Greetings Vladimir,

Given what you said in Georgina's forum, pointing out similar areas between your ideas and hers, you should also read my essay, and I will most definitely read yours. We should both find several points of agreement, between our essay and ideas. Good luck in the contest.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

    Hello Jonathan,

    Many thanks for the very valuable for me to comment, and an invitation to read your essay. Yes, indeed, we are going to close on close paths in the same spirit in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt. I am sure to read your essay in the near future. Already found your web site address. All very interesting!

    With best regards,

    Vladimir

    Thanks again Vladimir,

    I will try to get to your essay today, despite a heavy workload. And I appreciate the comparison to Descartes. It is an honor. Though not mentioned much in this contest, he may have been a forefather of "It from Bit" philosophy. Though 'Cogito Ergo Sum' is usually translated from the first person "I think therefore I Am," if translated from the impersonal perspective, it becomes "Thinking therefore Being" which is the same as "It from Bit."

    This prompted me to coin the phrase "It computes, therefore It Is." I will comment on your essay after due diligence, and likely have many kind things to say. In the meanwhile...

    Have Fun!

    Jonathan

    On a related note..

    I have created a website: www.itcomputes.info where I will be collating information and making a page of links relating to 'It from Bit,' 'Digital Physics,' 'Mathematical universe hypothesis,' and related ideas pro and con. I will certainly have a lot of interesting content to feature after this contest, and we should keep in touch.

    Regards,

    Jonathan

    Hi, Vladimir,

    Your essay was very deep, and deserves to be expanded into a full-semester or even full-year course. (I noted that you also posted the article on the net as http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0019v1.pdf.) Of course nine pages is restrictive (for example, each point of your conclusion could be further expanded into a separate chapter), and some of the comments seemed to reflect the disadvantages of trying to squeeze deep ideas into a short format, but you did a magnificent job of not only weaving various mathematical, philosophical and physical ideas into a fabric supporting your ideas, but also applying ideas from one field to another in novel ways. I found the essay very thought-provoking, which is what a good essay should be. (My rating reflects this impression, of course.) Bravo! Молодец!

    Best, David

      Hello Jonathn,

      I am glad to see you again on my forum! That's right, this contest FQXi requires researchers to get to the deepest meanings of being, as the "top" and "bottom". And here Cartesian method is very good assistant. Deep new interpretation of the old concepts can provide access to new deeper meanings. It is required by all researchers modern information revolution. I am happy to forward your new comments.

      I looked at some of the material already on your site and will wait with interest your new materials. You are doing a very good job great!

      Best regards,

      Vladimir

      Hello Yuri,

      Yes, that's right, I'm a very big fan V.V.Nalimov. I was lucky enough to hear him lecture once in the Bauman Higher Technical School. I try to always refer to his work, particularly in his article, "The universe is aware of itself" http://philosophy.ru/iphras/library/zizin.html

      In it, he gives only the outline on the way to its modeling. By the way, loved him "geeks", I just saw at the conference.

      And you think about the creativity V.Nalimova?

      Best regards,

      Vladimir

      Hello again Vladimir,

      I want to let you know that I have read your essay. I'm afraid I found the formal, technical use of language a barrier to understanding much of it. Though I feel I have grasped your intentions, which are bold and forward thinking, with the help of your useful replies in this essay comments thread.I also have a better understanding of the relevance of URLs you posted on my essay thread. I too can see the importance of incorporating the 'mental reality' into physics. I think I will have to return to your essay to see if I find it more easily understood on a second reading before I vote. Regards, Georgina

        Hello Vladimir,

        I finished and greatly enjoyed your excellent essay. I think it took a while to get into its rhythm at the start, and that the abstract was a bit cluttered - trying to cram all the essential concepts from the essay into a small space. This makes it a little bit intimidating at the start, but it is a joy to read once you get into it.

        Your knowledge of the Classics and Philosophy, and your ability to skillfully weave that into a tale about Information Physics, are impressive. I give (and gave) you high marks for a valuable contribution to our understanding. Perhaps the Delta logit will soon join the bit, qubit, and qutrit, as you suggest.

        Well written, but certainly deep; you try to cram a lot into this essay's content, and that may be its main flaw. Perhaps with another page of content, or more, a better explanation of some concepts is possible. But I give you kudos.

        Have Fun!

        Jonathan

          By the way...

          I loved the linked material by and about Alexander Zenkin. I don't think I'd heard of him before, but certainly a character worth noting.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

          Postscript to my last post, or rather a footnote to the last parenthetical remark: "то есть, десять"

          Dear Vladimir,

          I'm sorry I have not had much time this past week.

          Excellent essay, which is why I would like to ask you a little question:

          In physics, or elsewhere, what you identify as 0 and 1, if you think that reality is based on information.

          I was the last on the list. I thought if we reversed the order of the list I'd go first. With the note that you have given me I have no more chance to pursue that dream.

          Thank you for understanding that this could be a great idea.

          Indeed it is.

          Yes, this world is written in the language of mathematics.

          I agree with you for many of your assertions.

          The opposites play a great role.

          My rating for you is 10, with bonus of 3.

          And good luck.

          Please visit My essay.

            Hi David,

            Thank you very much for your kind and insightful comment! Yes, you are right that many of the concepts need to be deployed, giving detailed explanations. The birth of the concept of "ontological memory" I was like - "Eureka!" ... My job was to "seize" the main thing - the deep essence of the phenomenon of information, its place in the picture of world. Much namely «Absolute generating structure» I opened the previous essay FQXi 2012 http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

            Thank you for appreciating my essay!

            Best regards,

            Vladimir

            Hello Georgina,

            Thank you very much for reading my essay and your comment! Yes, indeed, there was a problem with the translation, it makes occasional translator who was not well acquainted with the philosophy of physics. I, too, now again back to your essay, put the right rating and you will report this to the forum.

            Best regards,

            Vladimir

            Hello Jonathan,

            Thank you very much for lovely comment!

            Maybe not all at once clear in my essay - it's because I wanted to squeeze the maximum information and I do not like to write much. And then there was the problem with the interpreter. Have you read my previous essays?

            http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

            For me it was the most important thing - the introduction of the concept of "ontological (structural) memory" and his deep understanding.

            Yes, you are right, the study of Alexander Zenkin very original! Today, just need the original, non-trivial ideas.

            Good luck in the contest and all the best,

            Vladimir

            Best regards,

            Vladimir

            Sorry, Georgina!

            Confused, so many have read. I rated you put 23.07 - "happy nine".

            Good luck in the contest,

            Vladimir

            Hello Amazigh,

            Thank you for your comment on my forum and read my essay!

            I think that the "o" and "1" requires deep interpretation to establish links as the first signs of a matter and its states, as well as the consciousness. In my concept consciousness is «vector quantity». A matter has three absolute (unconditioned) state, two of them represent the number "0" to "1". But the "0" and "1" (matter states) does not give a new generation. This makes only "3" - the state - of becoming of matter. Thank you for your appreciation! Your essay I have read and leave a comment, and set a good rating 22.07.

            Best Regards,

            Vladimir

            Vladimir,

            Thanks for replying to my questions.

            There is another thing which is unclear to me. On page 4: "... the unity of physical (material) and ideal reality is shown in a single eidos, represented by a simple mathematical object and representing the fundamental physical principles." So as I see it, according to you we have a single mathematical object that represents both the essence (eidos) of reality AND the fundamental principles.

            Usually, fundamental principles are represented by formulas, not objects. An object is a term of the mathematical language, a formula is a sentence of the mathematical language. E.g. Newtons principle "F = m*a" is a formula, not an object (term).

            So my question is: have I understood it correctly that you want to represent fundamental principles by a single term? If so, isn't it then the case that you lose, that is, that you fail to represent the mathematical-logical structure of the fundamental principles?

            I am interested in your view on the matter.

            Best regards,

            Marcoen

            Dear Vladimir,

            Your essay is too much philosophical for me. I do not feel quite comfortable with it. I know you have found a lot of philosophy also in my essay but mine seems to be much simpler.

            However I would like to address your important statement: "there is a crisis of the ability (and desire!) of mathematicians to understand each other".

            Mathematics is like music. It is an independent art usually cultivated usually without any conscious goal and driven by passion. There is a lot of different types of music. Musicians do not need to accept, understand or like all that stuff and they still create excellent pieces of art. They do not need to work together to create a one universal music style. It does not mean there is a crisis in music. There is a variety as never before. There is no crisis also in mathematics.

            Quite different situation is in physics. Physics is closer to a craftsmanship than to an art (with no offence to physicists). It is usually practical or tries to be. The crisis in physics we know: QM and GR / the small and the big and nothing in between! And much more. The parts do not create a whole. So my proposal is to solve these troubles with physics using the geometry. The key is the one universal scale invariant metric (form!). But first of all we have to falsify that concept and carry out the spin experiment. Then we can possibly work out the practical physical math or give up.

            Best regards and good luck!