I_to the_bit_to the_it_to the bit_to the_I by sridattadev kancharla

Dear Sir,

How can zero be equal to infinity? By definition, zero is associated with an object that is not present at here-now (it has to exist elsewhere, otherwise the concept of zero becomes meaningless), whereas infinity is associated with an object, which, like 1, has no similars, but unlike 1, whose dimensions are not fully perceptible. Thus, infinity exists everywhere - like time and space. These two can never be equated. Regarding cognition, please read our essay published here on May, 31, 2013.

You are effectively discussing cause and effect in your second para, but are discussing reality. For a proper definition of reality, please read our essay.

What you say time travel is really memory. It is only a store house of information like a CPU and has nothing to do with motion that is associated with time travel.

According to Yajur Veda (8/36), Brahman has three aspects (Trini jyotimshi): the background structure (Srishta Brahman), the operative part (Pravista Brahman) and the one beyond all these (Pravivikta Brahman). The first gets converted to 3 aspects of Iccha, Gyan and Kriya, (or Avyaya, Akshara and Kshara respectively) which, when limited, manifest as Raga, Vidya-Avidya and Kala on the Purusha side and Sattwa-Raja-Tama on the Prakriti side. The Second gets converted to 16 aspects (Shodashee) of Paratpara, 5 Pachajana, 5 Puranjana and 5 Pura, that leads to the creation event. The third cannot be known (neti neti). These can be compared with the so-called dark energy, dark matter and the totality beyond the Universe, respectively.

Regards,

basudeba

Sridattadev.

It's always a pleasure to read your essays. Shame it's so short, but the power of the thoughts is infinite.

One of the jobs I do is creation. I'm trained as an Architect, so even before a house exists in any way on plans I create it and it exists, in 3D, with all it's components, spaces and aesthetics in my mind. Does that not mean it has an 'existence'?

To me what the builder constructs is but a copy, an approximation of the creation in my mind. The physical house may be 'it' and the information given to the tradesmen the 'bits' but the original true pure conception, including the emotions of those who see and use it, is first and always in my consciousness.

Yet I am the most real of all realists, as however good a theoretician and thinker I have to ensure the house is actually buildable, built and physically works to engender the emotions desired. I can't afford flights of fancy that don't relate to reality.

I believe this approach has enabled a realist resolution of the EPR paradox in my essay. It seems very few recognise the beauty of the architecture. I hope you study it to see if you can. As it's pure in my mind I'm happy, but it would also be nice to help advance understanding.

Now there's a task!

Very best wishes

Peter

Sridattadev,

Brevity is the soul of wit. It does not necessarily follow that brevity would be the soul of "it." Nice try though.

Dear Sir,

The purpose of this contest is to analyze reality with special focus on information. In our essay published on May, 31, we had just done that. We are not discussing relativity unless the context so demands. Generally, we do not use relativity, but point out the fallacies in others presentations with alternative explanations.

Singularity is a derivative of relativity (unless you are referring to Adwait, which is total unification, which again is different from absolute equality). Hence you are talking about relativity.

Atman refers to the "Attaa" - one who enjoys. Brahman refers to "Brimhan", which refers to that which expands and the greatest of all. Aanandam refers to "Swaatantrya" - absolute freedom. They are three distinct aspects not in equilibrium. They do not belong to the same class. Since you are referring to three distinct, but different aspects, you are not talking about Adwait either.

The Vedas also declare "Ko dadarsha prathamam jaayamaanam, asthanwantam yad anasthaa bibhartim" - which refers to the primordial transformation from "Anna-annaada" to "rayi-praana" to "sthitisiddha-bhaatisiddha" objects that constitute the present Universe. This aspect of the Vedas is necessary for this forum. Mixing up issues gives our ancient heritage a bad name. In case you want

to discuss philosophy, you are free to do so, but please do not call it physics. This is a forum for physics.

Regards,

basudeba

Good, albeit short, read. Well done getting to the heart of the issue. While in my essay I emphasize bit and don't venture into the 3rd category of 'I' as you have, certainly some kind of 'thought' precedes action, but there is always the issue of matter/substance as a necessary carrier of Information/I, so can one element truly precede the other? Perhaps their identities are equally codependent (even 'I')?

Dear Sir,

What is I and what is soul?

Regards,

basudeba

Dear sridattadev

Wishing you always happiness with absolute belief in the soul.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

I always judged by the high score for that belief.

Dear Sir,

You only said "Who is physics (matter and energy) for if not for the I or the soul?" Hence you should clarify what you mean by I and the soul. How can we know by asking that question to us? Other than you, only God, if there is any such thing, will know what you think. Hence please clarify your own statement. You must be knowing what you are saying. Since you say the answer is simple, please clarify.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sridattadev,

Thanks for presenting your essay and pleased to see you here. I have down loaded your essay and make comments on it after reading it. Meanwhile you too, please, go through my essay and send your comments.

As usual, I wish you best of luck in the competition.

Love,

Sreenath.