Jim

I do not understand your point in respect of my sentence: ""In establishing what constitutes dimension, distance and space in our reality, we use a reference which conceives of any given physical reality being divided into a grid of spatial positions."

This is precisely what we do in order to discern that x is such a shape, is in y position, is z distance from another, or whatever. The reference against which decisions on spatial positions, and alteration thereof (ie movement) is made is on the basis of a matrix which is located with reference to some identifiable entity. I have no idea what this has got to do with 'differential geometry, any actions of any animal, and parallel universes'.

Similarly with your next comment on my sentence: ""Dimension is a specific aspect of spatial footprint, relating to the distance along any possible axis of that 'occupation'." I have no idea what 'vacuous dimension' (whatever that is) has got to do with it. The concept of dimension, as I said, involves the notion of distance along any axis. At the minimum, we conceive of three, ie up/down, forward/backward, side/side. But physically there are far more, because existence does not occur in this simplistic state. And the number of dimensions is half the number of possible axes.

"The problem I had with your first post is that it doesn't refer to anything I say in my submission"

Again, as above re Einstein, I do not understand this comment. You think it does not refer to anything, because I am defining SR, dimension, etc, as is. There is no point on commenting on a comment about something if the presumption about what that something constitutes is wrong.

"The equation I gave in the second paragraph isn't GR". I never said it was. My comment about GR was in respect of your sentence: "The book spends lots of time developing the math needed to use the equations of general relativity". In respect of the maths, as I said before, but will repeat, maths is a representational device, it is not reality. It is only valid, as a representation, if it corresponds with reality. Also, reality is not what any given observer sees (or senses in any way). What any given observer receives is a specific light based representation of what occurred (ie reality/existence), which is terms of timing of receipt, etc, will vary according to a number of physical influences, the main one being spatial position.

Paul

Hi Paul,

You say, "I do not understand your point in respect of my sentence: ""In establishing what constitutes dimension, distance and space in our reality, we use a reference which conceives of any given physical reality being divided into a grid of spatial positions." This is precisely what we do in order to discern that x is such a shape, is in y position, is z distance from another, or whatever. The reference against which decisions on spatial positions, and alteration thereof (ie movement) is made is on the basis of a matrix which is located with reference to some identifiable entity. I have no idea what this has got to do with 'differential geometry, any actions of any animal, and parallel universes'."

For differential geometry, you define space with out reference to x, y, z, etc only by the change of some location in the space. This can result in spaces that can't have x, y, and z, for all of spacetime, for example Riemannian geometry.

For "any actions of any animals", your statement, "This is precisely what we do in order to discern that x is such a shape, is in y position,..." doesn't apply to any animals. If you think animals think this way, you are gravely mistaken.

As for parallel universes, They are in the realm of speculation right now and to make solid definitions of spacetime for them right now, without actually visiting them, is kind of arrogant. My submission, says that even though we think they can't produce correct mathematical equations, through the relativity(parallel universe) I presented, you can make sense of the math equations. That says nothing of the physical existence of things in the parallel universes. We have a long way to go before we can go to these parallel universes. My submission says, the math is valid there.

Your next statement, "I have no idea what 'vacuous dimension' (whatever that is) has got to do with it." You state elsewhere that 3 dimensional objects exist. If we subtract 1 from 3 we get 2 dimensional objects, do they exist? If we subtract 1 from 2 we get 1 dimensional objects, do they exist? If we subtract 1 from 1 we get 0 dimensional objects or the vacuous dimension, does the vacuous dimension exist? You see, in your statement, "Dimension is a specific aspect of spatial footprint, relating to the distance along any possible axis of that 'occupation'.", I am having a hard time putting your "spatial footprint", "distance", and "any possible axis of that 'occupation'" in the vacuous dimension or the zero dimension. If you can fit them in, please show me how.

Next statement, "There is no point on commenting on a comment about something if the presumption about what that something constitutes is wrong." This is one of the more obvious points where we differ. My whole submission is based on special relativity being right, if you think SR is wrong then and then you try to attack SR to attack my submission then you are going about it the wrong way. If you think SR is correct then read my submission, if you think SR is wrong then reading my submission is a waste of your time.

Before the advent of the microbial theory of disease transmission, people thought that they were catching the diseases by bad air. In England one of the first reasons to suspect the microbial theory, was caused by a scientist who in tracking Cholera, tracked suspected cases and where they lived. He then surveyed where they got their water and found that all of the cases got their water from only one well. In my mind if you are saying SR is wrong, it is of the same type of thinking that disease comes from bad air. We can figure out parallel universes, but going the "bad air" route is not the way to go.

Jim Akerlund

Jim

"For differential geometry, you define space with out reference..."

In which case, then as a representational device for depicting space it is wrong. Any given reality is a spatial state. To define that in terms of position we effectively divide it into a matrix of spatial positions, and locate it wrt to some existent component of that reality, otherwise it is meaningless. Anything is only 'somewhere' or 'such and such a shape', etc, wrt something. Similarly, if we then compare that with another reality, we can identify movement or alteration in shape, ie alteration in spatial position. Of course, what is important here is to understand what constitutes a reality, because otherwise any attempt to depict it is going to be wrong. And most of the time what is being asserted as a reality is in fact a sequence of realities.

"doesn't apply to any animals"

How animals think is irrelevant to the physical circumstance, as it is with us. Thinking, sensing, being conscious of, measuring, etc, etc, has no effect on the physical circumstance. My point is that in order to represent any given reality in terms of its spatial attributes, this is the reference.

"You state elsewhere that 3 dimensional objects exist"

No I didn't. I state that objects as we conceive of them do not exist, what exists at any given time is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it (ie ultimately there is something). Leaving aside the fact that I also said 3 dimensions is the minimum conceivable, but not what actually exists (and explained what does). "I am having a hard time putting...", this is because you are trying to do something which cannot be done, not because of what I said.

"My whole submission is based on special relativity being right..."

Yes, but the first point is, what is it. And the man himself tells us, though nobody is listening. And as defined, it is correct. But it is not what people , including you, are depicting it as. Also, as defined, whilst being correct, it is useless, because it is, by definition, a physical circumstance where nothing happens. As this is the only state in which a constant speed of observable light reconciles with a constant rate of change. The fact that Einstein had no observable light is another matter.

Paul

7 days later

Hi Paul,

Your responses are drawing me a picture of how you think and the picture I am getting isn't very pretty. I am going to mention three science researchers from the past and some of the things they did that you, I am guessing, have a problem with, and were are not talking about researchers from the past century. The most recent one presented the research I will talk about in the 1860's. The researchers are Galileo, Newton, and Boole. I will present the research they did and then I will provide the quote of yours that contradicts their research. This little exercise is to show that your problem isn't with just Einstein, but with all of science and not complicated science either.

We start with Galileo. He was a polyscientist, in that where ever his mind could understand and apply practially, he did on all subjects available to him. One of the things he studied was the inclined plane. He set up intricate timing mechanisms to test objects propelled by these inclined planes. Here is the problem you have with Galileo and his inclined plane. I quote you, "Time is the rate of turnover of realities (ie physically existent states). That is, there is no time within any given realty, because a reality can only be one physically existent state, and can only exist in that state at a specific time.", and "In other words, existence occurs relatively. Which is rubbish. Existence occurs. What incurs a timing differential is the time of receipt of a light based representation thereof.", and "...I state that objects as we conceive of them do not exist,...". Your definition of time is at odds with Galileo's inclined plane, because Galileo had no definition of time when he performed his experiments, if he had he would have wrote about it. And since things don't exist as we conceive them then the inclined plane doesn't exist as we conceive it and all of Galileo's experiments using the inclined plane were deceived.

Onto Newton. Newton was the co-inventor of the calculus. There are two sides to this calculus, the derivitive side and the integral side. The two sides kind of do opposite operations of each other. History tells me the Liebnitz invented integral calculus notation and Newton invented derivitive calculus notation. Above both integral calculus and derivitive calculus is Differential calculus. Differential calculus applied to geometric surfaces of three or more dimensions, called manifolds, is Differential Geometry. Now for your quote that calls into question all of the calculus. I quote,

"In which case, then as a representational device for depicting space it is wrong. Any given reality is a spatial state. To define that in terms of position we effectively divide it into a matrix of spatial positions, and locate it wrt to some existent component of that reality, otherwise it is meaningless. Anything is only 'somewhere' or 'such and such a shape', etc, wrt something. Similarly, if we then compare that with another reality, we can identify movement or alteration in shape, ie alteration in spatial position."

So, your saying that all those crazy mathematicans got it wrong concerning the calculus since Newton.

Onto Boole. He was an English mathematican who published the book called "The Laws Of Thought" in about 1860. The mathematicans after Boole took his ideas from that book and created Boolean logic among other things. Boolean logic was just a very interesting logic until computers came along, then it bacame a very important logic. You can't learn computer programming without it. One of the main things about the "The Laws Of Thought" that I got out of it is that ideas can be represented as abstract mathematical symbols and then be subject to the rules of math independent of the internal consistency of the ideas themselves. Now for your quote that contradicts this, "How animals think is irrelevant to the physical circumstance, as it is with us. Thinking, sensing, being conscious of, measuring, etc, etc, has no effect on the physical circumstance." So, your telling me that the computers that are operating produce no physical circumstance? I am not saying that computers think, I am saying that computers follow the same rules in order to produce an outcome, due to Boolean logic, as thinking does in man and animals. In other words, the laws of thought.

Please, in responding to this response, wait more then three hours. You need to do some thinking and that takes time.

Jim Akerlund

Jim

"Your definition of time is at odds with Galileo's inclined plane, because Galileo had no definition of time"

My definition cannot be "at odds" with something that apparently did not exist, though a proper answer would be, obviously, he did have one, at least in his head.

I do not understand calculus, so I cannot say whether what I am saying contradicts it. I suspect any contradiction revolves around that first point about the occurrence of realities and hence what time is. Because what I have said in terms of a matrix, etc, is precisely what we do (or should be doing) to calibrate spatial position.

"that ideas can be represented as abstract mathematical symbols and then be subject to the rules of math independent of the internal consistency of the ideas themselves"

Only if that corresponds with the reality, otherwise all you have is a metaphysical system. Computers just(!) work something out, in accord with the information/rules applied. I do not understand the purpose of this point. If I remember correctly, my point you are quoting was that consciousness/the subsequent processing of physical input received/whatever you want to call it, has no effect on the physical circumstance.

I have a feeling that you have not altogether grasped what I am saying re reality. Which is partly my problem because I can only use words that usually have other connotations. So consider this:

Take any 'object'. Say that bush in the garden. Now we know it alters, we can, if we watch, see the alteration, and if we put it under an electron microscope we can see even more. In other words, when, physically, is the bush the bush? If there is any form of alteration, then it is different. That is, we are deeming reality in terms of 'objects' which do not actually exist, as defined, because they are being defined on the basis of superficial physical characteristics. The bush is the bush because it fulfils certain manifestations. Indeed, we even contradict ourselves by saying 'it changes'. This being a rationalisation to overcome the incorrect conceptualisation of what is it.

So, where does this all 'stop'? One can 'deconstruct' the bush in terms of its physical existence until one arrives at a state of no alteration. Something we cannot achieve in practical terms because of the vanishingly small degrees of alteration and duration involved, but logically that is where it will lead. Or we can, in more general terms, start with the fact that existence occurs, independently of the mechanisms whereby it is detected, but it also differs. Now, occurrence necessitates definitiveness. Difference necessitates alteration. The only way those can be reconciled is sequence. So, any given reality is a discrete definitive physically existent state of whatever comprises it at that time. Any degree of differential to that is another (the subsequent) reality. One cannot have difference and it be of the same reality. There is no time in any reality.

Consider timing. This is calibrating rate of change, irrespective of what is involved. If you have a quartz timing device, then crystal oscillations are being compared to some other sequence of alteration. The timing devices are referenced to a standard constant (or as near as possible) rate of change (ie they are synchronised) so that the system works and the measurements are expressed in a common, and understandable, denominator.

On the subject of spatial position, the way in which reality occurs is important. Because distance is solely determined by physically existent states, since it is the difference between them in respect of spatial attributes, and differences do not exist physically. So distance can only involve physically existent states which exist at the same time. It is not possible to establish a distance, as opposed to some form of conceptual spatial relationship, between something which exists and something else which does not.

Therefore, any given distance is always unique, since it reflects a definitive physically existent circumstance at a given time. Notions which relate to the quantification of it in terms of space, or duration, and the comparison of one way with the other, are a fallacy, if they involve the presumption that there could be a difference. Whatever quantification methodology, there can only be one result.

However, distance could be conceived as a single example of change, ie a difference. So it can be expressed, conceptually, in terms of duration incurred. The concept being that instead of expressing distance as the fixed spatial quantity which it is, it can alternatively be quantified as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, this is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity. Failure to understand the absence of elapsed time in a physical reality results in the flawed application of the equation x = vt. Making this mistake reifies change, and hence duration.

Paul

James,

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

    Hi Paul,

    Let's start with this statement of yours.

    "My definition cannot be "at odds" with something that apparently did not exist, though a proper answer would be, obviously, he did have one, at least in his head."

    No actually Galileo didn't have a conception of time in his head. You see part of the thing that science does is give new ideas for the collective human minds to think about. The concept of time as separate from other dimensions didn't exist at the time of Galileo. The concept of time proceeding at different rates in different locations didn't exist at the time of Galileo. I will try to illustrate this with the concept of vacuum. Before the concept of vacuum, people assumed that the air pressure that exists around us was the same all over the universe. Between the stars, same air pressure. Then people started getting in balloons and rising to various heights, and some of those people died. This was a mystery. A scientist proposed that the air pressure decreased as you got higher in the atmosphere. He tested it. Another scientist wonders if it is possible to have a place where no air pressure exists, or a vacuum. He created it. Here is an example of a concept that we currently do not concern ourselves with, but may very well be very important in the future. And to say that you do have a conception of this in your head right now, is foolish. The example is current research concerning plant communication between plants. In the western U.S. right now is a beetle infestation of certain types of trees. Research has been presented where infessted trees are giving out certain signs (don't remember the signs) where other trees that aren't infested are receiving these signs and altering there "behavior" as a result. So, the question becomes, when you plant the plants in your garden do you consider the types of plant commication that will occur between the specific plants that will inhence the plant growth in your garden? According to you, you do have this well thought out in your head and you can explain it to me. Please do!

    Let's go onto another quote of yours.

    "Take any 'object'. Say that bush in the garden. Now we know it alters, we can, if we watch, see the alteration, and if we put it under an electron microscope we can see even more. In other words, when, physically, is the bush the bush? If there is any form of alteration, then it is different. That is, we are deeming reality in terms of 'objects' which do not actually exist, as defined, because they are being defined on the basis of superficial physical characteristics. The bush is the bush because it fulfils certain manifestations. Indeed, we even contradict ourselves by saying 'it changes'. This being a rationalisation to overcome the incorrect conceptualisation of what is it."

    Your above quote is called a "strawman" argument. I will show you the points that make it that type of argument. By the way, a strawman argument is an argument where a person sets up a fake opponent that doesn't actually exist and then proceeds to destroy that opponent by his points in his argument. The fake opponent in your argument is the change in the definition of the word "bush" whenever any change occurs to any bush. You see, the definition of the word bush doesn't change when the condition of the bush changes. Then you claim victory in this statement, "Indeed, we even contradict ourselves by saying 'it changes'. This being a rationalisation to overcome the incorrect conceptualisation of what is it." Yes, you have indeed attacked and defeated our definition of the word "bush".

    I shall stop right here, because I'm not liking the tone I am setting in this post, and I am afraid it will only get worse.

    Jim Akerlund

    Hi Jim,

    I have been visiting other peoples submissions and I have been seeing this exact post on their sites. That means that this is an ad. There are many ways to get people to read your submission and vote on it. One author has apparently requested his friends (our fake friends) to vote for him. In order to find him go to the top of the FQXi forum for this contest and select ordering of the submissions by "public rating". He is at the top with a simply amazing public rating score. So, on a scale of 1 - 10 where 1 is benign and 10 is nasty in getting votes, yours is a 4. Just wanted to let you know.

    Jim Akerlund

    Hi Jim,

    It looks like if you do the thing I say to do for the "public rating" you will not find the guy I am referring too. Actually, the one I am referring too is the one near the top with an amazing public rating score and lots of ratings. It just looks suspicious that no lone else in the public ratings has anywhere near the number of public ratings he has.

    Jim Akerlund

    Jim

    "No actually Galileo didn't have a conception of time in his head"

    He must have done. "The concept of time as separate from other dimensions didn't exist at the time of Galileo." This is irrelevant, how they thought of time is a different matter, they thought of it. Whether this is relevant, ie that he had some conception, and what it was, I do not know. I read that about plants (emitting chemicals), but do not understand what your point is.

    "The fake opponent in your argument is the change in the definition of the word "bush" whenever any change occurs to any bush"

    Incorrect. This is my point. Physically it is different, but we keep on labelling it and considering it as the same object, whereas its existence is a sequence of physically existent states which have a superficial physical similarity. Obviously, to get on with life, this approximation is fine, but it is not physically.

    Paul

    James,

    I agree, indeed I think anyone who says the universe isn't how we think it is is right! And indeed in some ways your parallel universe seems to have analogies with simple parallel inertial systems.

    But I wonder if they in turn would agree to the suggestion in my essay that mathematics isn't quite what they think it is!? I hope you'll have a chance to read and discuss.

    Thanks. And best of luck.

    Peter

    Hi Peter,

    I did read your submission and I posted comments on your discussion board. Good luck in the contest.

    Jim Akerlund

    James

    Thanks for your comments on my blog. With respect to the slightly peripheral matter of a=a, I'm not sure if you gleaned the full meaning from my essay, which agrees that a=a is precisely correct for mathematics, just not shown also applicable to nature. This explains why mathematics is then a good approximation of nature, but to be precise a computer the size of the universe would be required, as Shannon's implication.

    That proposition is consistent with the quantum uncertainty principle and is fully falsifiable so can be falsified as described, by finding any two entities at observable scale which are precisely identical. This remains an open invitation

    An early objector whose spent months with a microscope and some sand dunes gave up when he realised he'd found nothing close, even in terms of any one of the many parameters. Aristotle = Aristotle is then fine as a metaphysical concept, so for mathematics, but I'm just pointing out that assuming the physical world also uses those laws appears to be incorrect.

    So perhaps it's not so much 'how' we see things, as exactly 'what' we're looking at. I suggest our understanding of maths and the freedom from infinities it brings should be as big a benefit as the improved understanding of nature. Maths should then become more useful and precise, not less so.

    That's certainly an unfamiliar way looking at things, but does that make it wrong?

    Best wishes

    Peter

    9 days later

    Hello Jim,

    Your essay has a nice mathematical flavor to it. You talk about the Planck length towards the end, eg. "...what we want to show is that the Planck length doesn't dictate reality.."

    The question I would like to ask is 1) Do you think the Planck length has any significant physical importance in this universe? Not talking of a parallel one. 2) Can a ruler of Planck length undergo Lorentz contraction as postulated by SR?

    Cheerio,

    Akinbo

    *My essayessay is not so mathematically flavored so not sure you will like it but you may try

      Hi Akinbo,

      Thanks for the comments concerning my essay. As for question 1, Yes the Planck length has a significant importance in the universe, but above the Planck length also has a significant importance in this universe. I will give a poor analogy. The cells in your finger are as important to you as the operation of your eye. Both work on different scales but both are important to you.

      As for question 2, I believe Wheeler is correct in his assesment of what is happening at the Planck length. He says that the concepts of space and time no longer make sense at that scale, so getting a ruler do to that scale is problematic let alone doing anything or observing anything. Hope this answers your questions.

      Jim Akerlund

      4 days later

      Hello James,

      Excellent essay and great line of thinking. Parts are similar to my ways of thinking about this Universe, and because it resonates so close to that, I give you 10/10. You've envisaged some very original and interesting ideas. Please take a look at my essay too - I hope you find it of some interest.

      Well done and congratulations on an excellent piece!

      Best wishes,

      Antony

      5 days later

      Dear James,

      I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

      Regards and good luck in the contest,

      Sreenath BN.

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

        4 days later

        Dear Sir,

        This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

        Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic - "complex, even inexplicable behavior". Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of "the deer population in Northern Michigan", is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

        Infinities are like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others - every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

        Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use "a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers", you do just that through "comparison and exchange instructions". You develop these by "inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by 'mating' parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated" and repeat it "thousands upon thousands of time" till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought "evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible". After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

        Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area - the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

        The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

        However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally 'illuminates' the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

        Regards,

        mbasudeba@gmail.com

        5 days later

        Dear James,

        "Here are the three basic laws of equality for any commutative ring R. Reflexive law: a = a.

        Symmetric law: If a = b, then b = a.

        Transitive law: If a = b and b = c, then a = c, valid for all a, b, and c.

        For all a in R, 1 * a = a."

        Yes, only within absolute digital time T ≤ 10^-1000seconds but after this T, our Multiverse jumps according to Feynman sum over histories. Everything is rebooted, renewed, and resynchronized as Qbit is a fresh newly evolved Qbit that everything within this singularity Qbit Multiverse is newly evolved Einstein complex coordinates ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) (Pythagoras complex triangles, Fu Xi's trigrams), in short the former a ≠ a' because the a has become a' then within this T-moment, it is true that it is POSSIBLE not absolute that a'=a' and if a' = b' and b' = c' then this Aristotelian identity logic can be true that a' = c' within this T'-moment.

        You wrote in conclusion: "The author believes that dimension physics needs to be more fully explored before we can reach a verdict on whether dimensions fall in the It or Bit existence of our universe. In the mean time, we will say that dimensions are the stage on which particles or bits do their great acts." Yes we are all Shakespearean actors performing in the great stage of Multiverse relativity ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm).

        If I may briefly introduce KQID to you. Forgive me for being respectfully boastful: First, KQID Qbit is (00,1,-1) which is singularity Qbit Multiverse in zeroth dimension at absolute zero temperature that computes and projects Einstein complex coordinates (Pythagoras complex triangles or Fu Xi's gua or Fibonacci numbers!) onto the 2D Minkowski Null geodesic and then instantaneously into the 3D in Lm, our Multiverse timeline to allows Existence to move around 360 degree and its arrows of time as you described below. New informations are created and distributed per 10^-1000 seconds. No information is ever deleted. See my essay Child of Qbit in time. KQID is the only theory out there that can calculate the dark energy of our Multiverse ≤10^-153Pm/Pv and the minimum bits as the lower bound ≥ 10^153 bits in our Multiverse. KQID is the only theory that I knows here that proves bit = it, and KQID calculates Sun lights into Sun bits; calculates electron, proton and neutron in terms of bits; set up equivalent principle of bits with energy and matter. Therefore, Wheeler's it from bit and bit from it. Correct me if I am wrong. Furthermore, KQID is the only theory in this universe has the mechanism on how Holographic Principle works. Also answer the mother of all questions, the why, how and what Existence.

        Pythagoras famously summarized: "All things are numbers." KQID rephrase it that all thing are one Qbit: Qbit is all things and all things are Qbit. Thus, Wheeler's it from bit and bit from it because bit = it.

        I think almost all essays in this contest are wonderful and pushing the boundary of physics I rate most of them highly. Yours is exceptional.

        Best wishes,

        Leo KoGuan

        Dear Akindo,

        You posed always interesting questions.

        The question I would like to ask is 1) Do you think the Planck length has any significant physical importance in this universe? KQID answer: yes. "Not talking of a parallel one. 2) Can a ruler of Planck length undergo Lorentz contraction as postulated by SR?" KQID relativity answer: yes based on this equation ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) that time contracts; thus length contracts as τL and mass as well as energy increases as m/τ. Where KQID τ = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)t where t is time of the origin.

        Dear James, forgive me for saying this: KQID can answers the above questions that orthodox physics has yet and will never be able to do so due to its theoretical limit in the Planck scales that everything becomes non-sensical.

        Respectfully,

        Leo KoGuan