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.

        Hello Amazigh,

        The essay rating period is coming to a close, and it was more enjoyable participating in the event and reading quality work. I'm looking forward to next year already. I hope that people will still read the group of essays for this year and ask questions they have even when the "contest" is over. Your view is subtly different than others because it says info has energy itself, or that energy is the origin of data. I read your essay and commented, but did not rate it because I don't have my voter code with me. I will later.

        I think the most important thoughts I've come across during the start and approaching close of this event, and not necessarily all from this site, is that info corresponds with expansion and movement. The more you know about something, the more spread out it is. Dr. Susskind talked about this. There are still deep mysteries out there about the nature of information, but this essay posting and the following colloquium I feel has helped out numerous people who participated.

        Cheers,

        Amos.

        Dear William Amos Carine,

        Yes, (e) is a mystery.

        (e) for eEnergy, for a new science in coming : a binary Science, dual Science, fundamental Science.

        I have discovered the functionning of eUniverse : eDuality is in all things, like motion.

        And all things arising, by couple, pair.

        « simple, complex », « wave, particle », « space, time », « matter, antimatter », « electicity, magnetism », « Weak force , Strong force », « gravity, expansion of space », and so on...

        Duality is in all cultures (Egyptians, Greecs, Indians, Chineses, ...) and in each one of us, but never explained and equaled like in China.

        The « Yin, Yang » duality is full of truth, but this must be completed and reinterpreted, like our Science.

        eDuality is present in physics, mathematics, philosophy, economics, biology, chemistry, religion, our thinking, in computers and mechanical machinery, linguistics, and so on...

        Each one of us speaks with eDuality.

        eDuality is the same everywhere.

        There is one kind of eDuality when this concept is clear known.

        eUniverse is very simple at the begining, very complex after.

        This eDuality, these opposites, these contraries, are the 0 and 1 of information.

        It takes a book to explain all these concepts : eEnergy, eInfo, eReality, eDuality, and so on...

        Good luck,

        Amazigh H.

        P.s. I'll be happy if you see the duality that is in the music, your favourite hobby of art, and you indicate me that, to include this information as reference, in my next book.

        Best wishes,

        Amazigh H.

        William,

        I have open and read your essay just accidentally - if speaking honestly! And I come too surprised by such question: how this inquisitive man can understand and formulate clearly the essence of matter when it remains still dark for many of ,,leading,, theorists! Yes, my dear! The ,,information,, and ,,bits,, as well as our language, mathematics, symbols and formulas etc are our creations only! Thanks of these we can made the picture of reality and describe/investigate its essence and property, and nothing more! I think this simple think must comprehend any healthy brain.

        So, I welcome your work (that is very close to my spirit!) and have rated it on high score with pleasure! Hope my work will deserved to your attention.

        Best wishes to you!

        George Kirakosyan.

          Many thanks Dear Amos,

          I am glad that we can share many of our viewpoints.

          Best wishes!

          George

          Thanks for all of the participation in the comment section here! I will answer any questions or respond to comments after this contest is over as well.

          Dear William,

          I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

          I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

          You can find the latest version of my essay here:

          http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

          (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

          May the best essays win!

          Kind regards,

          Paul Borrill

          paul at borrill dot com

            Hi Paul,

            I am also in awe that so many different views were all centered around information and that they were well written too. I have no idea how many I've read, but your reading is very industrious.

            Thanks for the notice of your essay.

            Good Luck,

            Amos.

            3 months later

            Dear Crowell,

            Sorry for my first quick reply! I had a misconception here, as is common when thinking about anything.

            Best regards,

            Amos Carine.

            Write a Reply...