I_to the_bit_to the_it_to the bit_to the_I by sridattadev kancharla

Resp Sridattadev

Thank you for the SAMA TATVA vishleshana..

It is a real good philosophical thought...

I believe in God, No problem. God is not space time. God is not any mathematical singularity undefined.

About a chair or table or any thing we form a picture in our mind. This picture is information in our mind. It will die with the person at his death. We communicate this picture with each other. We can not just create matter from this information itself.

Please discuss with me further...

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

Dear Sridattadev,

Enjoyed your essay.

It is easy the swap the real and the unreal :)

Good to be reminded about the real.

Yours in divinity,

Don L.

I always enjoy reading your essays, Sridattadev.

While it is not strictly speaking about Physics, and while you do stretch the concepts somewhat, I find a lot to agree with in your work. I'd like to point out that, in the way you frame things "It from Bit" is a lot like "I think therefore I am!" Working from the Latin "Cogito Ergo Sum" can also be translated "Thinking therefore Being," which makes it much the same as "It from Bit."

I find wonderment in the knowledge that I IS. Most people never get to that realization, as it requires the awareness of Spirit. I actually talk a little on this in my essay this year.

My observation is that one can speak of three stages in the awareness of I.

I Am - is the personal experience of existence

I Is - acknowledges the presence of Spirit, as an agent of manifestation or change.

I Be - refers to the nature of identity being found in the Divine itself.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Of course;

As I forgot to say.

I Is implies the existence of a quality of identity that is pervasive.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Dear Sridattadev,

It is again a pleasure to meet you again in this contest.

You are the only one (beside myself) that is proposing the role of consciousness in the creation of reality.(my "Crealities")

I wonder what you think of my participation "THE QUEST FOR THE PRIMAL SEQUENCE".

In my perception DNA is one way of knowledge sharing in the infinities of the Eternal Now.

I rated your "thoughts" high and hope that if you meet "alter ego" thoughts you will comment and rate mine also.

respectfully

Wilhelmus

Dear Sridattadev,

Interesting short essay.

You write

"Imagine being as an intelligent turtle on the beach and observing a kid building a sand castle on the beach, playing with it for some time and breaking it down and walking away. Process or plan of building can be referred to the bits, castle can be referred to the it and the kid is i."

I also have childs in my essay

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

or better, I have the 'child's drawings'.

Have a look.

May be the I has to do with the \infty of the "child's drawing" model, there the Belyi map of Sec. 2 (step 3) has poles.

Best wishes,

Michel

Resp Sridattadev,

Thank you for your post on my thread, I replied it there. For your information I am reproducing it here.....

Thank you very much for such fast reply. I hope I did not get you mad at me with my arguments. My ratings reduced suddenly! Here I am giving a reply point to point after your words quoted with - - - - -. I hope to have a live discussion with you.

- - - - - Information is also a form of energy. We as human sentient beings might be incapable of harnessing that energy and manifesting it into material reality at will, but that does not mean it cannot be done. - - - - -

Sorry I want to differ here. Information is not a form of energy. It was not yet proved, despite search done by many scientists for the last 40 years. Is that not waste of educated brain power?

- - - - - Nature does this seamlessly using the information coded in the DNA and converting energy from the sun in to matter through photosynthesis. - - - - -

You are exactly correct. But information is not converted into energy. The information coded is used for survival to convert radiation energy into matter or for changing water soluble chemicals into materials required for the plant. Again this is for its survival.

- - - - - That is why I put plants at a higher consciousness than the average human being, for being conscious of knowing how to convert energy (information) to matter. - - - - -

It is for its survival. Fittest will survive. Its conscious of knowing how to convert energy to matter for changing water soluble chemicals into materials required for the plant . . .

- - - - - GOD is Generator Organizer Destroyer of all that there is. - - - - -

GOD, is he / she different from Nature? What is consciousness? All these are different from each other? ?????????????

- - - - - Regarding the usage of the above system....it is how the nature uses mathematics for its functioning. - - - - -

You are correct. Nature uses mathematics or some form of logic.

- - - - - I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence. - - - - -

Very nice! But the same logic is not applicable for the number of moons of planets in our solar system. There nature uses a different logic.

- - - - - Its also interesting to see the singularity is in the base seed of zero and how it is all pervasive all through out the DNA structure in the attached image. - - - - -

You have a nice mathematical structure there in the above bmp. Assuming it will explain the every aspect of DNA, and says some extra futures of DNA which are not found at all. Whom you will blame mathematics or DNA itself? You have to change mathematics to suite DNA is that not?

Here also singularity is mathematical problem. People searched for it for the last 80 years and still searching. Nothing found. Please don't get confused about using this term. . . .

- - - - - I have been telling that I is that nothing which dwells in everything and this DNA structure seems to prove that notion. - - - - -

Information is coded in DNA, it is like computer program runs in your computer. It is logic. When and what to do. It is for the survival of the plant or animal. Those species perished over centuries, which could not develop and transfer these survival techniques or this DNA / coding programs to next generations. Dinosaur is one example.

- - - - - Singularity is right with in the duality. Absolute is right with in the relativity. This proves that both of these states of singularity and duality are interconnected and are the source of life. - - - - -

This singularity ( or duality) is different from Relativistic singularity ( mathematical).

I am waiting for your reply.

It is really very nice FQXi is bringing all of us on to single platform in this forum. Thanks to FQXi.

Best

Dear Sri,

I request you to please see my reply at the bottom here...

Best

=snp

Dear Sridattadev,

There are many unproven hypothesises. We should not break our head on them. For the last 80 years scientific people are spending energy and time in vain to find Blackholes which are nothing but mathematical singularities.

Our Scientific quest should take its firm support on EXPERIMENTS and their results. Please see my essay, which is based only on experimental results.

Science should be based on experiments, not on dogmas and authorities Now regarding experiments. Every time we take a measurement we are doing an experiment demonstrating that material objects and information exist in unison. If you think otherwise, you can attempt to falsify this by finding one contrary example - that is, find one physical object which

does not comprise any information. You should recognize that such falsification within a physics context cannot be realized irrespective of all attempts to do so, since the detection or identification of such an object comprises information. With this information you will complete the experiment.

Today, much of cosmology is speculative; theories in the field are often based on 'authority' and dogma as opposed to experiments. And what's worse, is that excellent theories which may lend themselves to experiments are often simply ignored in deference to some consensus view. But science is not about consensus, it's about experiment. Authority, dogma, and consensus are meaningless in science. Do the experiments to confirm results.

It doesn't matter what people 'feel' is correct; it matters what the results are from the experiments. History is replete with examples of scientists who disagreed with consensus and were eventually proven correct. Unfortunately, today's dangerous default to authority combined with a media driven world makes challenging an incorrect consensus that

much more difficult. And, challenging consensus in cosmology is again more difficult because of the highly speculative nature of the field, as there is no proper theoretical backbone. Searching mathematical singularities is the main work being done for last 100 years.

Unfortunately in today's world, the weight of an abstraction carried by a well-known researcher, even if they are completely wrong, is almost always valued more highly than that of an unknown researcher - even if the latter is fully correct. This is why we must guard science against the on-going shift towards authoritarianism. Just consider the behaviour

of so many modern physics forums which 'ban' any comments or topics which 'may' be 'construed' to contradict some mainstream 'belief'. That's not science, and it's much more akin to a religion.

Best

=snp

Hello Sridattadev

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

Good luck and good cheers!

Than Tin