Hi Vladimir,

Thank you for your comments on my essay. I left an answer to your question on my blog.

I read your essay and I think that we agree on a few things, especially the Universe as a whole and the ontological memory.

I understand why you want to use your delta-logit to store the information (your ontological memory) but I believe there is simpler way if you consider that the Universe is just a growing 3D information sphere and that the 3rd dimension is both space and time. That way, past/present/future information co-exist in the sphere (the Universe as a whole). I don't want to expand on it here, but if you are interested, you can find out more in my 3D Universe Theory.

Good luck with the contest !

Cheers,

Patrick

    Hi Patrick,

    Thank you very much for your valuable comment! I agree that the principle of simplicity, the key to physics. I've already started reading the articles on your site. Thank you very much, very original ideas!

    Good luck with the contest!

    Cheers,

    Vladimir

    Dear Vladimir,

    I enjoyed reading your essay and I appreciated the strong philosophical bias. Your conclusion 6: "Development of Physics of Information requires further development of ..., General Theory of Interactions, ... as fundamental to expanding the scope of fundamental sign systems" put a link to my essay where I introduce "information" as a substantial element of nature.

    Kind regards,

    Antoine.

      Dear Vladimir,

      I noticed that it seems that some or all of the posts that were made on August 1 and maybe some from July 31 have somehow disappeared from at least some peoples contest pages. In order to try to do what I can to reconstruct them I am resending the posts that I made on those dates if I see them missing. The following is the only post that I made during that period on your page.

      When I said that motion is a more basic substance than matter, I was talking about structural order. An energy photon is composed of two basic motions and a matter particle is composed of three basic motions. A matter particle can be changed into an energy photon by transferring one of its motions (its fifth dimensional motion) into its fourth dimensional motion and an energy photon can be changed into a simple motion by transferring its fourth dimensional motion into the lower three dimensions. In this way motion is the more basic substance because it is the substance from which energy photons and matter particles are made. The fourth dimensional motion gives both energy photons and matter particles their frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects. The fifth dimensional motion causes a photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself that changes its straight line motion at the speed of light into a cyclical enclosed path motion that we call a matter particle. The angular motion component of this three dimensional curved enclosed path motion generates the matter particle's static mass effect. These things are explained in more detail in my other contest papers and comments on this site. Although the motion within the enclosed path is always moving very fast, the path itself can be at rest, so the matter particle can be at rest. The enclosed path can also be made to move so that the matter particle can be in motion in three dimensional space.

      I used to believe in evolution, but after a thorough evaluation I have concluded that it is mostly a myth, so I have no need to think about absolute or self generating structures, etc. Sub-energy particles can go through interactions that change them into energy photons and the photons can become matter particles via interactions and matter particles can also be changed into energy photons and the energy photons can also be changed into sub-energy particles during interactions, but these are just normal outcomes of interactions and not creation of something from nothing or even creation of new things by some type of duplication or generative process. The total amount of motion is always conserved and remains the same, so nothing really new is generated. It is just a process of conversion from one motion structure to another one. The motions are just moved to different places in the dimensional system. These changes take place according to specific rules of operation and interaction of the particles. This does show intelligence, but it is recorded intelligence that can only operate in the way that it was made or programmed to operate. This is much like a program in a computer that can control processes in a manufacturing plant. It has no ability to do anything that it was not programmed to do. There are many similar types of preprogrammed process structures that exist in the universe and learning about them and learning how to control them has been one of the greatest benefits to man from the use of scientific investigation. These structures do indicate that they were created by an intelligent being, but that being could not be or be a part of the universe because some of these processes were brought into existence much too early in the creation of the universe to allow time for any intelligence to possibly have formed before them and then to have created them. Moreover, if there was such an intelligence in existence powerful enough to generate such processes on a universal scale, it would still be generating new processes and we would be seeing major changes in the way the world operates happening around us, but we don't see such changes in operations or any new types of operations being formed, etc. These preprogrammed processes are generally stored in the structures that they affect. As an example, when two matter particles interact the outcome of the interaction is determined by the rules of interaction that are a part of the structures of the particles and the specific conditions of the internal motions within the particles (the motions' positions and phasing with each other, etc. that are variables that feed the interaction) at the point of interaction.

      I am afraid Plato did not know about fourth and fifth vector structuring concepts, but I don't hold that against him he did well with the limited information that he had at that time. Now in the light of more information it would be more correct to say "motion is that from which everything is generated" except that the motion was also introduced into the universe by the one who made it.

      If you need more detailed information about these things you can read my other contest papers and comments on this site. I hope this is helpful to you.

      Sincerely,

      Paul B.

        Dear Vladimir,

        When I said that motion is a more basic substance than matter, I was talking about structural order. An energy photon is composed of two basic motions and a matter particle is composed of three basic motions. A matter particle can be changed into an energy photon by transferring one of its motions (its fifth dimensional motion) into its fourth dimensional motion and an energy photon can be changed into a simple motion by transferring its fourth dimensional motion into the lower three dimensions. In this way motion is the more basic substance because it is the substance from which energy photons and matter particles are made. The fourth dimensional motion gives both energy photons and matter particles their frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects. The fifth dimensional motion causes a photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself that changes its straight line motion at the speed of light into a cyclical enclosed path motion that we call a matter particle. The angular motion component of this three dimensional curved enclosed path motion generates the matter particle's static mass effect. These things are explained in more detail in my other contest papers and comments on this site. Although the motion within the enclosed path is always moving very fast, the path itself can be at rest, so the matter particle can be at rest. The enclosed path can also be made to move so that the matter particle can be in motion in three dimensional space.

        I used to believe in evolution, but after a thorough evaluation I have concluded that it is mostly a myth, so I have no need to think about absolute or self generating structures, etc. Sub-energy particles can go through interactions that change them into energy photons and the photons can become matter particles via interactions and matter particles can also be changed into energy photons and the energy photons can also be changed into sub-energy particles during interactions, but these are just normal outcomes of interactions and not creation of something from nothing or even creation of new things by some type of duplication or generative process. The total amount of motion is always conserved and remains the same, so nothing really new is generated. It is just a process of conversion from one motion structure to another one. The motions are just moved to different places in the dimensional system. These changes take place according to specific rules of operation and interaction of the particles. This does show intelligence, but it is recorded intelligence that can only operate in the way that it was made or programmed to operate. This is much like a program in a computer that can control processes in a manufacturing plant. It has no ability to do anything that it was not programmed to do. There are many similar types of preprogrammed process structures that exist in the universe and learning about them and learning how to control them has been one of the greatest benefits to man from the use of scientific investigation. These structures do indicate that they were created by an intelligent being, but that being could not be or be a part of the universe because some of these processes were brought into existence much too early in the creation of the universe to allow time for any intelligence to possibly have formed before them and then to have created them. Moreover, if there was such an intelligence in existence powerful enough to generate such processes on a universal scale, it would still be generating new processes and we would be seeing major changes in the way the world operates happening around us, but we don't see such changes in operations or any new types of operations being formed, etc. These preprogrammed processes are generally stored in the structures that they affect. As an example, when two matter particles interact the outcome of the interaction is determined by the rules of interaction that are a part of the structures of the particles and the specific conditions of the internal motions within the particles (the motions' positions and phasing with each other, etc. that are variables that feed the interaction) at the point of interaction.

        I am afraid Plato did not know about fourth and fifth vector structuring concepts, but I don't hold that against him he did well with the limited information that he had at that time. Now in the light of more information it would be more correct to say "motion is that from which everything is generated" except that the motion was also introduced into the universe by the one who made it.

        If you need more detailed information about these things you can read my other contest papers and comments on this site. I hope this is helpful to you.

        Sincerely,

        Paul B.

          Dear Antoine,

          Thank you very much for your comment and link. Be sure to read your essay and give your comments. Yes, that's right, "General Theory of Interactions" to deepen further with the new ideas of the century information revolution.

          Best regards,

          Vladimir

          Dear Paul,

          Many thanks for the profound and important for me to comment! You have a very interesting concept and I have to get to know her more deeply. Yes, the way the truth is different, but time will put everything in its place.

          Best regards,

          Vladimir

          Dear Paul,

          Many thanks for the profound and important for me to comment! You have a very interesting concept and I have to get to know her more deeply. Yes, the way the truth is different, but time will put everything in its place.

          Best regards,

          Vladimir

          Vladimir,

          I looked superficially all philosophical essays (my fault, becouse I have no skills for philosophy). But I think: philosophy, mathematic and physic ought to go hand in hand. Than I read again carefully your essay. I found it is in medias res. So that I want to write the article together with you (where, of course philosophical part will be yours).

          I especially like and accept this:

          The attempt of /ontological revolution/ of Einstein-Planck remained unfinished. Empiricism helps physicists, mathematicians are helped by going to the highest floors of abstraction. The peak of the age of /loss of certainty/ in physics is /string/ epic going on for more than forty years. Physicists have only recently started to delve into the essential foundations of their science , and very carefully. But whether mathematicians manage to /close physics?/ [12].

          And this:

          Overcoming the /crisis of representation and interpretation" of the fundamental sciences is only possible in the way of total ontological unification of matter at all levels of reality

          good luck,

          Branko

            Dear Vladimir,

            Your essay is very interesting. I like the idea. Will think more and read your other writings.

            I agree absolutely with Alexander Zenkin. We should be able to explain any well-developed mathematical concepts in simply and clearly ways, such that they are understandable to any high school students. This is particularly true in the era that "the cognitive computer visualization of mathematical abstractions promises a revolution in scientific cognition". We should ask top mathematicians to teach college freshman classes every few years; writing educational books at the high school level is even better.

            I love to hear Nikolai Noskov in the YouTube link you posted on my page, even I don't speak Russian. I have downloaded and read your essay several times so I understand it now. In contrast, it's easy to understand the messages in the songs you sent.

            Brian

              Dear Branko,

              Thank you very much for your kind comment. Agree with your proposal.

              Good luck,

              with great respect,

              Vladimir

              Dear Brian,

              Thank you very much for your kind comments and appreciation of my ideas.

              You are quite right to say: «We should ask top mathematicians to teach college freshman classes every few years; writing educational books at the high school level is even better.» All together, we must overcome the "crisis of interpretation and representation" and build a "GENERAL FRAMEWORK STRUCTURE" of the fundamental knowledge.

              Best regards,

              Vladimir

              Dear Paul,

              Thank you very much! Well, that posts restored.

              Best regards,

              Vladimir

              Dear Michael,

              Thank you very much for your appreciation of my ideas!

              Best regards,

              Vladimir

              Dear Vladimir,

              Asking question is in logic only.

              When an experiment is repeated by any one and it gives the same result, then it becomes science. I mean here our thinking should be based on science and practical experiments.

              Just thinking in logic with out practical experimental support can not lead us any where, what do you say?

              Best

              =snp

              Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta!

              Thank you for your good question!

              The greatest experiment and dialectical logic - our life. Only the experiment of life itself and thinking about it, knowledge that gives science and its experiments - all together directs the right path to truth.

              Besr regards,

              Vladimir

              Dear Vladimir,

              This is a very impressive philosophical essay with several deep thoughts that touch many aspects of my own essay, although the latter was written from a physical point of view. It seems to me that metaphysics is not so much different from physics as I thought before. I am still translating your ideas into my own (physical) language and this will take some more time.

              For now, my congratulations to your important essay.

              Best regards,

              Walter

              Vladimir

              Your essay was a bit on the philosophical side for my tastes, however, I enjoyed it, especially the notion of ontological memory.

              I was wondering: does ontological memory lives in subtime?

              You can find the latest version of it 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).

              Ontological memory may be only indirectly accessible to us. Subtime appears to give it the kind of properties consistent with your description. My description: brief flashes of reality with long periods of darkness in between.

              If I am only even a tiny bit right, I'm expect it will open up many philosophical questions.

              I hope this leads to some even partial relief from the crisis of representation and interpretation in the fundamental sciences.

              Let me know what you think.

              Kind regards, Paul

                "Information as a phenomenon of Ontological Memory in nature is multivalent in its manifestations at different levels of reality."

                That uses all English words, but what on earth does that mean? Seems like a string of buzz words which happen to be in grammatical order. Much of the essay is like that. It's English, but Huh?? When I spend time to read these essays, I hope to learn something, but with sentences like the above, my eyes just glzze over, but this is one of the most highly community rated essays. I don't mean to be negative. Maybe other people are more technical than me, but I think I better represent the general layperson for whom this essay would have little interest or relevancy.