Hello Ryan,

The code I was vaguely identifying was the idea that all physics comes from information and that if we figure out how and what that information transfers, then we would better understand pur laws, and perhaps come up with a few more. So if this ties into the sequence mentioned, I do not have the mathematical skills or haunch to boast about it, though it may be likely that there is some link.

And it is a great piece of artwork, so expressive in its plain use of color and shading. The artist girl has talent. I'm sure you could send her a fb request and say you saw a drawing in my essay, to see more of her work.

Hoping you take care,

W. Amos Carine.

Hello William,

I may very well do that, as I'm keen on art. The mathematics isn't too tough for Fiboancci - each number is the sum of the previous two, so 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 etc, etc. This also extends to the negatives. -3, 2, -1, 1, 0.

A theory away from the contest I've developed stores information geometrically, so I applied it to singularities for this contest to explore what happens to information "if" it falls into a Black Hole to determine It from Bit or Bit from It.

All the best,

Antony

Antony,

That sounds like a very interesting bit of argumentation. I'll have to read your essay and look for references for the outside-the-contest papers.

Is a singularity different than a boundary? Boundaries seem unnatural to any view of the world which try's to encapsulate the whole of nature in one picture like physics does. This is the boundary of a line or point. One of the beauties of relativity in its general form is that the boundary or line between our universe and empty space, envisaged in old Newtonian schemes, is the disappearance of the end of the universe boundary line. Instead, light bends around the edges of the universe, it never "goes on forever" or to infinity (and beyond!). So the natural question arises, are blackholes an "edge" or are they mapped out by physical, geometrical means. Also, is the inside of a black hole uniform, or is that a silly question because, by contraction of figures to their plane form by S.R., the edges really get compacted to a stop in this scenerio. Either way, I think the finite yet unbound view concerning light paths and the presence of black bodies solved for by G.R. give physicists two clues.

Best,

W. Amos Carine

Dear Hai,

Thank you for your emphatic argumentation. You set up a mighty defense. I find it tough to wage charges on relativity in physical theory when its road has not been taken to its rightful end. It's an argument against a group of theories which acknowledge their incompleteness. It is good enough to be aware of these problems and try to resolve them. Also, stressing strict determinism has negative effects for a realistic approach. It seems like an inner mental vein which feeds on itself and takes up human resources for contemplation of other problems, and hence the "whole picture."

Hope the research works out for you, but I have no applicability of ideas in this submission for the essay contest.

Best,

W. Amos Carine.

Hello William,

My extended theory isn't published yet. Interesting point re- boundaries. I'll have to go away to think about this. Fascinating thoughts here!

Best wishes,

Antony

William,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

    Hello Jim,

    That would be quite the feat! I have read through some that interest me by title or subject, and always try to return the favor of those who have read and commented here. My thinking is that if others have interest, it in their work will likely be reciprocated by me. The essay batch content seems to be quite relevant to what is going on in physics outside of the contest as well. The essays I see on this contest have topics that come up in more journal-like papers, and those papers often hint at ideas discussed in these essays. So to this end, I will give it a look.

    Best of luck with the reading,

    W. Amos Carine.

    13 days later

    William,

    I found your essay very insightful and well expressed! I like your analogy of using the drawing by artist Taylor Marie to bring across your point, excellent example.

    I would like to ask you some questions if I may via email. My email address is msm@physicsofdestiny.com or please inform me of your email address in your response to my comments.

    Thanks,

    Manuel

      Hello Manuel,

      I'm delighted that you enjoyed the example with the addition of the excellent art by Marie Taylor! Your interest in this contest is appreciated, both here and elsewhere, I'm sure! Any email will get to me at carine.5@wright.edu

      Best,

      Amos Carine.

      I'll be sure to try to answer any questions there.

      7 days later

      Hey Amos,

      thank you for your encouraging comments on my essay, even though it was hard for me to follow your thought. I agree with you that "before one goes to the math of an item to be described, one should understand it conceptually". You did a nice job in your essay, which got better and better toward the end.

      I very much liked your idea of a close tie of time with information and totally concur with you that space is made of the same 'stuff' as the things in it. In this regard, you may like to read the essay by Dr. Carolyn Devereux who shows how harmonic oscillations in the vibrating primordial medium may lead to emergence of 'matter' in it. The other 2 interesting works are by Prof. D'Ariano and Maria Carrillo-Ruiz, who tie the concept of emergence of space-time and matter in it to the underlying quantum processes of cellular automata (CA).

      CA are the types of recursive processes I spoke of in my essay. If you are familiar with CA, you know that these basic processes are governed by very simple rules and yet they give rise to great complexity. Their output often reminds fractals. That was the context without which my bringing up fractals appeared groundless to you. Basically, in that part of my essay I was saying that info travels not in the neat shape of a cone (like it is believed in relativity) but as a fractal wave (because of the underlying CA-like processes).

      I did not quite understand in what sense you believe that the progression of time equals increasing uncertainty. I thought you implied it in regard to gravity -- in which case there are other interpretations. And it is currently believed to be completely untrue in regard to EM radiation (otherwise light reaching us from millions of light years away would get 'tired', no? -- but this is strongly denied). But these are guesses on my part, since you did not make it clear.

      Anyway, overall you did a good job, for your first shot. I like your conclusion about space and wish you good luck in your future carrier in physics. My all your plans come true :)

        Amos,

        I just noticed that again I forgot to mention the obvious lol and that is that a recursive loop lies at the heart of a fractal. But if you know fractals you should know this.

        Marina,

        I'm glad you enjoyed my comments. I will read the essays you said were interesting, and am sure I'll find them to be myself as well! It is hard to find more important or relevant ones out of the many terrific essays submitted, so a tip off or lead in the right direction is useful. You must have read a lot of papers and other materials before submitting. I didn't do all of my homework, and didn't look at a single essay until I wrote up the mine, minus little bits of editing that I did afterwards. So I was on the other end of getting a feel for the essays by writing beforehand, and now I'm thinking I could have said a few other things. For example, the idea of information being embedded in spacetime is fascinating, as in planets or comets leaving a trail of information that says "I was here," and I'm not entirely sure how that idea translates into physical thoughts, but I think it's worth my time thinking about (my time isn't worth a lot). Also, there is the notion that when there is more information, say which is describing a body away from a mass, it goes faster than if the body is described less adequately. Or rather, if one gets a more detailed view with more information, then what is viewed is increasingly expanded. It's based on the assumption that so much mass, which corresponds to so much space, or a body's motion through it, is a gradient that doesn't change with gravity, or expansion, which must both be described by the same means.

        And about the increasing uncertainty with more and more time occurring from a 'moment' I just meant that at some point the adding up effect, if you will, of one probability to another and so on would would appear to make the progression of time carry more uncertainty as viewed from that initial point, but could still be combined with the fact that light has a pretty good memory for info (it's not dragging it's feet and muttering to the ground). This wasn't stated, and it was wrong of me to think the reader would catch the unwritten part of the sentence, which with its not excusable lack of clarity hung out somewhere in-between the lines above the words. But to the sense in which I spoke, disregarding the unstated particulars, I don't put faith in beliefs alone, I try to let nature speak. Ultimately it does not matter what we believe if it is wrong, as is the case here with me since time progression does not diminish lights information.

        Thanks for the positive notes :-). I have to have some thoughts "out there" to keep me turning on cozy nights.

        Hi Amos!

        The other good essay you may want to read is by Joseph Brenner. He did a very good job at answering the main question of the contest. Very thoughtful and thorough, very interesting quotes on what is info (even though he takes a rather cautious position on space).

        The other essay I liked very much was by Prof. McHarris -- fascinating, about chaos and non-linear logic.

        I also liked essay by Conrad Dale Johnson. Good read. He takes Wheeler seriously and explores information in evolutionary terms. Goes well with Prof. McHarris, who mentions computer programs made to mimic evolution.

        And then you gotta read the 'big shots': Sean Gryb, Olaf Dreyer, Carlo Rovelli, Ken Wharton, etc.

        If you find something exceptionally interesting, let me know too :)

        Maria!

        Thanks for sharing those reading suggestions! I'll add the first three to my agenda for tomorrow, and maybe get to the others as well or within a few days. I thank you for putting effort into selecting essays that I may find interesting or relevant. Since I've been wondering about how I'll prioritize any in the whole list and have not come to any sensible way to do so, your suggestions come as a blessing. The computer modeled evolution simulations sound quite cool.

        Well thanks again and yes, if something just pops out of the page at me that I think may also interest you, I'll let you in :).

        Earnestly,

        Amos.

        6 days later

        William,

        Nicely written essay, non controversial as needed from an undergrad, and well presented.

        But a few points; Neils Bohr almost failed young Heisenberg's thesis as he 'missed' the lense interaction. In saying; "...Time, by observation, is the movement of the hands on a clock to another location on its face. Each of these cases involves the use of analyzing differences which can be observed by the senses."

        I must point out the most important part to understanding is similarly left out; The signal emissions (propagating artifacts), the detections (lens interactions), the change in 'rate' if the observer is moving, the wavelength changes between lens and brain, etc. Do we account for all the changes? I suggest better analysis is needed by all in my essay which I hope you'll read.

        Then the Michelson-Morley Experiment. As Akinbo says, learn the doctrine to pass exams, but don't believe it! In fact the later Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment finding firmly supported ether (so publication much subdued!). But both had systemic and interpretive issued, identified here, with proper analysis; [link:arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163]http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163

        We should also remember Einstein's words; "space without ether is unthinkable" !Leiden 1921). he had to remove it's 'absolute' nature, but mistakenly 'threw the baby out with the bathwater' by removing it as a 'local' background as well. He came back within touching distance in 1952 ("Infinitely many spaces within spaces" - moving wrt each other) almost repeating that from Minkowski's 1908 speech.

        Curved space-time is found in space from both Refraction (by ions) and by geometrical mathematics. We have yet to discover which does most of the real job, but both could do 100%! But all that is sacrilege for many so take care.

        Well done, and am sure you'll build to a crescendo in future. My belief system says your score should be higher so I'll wave my magic wand and do some maths...

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Peter,

        Thanks for the feedback, and reading your comments was a joyous experience. You are entirely correct in that much of the important parts in understanding light and time are left out. I just meant that there is not outside meaning to a value of "time" in itself as a quantity, and analysis of the parts I left out bare more significance for getting it. I could have been more clear, though I only meant that Time has no meaning as itself (the particulars mentioned by you do) besides that of a facsimile reading, at which place two similar clocks run the same. When one realizes Einstein's words are fairly new (about 60 years old), it's exciting because scientists and the general community can still learn from the man. Thanks for sharing Einsteins wisdom, something I wish wasn't abused out of context as frequently as it is.

        With appreciative regards especially for the quotes,

        Amos.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #64

          Hello William,

          We corresponded before June 1. Have you found time to read my essay? Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, perhaps you will like to view the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. Thanks

          Akinbo

            Hello Akinbo,

            I remembered you commented, but I reread your words to make sure I was thinking of the right correspondence. Your essay was one of the first I read after I submitted mine to be a part of this large group of exception essays. Unfortunately, it was at a time when I lived a bit away from one of my college's computer labs (the physics one, as it were!) where I could get free printing. I had written down my comments on a paper version, only to lose them before I could transcribe. I'll look at the essay for a second time momentarily. It has been quite the opportunity for quality interaction that is for the most part above me. Regardless, I'm sure the case mentioned above will look different as a result. I'm pleased that you presented another chance to read a submission and recapitulate past thoughts, and also look at something in a new way as compared to a noggin that is similar but not exactly how it was a few months ago.

            Pleased with the combo of old and new,

            Amos.

            William,

            I'm very pleased that my words pleased you, and thanks for your comment on mine. I hope you don't forget my points too!

            Thanks and Best wishes.

            Peter

            Dear William,

            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.