I_to the_bit_to the_it_to the bit_to the_I by sridattadev kancharla

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

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 Sridattadev,

A very short article but many relevant issues.

I have a simple but difficult question, I think: what is reality?

Is there one or more ?

Thank you and good luck.

Please visit My essay.

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 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 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