Dear

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

.....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

6 days later

John,

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

10 days later

Hello John,

Notwithstanding my reductionist ontology sentiments I must congratulate you on a good essay. There are a number of well-thought out ideas.

However, there are also areas where mind and consciousness are given roles to play which I find hard to swallow.

The parts I like is where you suggest that information can be embedded into the 'quantum foam', even though how this can be implemented is still unclear. I love that part. If you take a look at my essay I portray some initial steps how this can be implemented. You may disagree with how I suggest this information storage can be done, but tell me why?

Lastly, is 'existence' an information?

Best regards,

Akinbo

    6 days later

    Akinbo,

    Thank you for the comment. I just happened to finish your essay and really enjoyed it as well; will provide further feedback in the near future. Also nice to see you are in contact w/ Mr. Davies as he is a very well measured scientist/mathematician in my opinion.

    While I appreciate your opinion on the role of Mind/Consciousness, I believe it is inevitable that it must enter most scientific dialogues in the future if we wish to have a full accounting of what is "going on". Experimental results emerging out of Quantum Physics force us to confront it to some degree, and considering the attempted synthesis is still in its infancy I think we'll certainly have disagreements about "what degree" consciousness effects the world into the foreseeable future, and how it emerges in the first place.

    I enjoyed your paralleling monads with bits, which helps provide "substance" to this idea of "information". I think we can say to a certain degree that memory is nothing but embedded experience, so almost all resonant cause/effect interactions in an undulating space-fabric become "memorized". Ideas like Funaro and Meyl help provide further insight into how the fabric of space is able to accomplish all this coherent data storage.

    And to answer your last question "Is Existence an Information?" Well to a certain degree yes, and I think it depends largely on how old we think the Universe is. If the Universe were eternal, I think that certainly matter/bit/existence could acquire coherent characteristics over time through simple trial and error. But if we accept the time cap associated w/ the Big Bang then I think we have to revert to the idea of an already ordered Information inherent within the cosmic egg of the Big Bang (i.e. to allow for the ordered coherence that likely isn't possible within this timeframe through simple/random trial and error. Unfortunately these types of discussions are inherently esoteric so I apologize for not being able to be more "concrete" in my conclusions/assertions.

    Thank you again for your great contribution and interest in my submission. All the best to you.

    John

    Hello John -

    I was particularly interested in your inclusion of life and evolution in the structure of the Cosmos, and linking this to information as you do is also intriguing.

    I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer while describing a quantum/classical world correlation. The evolving observer, I show, is the missing link in many of our quests. I think it is this that impels Physics' expansion into Bio- and Neuro-Physics.

    We are continually realizing that the Cosmos is fine-tuned to develop life.

    You might be interested to see how I treat this argument, and - like you, I believe - expand the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler. I'm sure you'll find the resulting structure useful.

    I totally empathize with your point of view, and have rated essay; I hope you will find much to cheer you in mine!

    All the best in the competition,

    John.

    John,

    I enjoy your essay and I gave it very high rating.

    I agree with your notion that the universe is not the byproduct of aimless, uninformed interactions between inert substances leftover from the Big Bang. Your "Universal Systemic Memory" can be the result of an orderly and controlled absolute motions of particles moving in the E-Matrix.

    Good luck with your entry.

    Regards,

    Ken

    John

    Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

    (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

    said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

    I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

    The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

    Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

    Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

    I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

    Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

    Good luck and good cheers!

    Than Tin

    5 days later

    John,

    Thanks. My 2011 essay describes a unique resolution how the only disqualification to a background frame is kinetically removed, by removing the 'absolute' quality without removing local backgrounds. (Expanded on in 2012). There are implications to rationalise Maxwell's equations without 'partial time derivatives' and finally recovering Snell's Law.

    Applying some scores now and still agree a top one due for yours.

    Best of luck.

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #31

    Hello John from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder - This essay competition is so cool !! one of the many reasons being that we contestants can discuss each other's work & clarify our own !! How cool is that - I'm blown away.

    In my own essay I claim to have discovered 'information's' true identity which is : 'the full set of geometric objects otherwise quite properly & quite really (observably/demonstrably/measurably/quantifiably !!!!) present here in our universe' - as distinct from any of the abstract ones inside mathematicians, physicists & cosmologists (etc) minds & textbooks. Which definition resonates rather closely with your own definition as 'the pattern, form, or structure of a system that has the capability to convey meaning' - with substance doing the work.

    Nevertheless, my own findings have led me to conclude that 'information' - as quite literally the full set of geometric objects here in our universe - is THE one real thing which although real is completely agency-less - completely energy-less, & as such could not possibly be the 'prime mover' as you suggest - which suggestion, furthermore, seems to be a contradiction of your characterisation of matter as being that which does all the work, that is to say, is that which possesses the agency to 'do stuff' - to act, to move, to respond to & interact with other fellow interactees.

    In my hypothesis I see matter as literally reading information as advertised on the bodies of their fellow interactees - that is, reading the geometricity of their fellow interactees & then 'simply' mounting their response to their fellows in accord with whatever they read as to their fellows' shapes.

    Recall that even rocks & stones 'kick back' at anything or anyone foolish enough to assault them. I believe we should take note of the facts that not only do these fully solid bodies kick back in their own self-defense - because they possess the agency to do so - but they do so in principal exactly the same way we ourselves do - that is by 'taking a reading' of the information 'advertised' on 'fellow interactees' & then gauging their responses accordingly.

    As we now all know - but many fail to keep it in mind - is the fact that each & every solid object here in our universe, regardless of its size, shape, composition, location, life history, animate status or possession of specially-built on-board thinking-machine or not, is enveloped in an all-surrounding repulsive electrostatic force field by which entity each solid object here not only literally READS - 'takes the exact measure of' - the electromagnetic properties of anything which comes into direct bodily contact with it, but also via the repulsive force within this electrostatic force field, literally, physically, forcefully pushes itself away from its erstwhile attacker.

    In my own research I could not find anyone who defined 'solid object' - nor real 'geometric object'. What I did find was much talk of 'systems' !! Forgive me, but this appears to me to be a MAJOR WEAKNESS within physics generally including subatomic physics & a weakness that reaches all the way out to cosmology too - now that we know that events that happen down at the quantum level effect the subsequent history of the whole shebang !!

    Where this 'weakness' compromises our understandings of, well, of everything, in my opinion, goes along this line of reasoning.

    My 'pet' entities are the aforementioned (real) geometric objects otherwise quite properly present here in our universe, but these phenomena are STRICTLY 'surface-dwelling' entities AND WHILE SOLID OBJECTS POSSESS SURFACES, 'systems' do not.

    My position is this (again!) - solid matter possesses the capacity to read the electromagnetic properties of the electrostatic 'surfaces' of their fellow interactees - & respond accordingly - so there is no need for them to somehow be influenced by any 'free-floating' implicit ? 'information' - as it's literally right their on the surfaces of their fellow interactees.

    Note if you will that 'shape' (the geometricity of the other interactee) always plays a 'necessary' albeit not 'sufficinet' factor in the response any impacted object mounts towards its fellow impactee.

    I have to recommend that we recognise that not only is 'information' insufficiently identified & defined to date, but that neither have the properly identifying & defining characteristics, properties & capacities (like 'taking up space') of ordinary, everyday, common, garden variety 'bulk matter' been firmly established, & further that when we do we will be able to see quite clearly that 'thought' - 'as the use of information to guide & direct action' - is an innate capacity of bulk matter & that it occurs on the most routine of bases no less than each & every time any two individual increments of solid matter interact with one another - that each interactee quite literally reads the information (the geometricity) of its fellow & then (because solid matter has the capacity/agency to so do) mounts its own response accordingly - in other words 'kicks back' with all its might. OR if it reads that it fellow interactee is something with which it is electromagnetically compatible then the two will read this on each others, contacting surfaces & happily join forces together thereby making a bigger, better, brighter whole - a bigger, better, brighter SELF-ORGANISING WHOLE - a larger & or more existentially robust existent (NOT A NEW BIGGER SYSTEM - JUST A NEW SOLID BODY) - which is in point of demonstrable fact, the manner in which all (self-assembled) atoms, molecules, crystals & indeed, all known life forms 'compose' themselves .. .. by reading information on each others' person & acting accordingly ...

    I look forward to some more discussion with you John

    Best regards'

    Margriet.

    John Maguire

    John - excellent essay, loved how you brought in self-organization to the debate on information. I too enjoy Stuart Kauffman's work. The conversation with David Bohm at the end was very thought provoking.

    Let me know if the insight expressed by subtime in my essay is useful to your framework of thinking about self-organization:

    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).

    Kind regards, Paul

    Best of Luck for the Magnificent Eight !

    I am throught the 180 essays, all rated. For me 2/3 of them were poor and other 1/6 curious. The rest (1/6) have I rated over 4/10.

    You are among the authors of the top essays from my sight - alphabetically :

    Corda, D'Ariano, Maguire, Rogozhin, Singleton, Sreenath, Vaid, Vishwakarma,

    and I hope one of you will be the winner. (Please, don't rate my essay.)

    David