Dear Satya,

I am replying to your queries one by one as well

As you have said that information as energy is not proved yet but again it is not proved that it is not either so what I said holds until proven wrong or right.

What is life but a struggle to be or not to be in a particular state of matter and energy. Consciousness is this awareness of the self and the surroundings and using them to continue existence in the desired state. Information is a constituent part of the consciousness which is absolute form of energy. Information is not converted to matter as you said, but the informational (thought form of energy) source of the consciousness is used to convert relatively available energy into matter. Please see my early essay in which I put forth the equation S=BM^2, where s is soul or the absolute source of energy, B is the body or material aspect of our existence and M is the mind or energy aspect of our existence.

GOD is the conscience in us all, it is the only common sense we all share.

Regarding using "iSeries" that I put forth for other astronomical objects, is the work that still needs to be done. I did find something in that regards at the following link http://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behind-super.pdf

I have also mentioned that the universe is iSphere and that we humans are capable of interpreting it as a 4 dimensional 3Sphere.

I am giving a new meaning to the word Singularity (advaitha philosophy), to me singularity means absolute equality (samatatva) unlike the mathematical singularity of unknown meaning and relative infinity. I see my self every where and in everything, this state of knowing is what I consider as singularity.

Yes, I too want to thank all the members of FQXI for providing us all free thinkers a wonderful platform to express our thoughts and discoveries and enjoy this journey of life.

Love,

Sridattadev.

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

Dear Satya,

You are absolutely right in saying "Every time we take a measurement we are doing an experiment demonstrating that material objects and information exist in unison." This is the essence of my philosophy too that we cannot tell apart one from another and hence the title I_to_the_bit_to_the_ it_to_the_bit_to_the_I, i used underscores to connect everything in the title for a purpose, to highlight the unison. I am using the word singularity to define the unison. Even if the black holes (death in human terms) exist they just lead us to the unison or the absolute not the relative unknown mathematical singularity. There is only I in the universe, it is the human perception of of this absolute unison or singularity or i with senses that differs and causes all the confusion or illusion. I is everything and everywhere and every time. I is the one that is taking the measurement if you will in the experiments. With out I there is absolutely nothing. If you have noticed there is I in both the b"i"t and "i"t of the topic we are trying to discuss, with out the i both the bit and it loose their literal meaning, I am pointing to that subtleness and yet the importance of i or conscience in all of us, thats all.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear All,

Seems like I found something interesting in the DNA structure related to Fibonacci series as I was seeking it

Please see this video DNA-RNA

2 prime

3 prime

5 prime

2,3,5 are the numbers of Fibonacci series.

DNA is not just limited to life on this planet, its all over the universe and other planets can hold larger primes of the sequence in them, why not?

Human life is like a hide and seek game that I play with the self.

As I said we will find what we seek, all we got to do is keep an open mind and seek with sincerity.

Love,

Sridattadev.

    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

      Dear Sridattadev :

      "I is nothing that dwells in Everything"

      beautiful said.

      I answered you on my thread but will repeat it here :

      You are saying there what I mean when I say :

      "Our non-causal consciousness is part of "Total Simultaneity" (TS), TS is a "dimension" (not the right word, but how do you explain GOD ?) that could be compared with a singularity (NO causal dimensions) The EVERYTHING we can se as singularity. The non causal part of our consciousness can be compared to the "Unmoved Mover" from Plato, so is the origin of causality in our three dimensional time universe, where our causal consciousness is like a prisoner in its time line.

      You lose me with the formula's you use but surely they will explain your thinking, personally I admire Leonard de Pise (Fibonacci), everywhere around you in nature you see the beauty of this mathematical series, I think this is one of the ways that math can explain beauty. But then again there is like Pi Phi both numbers with an infinity behind the comma.

      In the material causal universe there are no infinities and no singularities is my opinion, they only exist in our minds and in the singularity in Total Simultaneity.

      regards and also Love

      Wilhelmus

      PS if you value also my thinking , I should be obliged if you would rate on my birthday, my essay like I did yours. Thanks

        Hello Sridattadev,

        That was a lovely essay. But I was confused where you said 0 = infinity. Perhaps you may read my essay also and rate.

        Best regards,

        Akinbo

          Dear Amazigh,

          what is reality? I is the reality and zero = I = infinity.

          Is there one or more ? Its up to I to choose what I want it to be.

          I have posted my comments in your essay as well.

          Love,

          Sridattadev.

          Dear Wilhelmus,

          Happy birthday, and you should celebrate every moment of it as we believe is Total Simultaneity.

          Love,

          Sridattadev.

          Dear Sridattadev,

          Thank you for appreciating my essay.

          Interesting video with prime numbers in DNA.

          Numbers and eDuality are in all things.

          I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

          Respectfully, and good luck.

          Please visit My essay.

          Dear Than Tin,

          Thank you for your wonderful analysis and yes it makes perfect sense. I concur with you on this and you can include "Singularity-Duality" in your list.

          Love,

          Sridattadev.

          Dear All,

          One more important correlation that I found in the iDNASeries image is in the template strand (Fibonacci strand) and the non template strand (zero or base strand) as depicted in this video. You will find this around 3 minutes into the below video.

          Fibonacci sequence in DNA

          I am learning how this iSeries really applies to DNA, besides my intuition or inner knowledge. Its all with in us, we just have to know how to access it.

          Love,

          Sridattadev.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #83

          Dear FQXi Organizers,

          I request you to kindly consider these findings of iSeries which is the universal mathematical sequence and super set of Fibonacci sequence and that Fibonacci sequence is a dual sequence comprising of two semi series governed by universally applicable mathematical equations of their own and the application of iSeries to the DNA structure, for publication in a scientific journal after a thorough review. I am very thankful to the fellow contestants and FQXi community for being the catalysts in my quest for and arrival at the universal truth.

          Love,

          Sridattadev.

          Dear Sridattadev,

          Again me. Your fundamental equation is

          zero = i = infinity

          (but i can be 1, any number, you say).

          just because your maths are not sophisticated enogh.

          I use Grotendieck's formalism of "dessins d'enfants" (child's drawings) where 0, 1 and infy are the only singular points on a Riemann surface (genus 0 -> the Riemann sphere). I suspect you need to look at this work to better establish your deep feelings.

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

          Best regards,

          Michel

            Dear Michel,

            Please see below statements and their implication in mathematics

            If 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true

            If 0 x 1 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 1 is also true

            If 0 x 2 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 2 is also true

            If 0 x i = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = i is also true

            If 0 x ~ = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = ~ is also true

            It seems that mathematics, the universal language, is also pointing to the absolute truth that 0 = 1 = 2 = i = ~, where "i" can be any number from zero to infinity. Any number on its own means absolutely nothing (zero) or itself (infinite or undefined). Only when compared to numbers before it or after it does it have a relative meaning. Theory of everything is that there is absolutely nothing but the self or i.

            I have also explained that the universe is an iSphere and we humans are capable of interpreting it as a 4 dimensional 3Sphere manifold.

            Love,

            Sridattadev.

            Dear Sridattadev,

            Thanks for a precise but a very short essay. I think your "I" somehow linked with the VEDANTA's concepts of ANTMA and PARAMATMA, where at fundamental level that "I" may consider as "0", "infinity" or anyother numbers, that does not make any difference.

            But in digital-sphere of present process of scientific understanding, which has huge obligations to pass through the regular experimental tests, that kind of VEDANTIC concepts of "0" & "infinity" seems to be far from any of such experimentation, even if that is true in reality. That is why a kind of 'digital limitations' in our current scientific observations come into play. But who can say now that will be not be possible in future? Science rolls itself simply with experiments with the ages.

            I invite you kindly to read my submitted essay in contest. I think in spite of some disagreements what you have said in your essay you must see lot of agreements. It all covers your concepts of "time", quantize concepts of absolute (but relative)"observers" and so many; you may even deduce there your concepts of "0" and "infinity" from Eqs.(23)and other Eqs. as well. You can also consider K as your "I".

            Again my thanks for presenting such a deep thinking.

            How ever can we mutually rate our essays?

            Regards

            Dipak

            http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855