Jonathan,

You say "let me speak mathematically", then discuss smooth, topological, and measurable objects and spaces, - and relations between same." I could say "let me speak physically, then discuss smooth, topological, and measurable objects - and relations between same."

That is my point. Yes "waves and fields require spaces that admit smooth relations", but that's physical reality! And to say it is "a looser condition than topological or measurable" is simply to impose abstractions on physical reality. And you do this with your physically real brain, and, if I'm correct, your consciousness which is integral with physical reality. I have no objection to the creation or derivation of arbitrarily complex mathematical relations from physical reality. Only to the assumption that these have real existence apart from physical reality.

You note that the unbroken space [or field] has the not-two quality, which is divided when symmetry breaks and more complex forms emerge. This is exactly my point, that all this emerges from an initial unity [or not-two-ness]. Yes, the whole of mathematics emerges as the field evolves. But it emerges from the inherent logic of the physical field, which as far as I can tell, demands self-consistency and forbids contradiction. This alone leads to math. It leads to endless logical physical structures, one of the simplest of which is the counter, which physically implements the Peano axioms, leading to the natural numbers, which Kronecker said leads to all the rest of math.

Yes, the key is the self-interaction, which, as you note, can lead to a torus [and does so in my theory]. All abstract questions of topology and dimension, and what have you, are consequent creations of mind, not inherent "FORMs" existing in Plato-land.

The question is, can one start with real objects and actions, and logical combinations thereof and, first, form a language map that accurately reflects the reality that served as the basis for the evolution of the language, and, second, can one use this language to spin tales that are not physically possible, such as, for example, the sun rising and setting at the same time? Math is the evolved language that emerges from a conscious physical world, such that it can map physical reality, and then go beyond physical reality, just as language allows fairy-tales to go beyond historical novels. But the natural language does not exist in another realm. It evolved from physical reality. And so does math, which is just a 'purer, formal' language.

I think the only point we don't agree on is the supernatural existence of math outside the natural physical realm.

We seem to agree on everything else.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

Perhaps you haven't noticed my post of 25 June. Though I'm aware that you are having many discussions with other contestants, I do hope that you'll find some time to formulate a reply.

Regards, Anton

    Hi Anton, I'll study these and reply. Thanks for pointing this out!

    Hello again,

    That should have been Christoph Schiller in the above comment, who also pointed out that a lower or upper bound (depending on how described) exists. But I think Kauffmann's insight that there can be a maximum concentration of energy is the cleanest conceptual formulation, or most useful to Cosmology.

    Have Fun,

    Jonathan

    Thanks for your replies above Ed,

    FYI, professor Vishwakarma is now responding to comments. And in private correspondence, he noted that the current work is indeed an outgrowth of the research in the lecture I attended.

    Please note that I have no wish to debate here further the relative value or Platonism or lack thereof. It it pleasant that we can debate and explore the edges of the subject in an academic way, without locking horns.

    Perhaps, though I took the attitude in my new essay that Math is integral, the same principles apply if it is emergent instead. You noted after reading my draft, that most of my points stood without that connection. Didn't I say the same about your paper above?

    Have Fun,

    Jonathan

      Jonathan,

      If it's emergent, then we agree on almost every thing. And if not, we still agree on almost everything. It's not necessary for friends to agree on everything. It would get boring. So you are right, let's focus on the things we both find exciting, such as Kauffmann's, Schiller's and Vishwakarma's work, and how it relates to ours.

      Best,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Georgina,

      Thanks for reading my essay and for your kind words. I've read yours and will comment on your page. Good luck to you also! Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Eugene,

      Thank you for asking me to give my opinion about your essay. I will do it in the coming days.

      As an invited editor at the journal Neuroquantology I have some interest in this kind of topics although, as many sientists, I do not have a clear opinion about the deep nature of gravity and the information it contains.

      Approaching the subject probably needs quite sophisticated mathematics. I just tried to think about the perception of time

      http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0403020

      and found afterwards that the formalism relates to Riemmann hypothesis as well

      http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1012.4665

      You received many comments on your essay, and I will try to contribute.

      Best regards,

      Michel

        Dear Michel,

        I am pleased that you found something of interest, and look forward to your comments. I have printed out the two papers you reference and will study them.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        In a conversation with Gerard 't Hooft during FFP10, when I inquired about the calculational mechanism for a computing universe (Planck sized space atoms perhaps?) he said it wasn't necessary, because the laws of nature do the calculating for us. Perhaps by calling them that, any dispute between us is avoided, because the same 'natural law' can have its expression in either Math or Physics - depending on what kind of knowledge we seek, concrete or abstract.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        Hi Edwin

        Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry, I misunderstood then. You are talking about the linear approximation of GR. Ok, I'll be looking forward to seeing the results of your nonlinear treatment as well as the predictions. I can see that there is a lot of work to do. Good luck with this.

        You: I don't recall this particular argument. Is it new with you? It is very effective.

        Well, it is not new with me, but it is new in the sense that I invoke it as an argument in my essay. Most physicists are aware of this but it seems that the majority overlook its relevance.

        Best regards

        Israel

        Dear Edwin (or Eugene),

        I have now red your stimulating essay and tried to get some hints on your reasoning, especially about the 'awareness" of gravity, for a possible coupling to my own research. The challenge would be to put mass on diagrams decribing the wholeness of quantum observables (such as the dessins d'enfants created in my essay). May be at a further stage it will be possible to convert the bits attached to the measurement space (there the Riemmann sphere rigidified at three points) into invariants having the meanig of mass. I still don't know.

        Thanks for reading my essay and good luck.

        Michel

          Dr.E.E.Klingman,

          I'm yet a bit slower to enter lately into your marvelous essay. So far I'm yet realize, I think, there is same left and right or mirror image questions to resolve the 'It from bit' or 'bit from it', we have almost similar opinion. In my submitted essay, "It from bit' equally 'bit fro it", is nothing but a same statement written on a mirror and it depends on stands of observer.

          Best wishes

          Dipak Kumar Bhunia

            Dear Michel,

            I have had a chance to review the two papers you referenced. The Riemann paper discusses the details of a specific partition function, which I find interesting as I base the applicability of the Born probability to my wave function model on the partition function. The other paper, on time perception is also interesting. I had not seen the Poincare discussion of the Continuum, and found that fascinating, as well as your connection. I am somewhat confused as to whether you are proposing the phase locking as the 'mechanism' of time perception or of the 'scaling' of time perception? I can understand how this could relate to scaling, but not perception as I understand it.

            Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. I hope it stimulates some ideas for you.

            Best,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Dipak Kumar Bhunia,

            Thank you for your gracious comment. I have read your paper and believe we overlap as follows: you support that nature is not (or cannot be proven to be) analog, and consider observers (us) to be digital: "then nature that perceives through such digits or quantum must appear as a digital." [and] "the digital observers (like us) have a natural limit to detect the nature non-digitally, even if it would be non-digital anywhere in its deeper levels beyond that digital limit. "

            This is a well-thought-out proposition, and the locus of our agreement seems to be here. I tend to believe that the deeper levels are non-digital, but, as you may recall, I view the transfer of information as energy transfer, that does, or does not cross a threshold. This is the digitization you refer to. If the threshold is crossed, then the digit is '1', else '0'. This sets the digital limit of observation. The details of the observed world are so rich that we cannot expect any two essays in this contest to agree upon all of them, but the basic mechanism seems to be in agreement.

            Thanks again for reading and commenting.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            5 days later

            Dear Edwin,

            I thought your essay was very original approach, but simultaneously it is very logical and nothing is in there I disagree with. Physics does require many constants to make certain areas work, so the elephant example was an excellent illustration.

            Suggesting gravity is self aware as the only true field makes sense if we ever want to unify the four forces, and I suspect that Einstein was correct when he suggested that certain configurations of space-time incorporate the effects of electromagnetism. An area of particular interest to me.

            I've opted for an approach that thinks about how information can pass between Observer & the Observed within curved space-time. Hope you get time to read it.

            Best wishes for the contest - great essay!

            Antony

              Dear Antony,

              Thanks for your very gracious comment.

              Fermi, who claimed "with five parameters I can fit an elephant", probably never dreamed that our main theory of particles would have more parameters than particles!

              I too am interested in how electromagnetism arises. I have a 'mechanism' in my theory that explains this, but it is probably the weakest part of my theory. On the other hand, I can show how the nonlinear gravito-magnetic field confines quarks, which is about the only thing that the 'strong' force does. The theory also both produces and transforms particles which is what the 'weak' force does. So if my electromagnetic 'mechanism' is correct, the forces are unified.

              It's hard to keep up with the number of essayists this year, but I will read yours and comment on your page.

              Thanks again, and good luck in the contest.

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Hi Dr. Klingman,

              Your essay is very fascinating, and I really enjoyed how you explored the deeper connections between physics and mathematics, and the art of physical theory itself. Also your use of the references was great - in particular your application of Smolin is very enlightening. I'm inspired to read your other works (such as your PhD thesis), and also probably will pick up Smolin's Time Reborn.

              Thanks again,

              Steve Sax

                Dear Steven,

                Thank you for your comments. I am very pleased that you enjoyed my essay, because, as I remarked on your page, "I found your essay the most careful and complete study of the nature of information [the topic of this contest] of the hundred I've read." In particular, you do not mix Shannon's information entropy and thermodynamic entropy carelessly, as is often done. And, as I noted, "You present a more convincing argument for an info/area relation than most I've seen." These brief comments do not exhaust the topics in your essay, which I recommend to my other readers.

                So thanks for reading my essay and commenting. And thanks for writing yours.

                Edwin Eugene Klingman

                Hi Eugene,

                I enjoyed your lively style and use of entertaining and explicative graphics! :)

                I enjoy and agree with your statement: "...Wheeler's "absence of a clear definition of the term 'bit' as elementary unit in establishment of meaning" imply awareness, since there is no meaning absent awareness. He believed in a Participatory Universe..." It does seem to me that the "it from bit" concept breaks down without some sort of reciprocal relationship between the measurer and the measured.

                I am fairly new to the argument that gravity is "anti-entropic" although I also encountered the concept recently in the book "Time Reborn" by Smolin.I'm still thinking about how I relate to/interpret this approach. Have you read much Ilya Prigogine or much of Barbour's works on the principle of maximal variety?

                "From Oppenheimer's deep interest in Zen, to Cristi's Tao essay, physicists are fascinated by the idea that unity underlies an apparent surface division of the world into related and correlated entities. Yet Zen koans remind us how terribly difficult it is for brains that have mastered the skill of partitioning and relating systems to reach mindful awareness of undivided Nature: the 'Not two' aspect of reality" -- Indeed!!! Bit logic isn't able to convey koans. I definitely feel a comradery in your appeal to zen. My use of the phrase, "Is Bit It?" came about as a sort of koan--is bit "it" (made from the stuff of the universe), or is bit "it" (all there is at all). ^_^ The "superposition of states" (I am using this non-literally) experienced by a human mind processing a couple ways of interpreting a koan or a haiku may represent something fundamental about the nature of the universe.

                Cheers, and thanks again for putting forward intriguing and fun ideas and for sharing ideas on my thread,

                Jennifer Nielsen