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

      5 days later

      Dear James,

      You have written a very innovative article in which you have viewed physics from an entirely different angle by basing your theory on dimension physics and the concept of separate relativity for the parallel universe dimension, framed by you. I appreciate this effort of yours for the originality of its approach in dealing with various problems we face in physics in a fundamental way. But you have to continue with this method to complete the task you have set forth yourself without being discouraged in your pursuit of wisdom. I quite agree with you when you say that the Planck length doesn't dictate reality. My point of view of fundamental physics also I have come to this conclusion. The elegance, simplicity of mathematical approach and for originality, I will rate your essay with maximum score. You, please, go through my essay and post your comments on it in my thread. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

      All the best,

      Sreenath

      Dear James,

      I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

      I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

      You can find the latest version of my essay 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).

      May the best essays win!

      Kind regards,

      Paul Borrill

      paul at borrill dot com

        Hi Paul,

        I did read your submission and I did respond, not once but twice. The first responce is to show you how to put URL's in your posts. Hope I helped.

        Jim Akerlund

        Hi Sreenath,

        I did indeed read your submissions and left some comments on your submission page. Again, good luck in the contest.

        Jim Akerlund

        Write a Reply...