Hi Roger,

Thanks for reading my essay, I enjoyed your essay because you're trying to get to grips with the nature of our existence. And while I can't say that something and nothing are the same thing, there are a great many things we agree on. I try to think of the void as a backdrop, and when I think of the Cosmos as a thinking thing, the backdrop is the lack of thought, and it doesn't matter whether I zoom out to imagine whatever I can imagine, or zoom in until my imagination can't imagine anything smaller, only to find room for more of those smallest things, I find it easier to imagine the space between those smallest things as a lack of thought, because if I think of it as room for more things I think of it as something. At some time in the future we may find that a lack of thought is something, but not today.

Zoran.

Hello Hoang cao Hai,

Thanks for reading my eassy, and your best wishes.

Zoran.

Mr. Mijatovic,

I am a decrepit old realist. I write like one. If you understand the story of Little Red Riding Hood, you will understand my essay.

Zoran,

Thank you for appreciating this. You would be surprised how few people with any background in physics are willing to consider it. It seems so simple and obvious when you stop to think about it, though given that sequence is the basis of history and logic, it is a bit "counterintuitive," but presumably physicists are able to think counterintuitively. The real problem is that it upsets the "fabric of spacetime" as a causal property. Not only does this eliminate the conceptual basis for such ideas as wormholes and blocktime, not to mention gravity as curvature of this "fabric," but an expanding universe as well.

Arelated issue I keep raising about current cosmology is that while it assumes space expands, it maintains a constant speed of light against which to judge it. For example, if two galaxies are x lightyears apart and grow to 2x lightyears apart, that is not expanding space, as measured in lightyears, but increased distance. Consider Einstein said, "Space is what you measure with a ruler." If the ruler of lightyears is not expanding, but more are being used, that is therefore not expanding space! I recently debated this point over at Jennifer Ouellette's blog at SciAm, with Cormac O'Raifeartaigh, if you want an example of how it just doesn't register, even if it isn't refuted.

Ps, I'm brodix. Debate starts at post 15.

I understand, and I hope my comment on your essay helps to stub the toe of all those who are not looking where they're going.

Cheers.

John,

Thanks for the link to Jennifer's Blog; her picture at the bottom looks better than the one at the top, but then it may have been a mind boggling hair day when taken. She sounds down to earth, and anyone who knows how to drink a pint can tell time in hierarchical space-time. Sorry, couldn't help myself; anyway, my work is obscure, me too, but if she tries to take strips off me I will protect myself. Beware! I protect myself with words, I do not throw symbols, idols, or a bunch of heavy books at those who throw shoes. But I am sure I will eventually be caught out in my spelling, because it's attrowscious.

Zoran.

Zoran,

I, of necessity, tend not to take myself too seriously, but as you say, am willing to defend what I see as important.

John,

I am sorry, when I used your link and found that Jennifer, in her sun glasses, sipping on a bowl full of Margaritas, looks like my x, I thought for a moment I was being had. I will now try to answer you question as best I can.

There was a time in philosophy when everything was an idea, that is, if you couldn't explain what an idea was in five thousand words or less, by using the word "idea" as every second word, or if you couldn't add one idea to another to make five, not only could you not add up, you had no idea what you were talking about. Descartes used the word "idea" with precision, and his conclusions and insights are not a dead end, they are a drop of honey to put in your tea, from time to time, to make the moment a little more that it would otherwise be. Kant gave us four flavorsome cubes, intuition, conception, à priori and à posteriori, which are a treat for any cook trying to cook up a philosophical cake. I love cooking with centripetal, centrifugal, secret and open conscious modes, and moments within moments, and as you say, the sequences of moments which are the sequence of events which make experience what it is. I love differentiating between the memory we call intuition and the memory we call conception, because in the end everything is just memory and a sequence of memories. And with all these ingredients you too can cook up the answer to everything for yourself, literally. But, you must trust your ingredients, and trust takes time to build. Metaphysical space-time was cooked up with all these ingredients, and I think it tastes great, but I suspect it has taken the critics by surprise, because I haven't heard a peep out of them.

Zoran.

Hello, Zoran!

I read your essay pleasures. It is good that you exacerbated concept of "space", Kant's ideas and consider how the unity of the scientific and philosophical knowledge and traditional knowledge. The problem of the structure of space in physics, its dimension, I think has arisen because absence of thorough "General theory of action" and, as a result, the ontological groundlessness of the whole system of knowledge. The key here may be the idea of Kant's concept-figure synthesis, the concept of "state" (of matter), the doctrine of the "form" and the ancient idea: "As above, so below." We also need a modern interpretation of the traditional knowledge of the whole system into account the achievements of science. I only have one question. What is more logical reasoning and in line with our intuition, experience and thousands of years of tradition: "In the Beginning was the Logos ..." or "In the Beginning was the Big Bang?" Appreciation and wishes for success! Regards, Vladimir

    Hello Vladimir,

    Thank you for reading my essay, and more especially your question. Our biggest problem in science has always been the context within which our answers must exist, and it is always this context which makes our answers unintelligible. I believe my essay is the context within which scientific questions can be answered intelligibly, and that encourages questions, and I love that. If I ask what conservation of energy is, within hierarchical space-time, I get an intelligible answer which sees the loss of entropy in one domain conserved in another, awaiting recirculation. If I ask what conservation of creation is, I get the most beautiful answer, but the fly in the ointment is singularly, it destroys the symmetry of what I see everywhere. This context allows all of us to understand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in terms Darwin would understand, in evolutionary terms. It answers the question of why some things do not know where they are, or where they're going until they get there, that is to say, they can be in two places at the same time. Things in intuitive space-time can not know where they are and where they are going at the same time, but in conceptual space-time they can know both at the same time. When you see evolution as the means to knowing where we are and where we are going at the same time, you can't help but love it. I love the context which allows me to talk science in a way that everyone can understand.

    Zoran.

    Dear

    Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

    So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

    I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

    I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

    Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

    Best

    =snp

    snp.gupta@gmail.com

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

    Pdf download:

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

    Part of abstract:

    - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

    Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

    A

    Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

    ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

    . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

    B.

    Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

    Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

    C

    Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

    "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

    1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

    2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

    3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

    4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

    D

    Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

    It from bit - where are bit come from?

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

    ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

    Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

    E

    Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

    .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

    I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

    Hello, Zoran!

    Thank you for your detailed response. I appreciated your essay, happy nine. But you still have not answered me in a very important question for me (as for the lyrics, but not physics) in your model of the universe: «What is more logical reasoning and in line with our intuition, experience and thousands of years of tradition:" In the Beginning was the Logos ... "or "In the Beginning was the Big Bang?" Please look also my essay and evaluate it fairly. Appreciation and wishes for success! Regards, Vladimir

    Hello Vladimir,

    I answered your question indirectly because I didn't want to complicate matters by questioning what you meant by "Logos". Philosophers and theologians have been struggling with the word "Logos" for a long time, and this for the same reason we struggle with the word (bit) today; it means what it means according to the context within which your point, opinion or argument exists. Your essay tells me that you agree with Wheeler in principle, but not in the nature of participation, and if I understand you correctly, "OntoMemory" is another way of saying that the nature of observation is dictated by the structured organization of memory. And in quoting Kant, you are saying that Reason and Logic must conform to the form of that organization. If I have understood your position correctly, then I agree with you, but agreeing with you does not answer the essay question.

    Hierarchical space-time is a conception which springs from computer oriented research into the nuts and bolts of cognition, literally, and in that context (bits) are important, but (words) are paramount because (words) are the raw material of memory. As I said in my essay, we can't take (words) with us when investigating the primordial form and its organization, because in that instance we're dealing with pure substance.

    Let me explain. In the primordial form the pointy bit (pbit) is an indication only, it has no information value in and of itself. But, pointy bits bring about a primordial form which is a template for thinking, and this template in turn brings about (creates) material in the form of particles and radiation, and it doesn't matter whether material comes from a Big Bang, a Steady State process, or a Beating Heart. This primordial template is at the same time a fluid coordinate system, where every (pbit) is a local-sign having a direction and a frequency of oscillation, i.e. granular gravity. For the (pbit) to be information it must be grasped and held by something, and that something must recognize the information held by the (pbit), which is simply a place within a coordinate system. For material (it) to be an observer, it must make heads or tails of where it is, moreover, it must repeatedly grasp and release a number of (pbits) as it moves through the coordinate system, and this it can not do if it is pushing (pbits) aside, because that would invalidate the coordinate system. Mass grasps and releases (pbits) directly, whereas radiation does it indirectly via its interaction with mass, and in that you must see where my answer came from which said that some things can not know where they are until they get there. For instance, a photon can not know where it is until it unites with an electron, and that electron in turn is united with one or more (pbits). Now, from the (pbits) perspective it is nothing until held, but the moment it is held it becomes information, and then, the moment the (pbit) acts on that which holds it, it becomes a player in a complementary existence, that is, the (pbit) and the (it) together constitute an observer. You quote the statement "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.", and so I assume you agree with the sentiment, but I would put it a different way. I would say the universe participates in the observation of itself, and this is not possible if the material created by the primordial template does not repeatedly grasp and release elements of that from which it came.

    With respect to the meaning of the word "Logos", I take it to mean "word", and "word" to mean information, moreover, every instance of information recognized is not just an instance of observation, it is an instantiation of an observer. When a photon unites with an electron, the addition of information, i.e. word, instantiates a new observer, one different to the electron prior to unification. When a neuron in the brain is stimulated by numerous pre-synaptic terminals, its resistance to stimulation makes possible a structured set of contributions, and these contributions form a "unity" which is defined as a set of "words" with relative dominance, and this makes the neuron a template for being where relative dominance constitutes the means to a choice by the observer instantiated by the stimulation. A fleeting existence and choice, maybe, but better than nothing, but then, the job of the neuron is to remember observers, and bring them into play when needed.

    So, you should see now that evolution takes us from not knowing where we are, to knowing where we are because we have united directly or indirectly with the primordial "word", i.e. the (pbit). In this context only, the (pbit) is the first word, and this word tells you where you are; it may even be the answer to the first question asked by the first instance of material, which I presume is "Where am I?" Evolution then takes us to a point where we can make choices, and in doing so we can know where we are and where we are going at the same time. In other words, in the beginning was the (pbit), and the (pbit) created form, and from that one template for thinking came many, all of which could then know the (pbit) so that the primordial form could know itself. I hope this answers your question from neurophysiological and philosophical perspectives; at least that's the answer within the context of hierarchical space-time.

    Thank you for your essay, I enjoyed reading it. I give it a 6, I deducted 0.5 because there were too many references, and another 0.50 because you used (ontological) too many times, and another 0.50 because you tried to say too much in too few words.

    Best Regards

    Zoran.

    Hello Zoran,

    In my conception of the structure of the world I can only speak of the Logos in his philosophical spirit, the spirit of Heraclitus and Plato, "Heavenly Law". Logos - not the "word", the Logos - the "Law". It can be shown and the sign, that is, in the silence ... Physics crushed Logos on the "laws of nature" and named many of the "laws of nature" to his name ... I see the world as a whole, in which the "observer" is not opposed to nature, and is integral to it. Ontological memory - a structural memory, "soul matter" and the semantic core of the world as a whole. Our memory is powered from this source - the ontological memory. Then the nature of the information - is a multivalent phenomenon ontological memory. As a result, I am building by constructing an ontological model of "self-aware Universe."(Nalimov)

    You say that I drink a lot of the word "ontological". I think it should be consumed more often, to more deeply understand the physics of Einstein's covenant: «" At the present time, a physicist has to deal with philosophic problems to a much greater extent than physicists of the previous generations had to deal with ". With regard to the first form of the world - I agree. My hierarchical world I build based on ancient rule: "As above, so below." And this world "draws" vector consciousness. "The truth is to be drawn ..." .. Thank you for a fair rating! Good luck and regards, Vladimir

    Zoran,

    If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

    Jim

      Dear Zoran,

      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

        Dear Zoran,

        Here are my 'considerations and judgement' :)

        The essay is more philosophical than actual physics. But since the old name of physics was Natural Philosophy and since common sense (see Israel and George's essays) is now deficient in today's physics your contribution welcome.

        In many places, your essay touches on Geometry, e.g. "a place makes the uniqueness of it and bit possible", "It is necessary to postulate the actual existence of objects ... be subject to a pure substance... which makes places possible", "the creation of material and radiation, all of which are composed of extended pointy bits in one way or another". All quotes from your essay.

        When you now compare your thoughts to those of Leibniz in his Monadology(first 8 paragraphs only), e.g. "So monads are the true atoms of Nature--the elements out of which everything is made", you will see a lot in common.

        As to giving gravity, the role of the the thing which separates and aggregates, which you too admit is a contradiction, I offer 'time' as an alternative. You too acclaim time as 'a function of extension'. See my essay and I will appreciate 'reductio ad absurdum'-like criticisms of my proposals.

        Best regards,

        Akinbo

          Congratulations - I think you go a long way towards 'bringing all references to substances without extension into the physical domain proper'.

          You speak of 'correlations between subcellular neurophysiology and the mechanics of choice' - or how mind and cosmos are describable in a single framework.

          This is in agreement with my essay, too. Your interesting insights into cognitive mechanics might be clarified and expanded into practical forms by being merged with the paradigm I've developed. I was thinking that as I was reading ...

          In my work, cognitive mechanics is described as a field within a vortex system: the nature of a vortex then accounts for what you call 'persistent representations' - or repetitiveness.

          I was very interested by how you describe cognitive mechanics in cosmic terms ('By linking structured measurement and structured generalization we give birth to cognitive mechanics'.)

          You essentially link the field of our observation to a 'neural canvas' one that is in reciprocal interaction with the evolutionary process. I agree.

          And 'metaphysical space-time' (if I understand you correctly) is a 'greater Cosmos' independent of the observer's neural canvas.

          I ascribe to 'thought' a true particulate behavior, one that correlates mind to Cosmos.

          You say that the thing which separates and aggregates, is one force.

          I say this is the result of our Cosmic system's interaction with a General Field of Cosmae. Though you may initially believe this contradicts you, I believe you'll find the paradigm useful.

          I describe our four fundamental forces as being the 'splitting up' of a 'Gravitational-Magnetic Force' that comes from the energy field that envelops our Cosmos - a Force that simultaneously affects each of its Particles individually, and sub-divides them into the three groups that define our Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive entities.

          Both the Cosmos and the Observer are similarly affected by this Force, so that it maintains them in Correlation over billions of years.

          Thus, the 'single-field' Cosmos (consisting of the Observer viewing an environment (or universe) founded upon one field), is replaced by a three-field structure that includes the Observer and therefore accounts for our participatory Cosmos - and for the way the Cosmos 'stores information'.

          I'd love to hear what you think of this. I think it would bear fruit for you.

          Your essay was most thought-provoking, and I've rated it - I hope you'll do the same for me, and also share your thoughts when the time comes.

          Thanks, Zoran!

            Hello James,

            I too am serious about this subject. I have read your essay and posted a comment. But I am not sure blanket advertising, etc, is the best way to gain attention.

            Zoran.