of all possible states.

    There is no proof that "ancient gods took larger-scale human forms and interbred with humans". We cannot "project our consciousness into the fabric of space". Sorry to disappoint you, but we apply our mind independently. Outside this forum, you can write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Basudeba,

    Thanks for the comment on my essay. There are many interesting and resonating points condensed into your essay and I will attempt to discuss a few of them which resonated.

    "...since density of space is the minimum, the velocity of photon in space is maximum." "Particles are nothing but locally confined fields of densities." "The interval between objects is space and that between events is time"

    One way is to treat 'density' as the overall remnants/effects of the state of motion of particles or more precisely the state of location and displacement of particles from the prior and next state (analogous to one frame after another in a video). For a photon, which is not a localized or confined particle (sort of spread out in comparison), it will navigate with greater ease in a less dense (less particle perturbation) environment.

    "There is a continual pressure starting from the creation event to achieve complete knowledge."

    The way I treat it is that once 'density' and information come into existence, it has already set the stage for moving towards the ultimate event where the 'overall density' is at its 'optimum'.

    Regards,

    Hon Jia

      Dear Sir,

      Thanks for your comments. We fully agree with your first comment, which can be further extended.

      Regarding your second comment, we must differentiate between 'density', which is a state and 'information', which is the description of the state in a 'language'. Knowledge is the perception of the contents of this language. Description or reporting is action. The content is perceived only after this action. Hence it is not action. It is compared with the stored concept in memory. Thus, ultimate knowledge is the ultimate store house of all concepts.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      Dear Basudeba,

      You have put a ,,strange,, task - ,,harmonizing the generalities of the macro world with those of the micro world,, from viewpoint of modern ideology,adopted in the oficial physics as indisputable principle! I mean there finitelly are accepted - our macroworld has its own rules (that is the cause-effect relations)- and thre are the microworld, which controled by brobable-statistical own relations (i.e. by quantum laws.) So, how you can dared to go against to thousands professors, uncountable quantity of courses and handbooks? You puting also laffulness questions - what is photon? What is the electron? Who give you permission to put such eretical questions?

      Dear Basudeba! You are on very right way! I welcome your work and hope you can find some answers of your right questions from my work ESSAY(after you need check the referenses there)I am inclined to high rate your work, and hope to listening your opinion about our common points in my forum.

      All the Best,

      George

        Dear Sir,

        Thank you for your gracious comments.

        Modern physics is at cross roads and needs to be saved by independent research. In this forum itself, we have received monetary offers and offers to mutually vote high, which we have declined.

        We can give our independent views because we are not running after any prize or recognition, but we want to understand Nature for our own satisfaction. We do not accept the 'established theories' blindly, because that is superstition. We accept only those that stand scientific scrutiny based on latest observations and experiments. Additionally we try to link similar principles in different fields like the Doppler effect or inverse square law were used in different fields in the last century. We do not fantasize with physics and follow strict mathematical principles.

        We will surely visit your site and comment on it.

        Regards,

        basudeba