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.

          Hello Akinbo,

          Thank you for reading my essay, and more especially your considered judgments. As you no doubt realize, many essays are beyond my simple arithmetic abilities, nonetheless, I try to read as many as I can. The work of Leibniz is unfamiliar to me, and if I get a chance I will follow the link you provided, but I can't follow every reference and link. I will have a look at your essay and make comments, I suspect I will have some; In the mean time you may be interested in my replies to Vladimir Rogozhin, above, as they expand on my understanding of "pointy bits" (pbits). I am yet to present my "Theory of Time and Gravity", the ace up my sleeve, but I can say that it describes time as a function of gravity, and this in a non mathematical manner.

          Regards, and good luck in the competition.

          Zoran.

          Hello John,

          Thank you for reading my essay, and your comments. I refer you first to my replies to Vladimir Rogozhin, above, as they expand on my understanding of "pointy bits" (pbits). I also reply to your comments, below, but only in general, and hope we can continue the conversation within both essays after I have had a chance to read yours.

          1. I believe the four fundamental forces can be united in principle, and for that we must know how gravity behaves under different circumstances.

          2. The nature of intuitions (observations/measurements) by our transcendental neural canvas, is a reflection, in principle, of the metaphysical canvas which the fabric of gravity provides, and this fabric I call metaphysical space-time because its elements (pbits), together with the primordial form I have outlined, make possible a simultaneity in time which compliments Einstein's Special Relativity without the need for the fourth dimension.

          3. My understanding of cognitive mechanics is very nuts and bolts, and so I will hold off on commenting on your understanding until I have read your essay.

          Regards.

          Zoran.

          Sreenath,

          I read your essay, and many of the comments posted there under. Given the scope of your essay the number of comments made by people who found something to agree is not unexpected. I do not believe you need my comments also, which would be lost among the others, but I feel your conclusions need more justification.

          Zoran.

          Dear Sir,

          When you say: "In physics a point in time exists", it is correct, but can be misleading. Everything exists in space and time due to mathematical reasons.

          Both space and time arise out of the concept "sequence", which implies intervals. When such intervals are ordered; then the interval between objects is called space and that between events is called time. We chose arbitrary repetitive and easily intelligible segments of these sequential arrangements and name them as the respective units. Time is ever shifting and is noted by the changes in everything. The events that are or can be known with full certainty by someone or the other, is past. Everything that can only be predicted with various degrees of certainty is future. The ever shifting interface between past and future is present. The designations: past, present and future, like the origin in a graph, are chosen arbitrarily, as a digitized representation of analog space and time.

          Number is a property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no other similars, then it is one. If there are similars, then it is many. Depending upon the times of perception of similars, many can be 2. 3. ....n. Zero is the spatiotemporal absence of something that exists elsewhere. Infinity is like one - without similars - with one difference. While the dimensions (the perception of differentiation between the "internal structural space" from "external relational space" of an object) of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not perceptible. Since there are no similars like space or time and since the dimensions of space and time cannot be perceived fully, both are infinite. Like different objects with numbers can co-exist, different similarities can co-exist. Mathematics is possible only between numbers, whose dimensions are fully perceived - discrete digits (even in a fraction, the numerator and denominator are digitized). Hence mathematics using infinities is not possible.

          Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the "internal structural space" from the "external relational space". Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. Mathematical space always contains one dimension less than physical space. For example, a point in physical space has existence, but no dimension, but a point in mathematical space requires at least a paper to draw it. A straight line in physical space is the minimum distance between two points, i.e., in one dimension of a three dimensional space. In mathematical space, it must be drawn on a two dimensional paper. So on. Since time does not fulfill this condition, it is not a dimension. Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this fantasy?

          Concept is a name given to the result of some past experience stored in the memory. In the perception "this (object) is like that (the concept)", one can describe "that" only if one has perceived it earlier. Perception requires prior measurement of multiple aspects or fields and storing the result of measurement in a centralized system (memory) to be retrieved when needed. To understand a certain aspect, we just refer to the data bank and see whether it matches with any of the previous readings or not. Intuition is the analysis of limited data (impulses) using the memory and predict an outcome like the computer throwing some suggestions when a few letters are typed. Hence it is partial perception.

          In the beginning of your essay, you have admitted that: "the neural fabric at the seat of sensibility is little different in lower animals". However, you have not explained the difference. In the mechanism of perception, each sense organ perceives different kind of impulses related to the fundamental forces of Nature. Eyes see by comparing the electromagnetic field set up by the object with that of the electrons in our cornea, which is the unit. Thus, we cannot see in total darkness because there is nothing comparable to this unit. Tongue perceives when the object dissolves in the mouth, which is macro equivalent of the weak nuclear interaction. Nose perceives when the finer parts of an object are brought in close contact with the smell buds, which is macro equivalent of the strong nuclear interaction. Skin perceives when there is motion that is macro equivalent of the gravitational interaction. Individually the perception has no meaning. They become information and acquire meaning only when they are pooled in our memory. In the lower animals, all the sense organs are not fully developed. Hence their capacity to function in tandem is limited. Thus, they only respond to situations based on memory. In human beings, the sense organs are fully developed. Hence they not only respond to situations, but also plan future strategies. This is the difference between them.

          Singularity is a misguided concept because division by zero has wrongly been assumed to be infinity. Here in various threads and elsewhere also we have proved that division by zero leaves the number unchanged. We have also given different explanations for dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc. You are welcome to read our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published here on May 31.

          Regards,

          basudeba

            Basudeba,

            Thank you for reading my essay, and the lengthy lesson. I must say up front that I have been there and done that, and I have found it wanting, not all of it, but enough to force me to shake off most of these superficial indoctrinations. This is the case with many others who find physics and mathematics has taken them to a dead end with nowhere else to go, and are unable to shake it off, so to speak. I chose to take ten steps back and seek a path where reason prevailed, not the flights of fancy of Plato and the extrapolations to infinity and beyond by current physics. You will forgive me for not dealing with every point you made, because that would take a dozen essays, nonetheless I will try to cover the more important ones.

            1. Today, for some unknown reason, physics has abandoned the philosophical foundations it was meant to describe accurately. Today, accuracy is justification in itself, and some are even saying that the universe is mathematical, and that's worrying for many reasons; and it tells me we can't hand over philosophy to physicists and mathematicians. Mathematics is a tool, and when we use it to describe "space" and "time" it should reflect our intuitions and conceptions of it, and not create them out of nothing. Emmanuel Kant describes the fundamental nature of these ideas in what he calls his "Transcendental Aesthetic", which is the foundation of the his work titled "Critique Of Pure Reason". In this book he distinguishes between intuition and conception with clarity, but these foundations are not clear enough to give mathematicians something to work with, and because it's not imaginable in actuality physics has gone on its merry way without guidance. I hope my work, which takes things to a new level, to something concrete, may encourage a new investment by physics and mathematics in a new foundation. But, of course, abandoning a century of investment is hard, and no new start will be made until my prediction comes true.

            2. According to what you have said, it is obvious that you see mathematics as the language of absolute space and absolute time, but Einstein gave us "Relativity", and notwithstanding the fact that I do not believe in the fourth dimension, nor the conception we call block-universe, his work tells us that we can not describe things relative using mathematics bogged down within an absolute frame of reference. I have equated discrete space with the fluid frame of reference we call gravity, the elements of which bring about a form which in turn creates material as we know it. When this material grasps the elements, i.e. pointy bits (pbits), from which it came, it can know where it is. I know that this may seem like a flight of fancy to some, but I have made a reasoned prediction which no other has made, I predict that a black-hole will be too big for its boots, and if that is not seen to be actual in the near future, then even I will have to go back to the drawing board.

            3. I will not comment on the nature of sensibility, the material of memory and the mechanics of choice beyond that which I have already put in my essay, everyone will just have to catch up.

            4. Division by zero is infinity, but that doesn't mean infinity or singularity are actual, and when you realize that you may not trust the virtual world of mathematics as much as you apparently do.

            Regards, and best of luck in the essay.

            Zoran.

            Hello Zoran

            Nice effort, though, as an endpoint skeptic, I don't believe that metaphysics,philosophy and cognitive mechanics has evolved at all since Parmenides, so I don't think we are in a position to defend unification.

            Now I think I understand why you object to the contents of my essay so strongly. I trust the items below clarify your concerns, and apologize if it damages your hypothesis. Separately, but relevantly, Hume's principal criticism of metaphysics was that it provides no abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number, neither does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence, hence is sophistry and illusion. Contrary to this, my essay begins with metaphysics, shows the cause of our universal structure, its nature, evolution and mathematics, lock, stock and smoking barrel. For some reason few people ever notice this fact. I have seen no other essay that produces any such development, in all the essays ever writ.

            To address your concerns about my essay, you said:

            "intuitions and ideas precede conceptions and principles..." As a consequence, I could not build the GPE a priori, which would be a Kantian view and more than a little Humean. However, not all ideas come from impressions--there is an exception, namely one's innate ideas of equivalence and difference.

            Proof 1:

            The priority argument

            Without the prior idea of equivalence and difference it is not possible for one to make sense of impressions. Beyond hardwired responses, such as the pain response (which is not understanding in this context) a human's first impression is essentially meaningless because it has no point of reference, no point of difference, and, insofar as thinking entails the internal manipulation of symbols (Kuhn 1991), no meaningful mental symbol that can be used as a basis for recognition. This equates at an epistemological level to an absence of understanding about the external world. Even the notion of manipulation requires difference, for the idea of manipulating a mental symbol in isolation is as sensible as the sound of one hand clapping. The mere naming of this concept of equivalence and difference comes after its existence in the human mind (this process of naming, of course, applies to received impressions as well).

            Proof 2:

            The dependence argument

            Without the internal idea of equivalence, no number of presentations can convey meaning. The Copy Principle (Hume 1995) itself requires that one assign an equivalence status between externally sensed objects and internal mental symbols. Otherwise the world is an internal fiction brought from who knows where and there is no copying at all, but this reverts to the earlier argument of priority.

            These priority and dependence arguments gain strength in the recognition that definitions of equivalence and inequivalence first require an internal understanding of the terms.

            One might argue that ideas of sameness and difference have no value without acquaintance, but even if the meditator has no sensory input, there is self awareness. Such awareness is a sense of identity, and identity is the notion of being the same as oneself. If it is any more than this, then one must admit notions of inequivalence, so the counterargument is thwarted. Descartes himself argued that one can be certain of one's existence, so there is value in this directly. It remains only for the meditator to develop these ideas of self, equivalence and difference into a rich ontology populated by recognisable objects. That is what I have done in

              Stephen,

              I think you have misconstrued my questions and constructive criticisms as a disregard for your work, quite the contrary, if I had disregard for it I would not have made the post that I did. The objective is to help you word your ideas such that those elements which make people think there is a contradiction, when there isn't, can be ironed out. In defense of your own essay here, you show a disregard for works of philosophy in general, and this seems to have rubbed off on mine. In conclusion, I would like to point out that in my essay I make an "all or nothing" prediction, that is, that a black-hole will be too big for its boots. With the development of a virtual radio telescope the width of the earth currently in progress, and an actual and immanent measurement in prospect, my essay and my arguments may find themselves with a very big rock to stand on, or not, as the case may be.

              Zoran.

              Dear Zoran,

              I have read through your essay and I did appreciate the Kantian ideas you brought up in your essay. You did write a very interesting essay.

              1) I would like to ask you what do you mean by the centripetal mode and centrifugal modes?

              2) You are describing how physical principles such as the Big bang and galaxy formation, I would to know how you would use your theory to explain something more subtle like quantum electrodynamics (QED) or string theory?

              3) You mentioned in the last sentence of your essay that we have now to observe a perfectly spherical cosmos. The universe is cannot be spherical because the negative energy of gravity would no more be equivalent with the positive energy of matter. This cannot be, so space must be flat and this is actually proven.

              Best of luck,

              Salvish

                Hello Salvish,

                Thank you for reading my essay, and your questions. When I say centripetal and centrifugal modes I mean modes of consciousness. When I link mode to moment, and moment to measurement, I am saying that a thought, whether centripetal or centrifugal, is a structured measurement. And when I speak of a structured measurement complimented by a structured abstraction I am referring to the instantiation of an observer. When the secret centripetal mode is its own compliment, the transcendental domain can be independent of that which comes from without, and in that sense it can be what we call "self".

                With respect to QCD, QED and String Theory, I am not qualified to say what others believe or should believe. What I can say, though, is that my hypothesis can be used to describe the relationship between time and gravity sufficiently precise for it to be treated mathematically, and that description contains imagery which can be seen as string like. Defining the relationship between time and gravity allows the hypothesis to propose a unification of concepts such as entropy, the second law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy, all within the context of the primordial template proposed. And this without the need of a holographic universe. Obviously, my hypothesis does not extend to the conservation of information, which I believe is an unjustified notion anyway, and in that sense I propose the conservation of creation instead. I reserve my more intemperate opinions on Quantum Mechanics for a boxing ring.

                Now, I can not know what you mean by flat space, nor can I know why you believe it has been proven, but I can tell you why I think people speak of space as flat. Not too long ago space was considered curved, and this because the universes was thought to have sufficient mass to cause expansion to go into reverse, and in contracting give rise to another Big Bang. Astronomical observations have since given people reason to believe that there is insufficient mass to cause this contraction, and when we think of expansion ad infinitum we end up with flat space. Some astronomical observations point to an accelerating expansion, bringing about flat space much sooner, and the amount of dark matter estimated by astronomical observations is not enough to stop this expansion. But I wouldn't bet on these observations and proofs just yet, even with the Nobel Prize being the rock they stand on. They gave a Nobel Prize for peace, but I see no peace yet. Anyway, and in the end, I do not equate the universe with the Cosmos, and one way or another there can only be one Big Bang, and the current state indicates that that Big Bang is owned by the Cosmos, not our universe which is likely to be expanding in an asymmetrical fashion due to one form of interaction or another.

                Regards.

                Zoran.

                Dear Zoran,

                First, I would say that your comments, scattered around the various essays, have been enjoyable, and often insightful.

                Beginning with your abstract, which formulates the problem in different perspectives (it/bit, substance/form, All/One, present/measure) I found your essay both comprehensive and enjoyable, especially as I fully agree that "all things truly immaterial, i.e., happenings, spring from material, cell, and fabric", that is, substance.

                As for presentism, not all physicists believe in 'block time'. You might check out Daryl Janzen's essays (previous and current) as well as his comments on Ken Wharton's (block time) essay.

                My understanding of information is energy transfer that either crosses an energetic threshold, thereby changing (informing) a local structure, and thus registering information, or not. The 'form' of the local structure, typically embedded in a hierarchy of forms, provides the code-book for interpreting the information. This is my understanding of your "template form within template fabric, where fabric is composed of forms, is a template for conception..." [Although I would agree with Lorraine Ford that the change in structure does not really become "information" until it is apprehended.]

                The mechanism of perception of form that I conjecture is the gravito-magnetic sensing of the structural flows of mass (ions in axons and vesicles across synaptic gaps) in the neural fabric. This field phenomenon can encompass any size or scale of dynamic 'template' in the brain, as opposed to any mechanism that depends on individual nodes in unspecified fashion.

                You relate "the fabric of metaphysical space-time" to substance and gravity. In another comment, you note that "the missing element in the relationship between entropy, information and the conservation of energy, is gravity...". This is compatible with my own approach. Further, on page 6, you state "gravity, as the foundational fabric from which all things spring..." which agrees with my basic premise, and I invite you to read and comment upon my essay.

                If I understand your point about singularity, I agree with it, and Kauffmann (in my references) makes an excellent case that black hole singularities do not exist.

                In short, I think we share very similar view of reality.

                My best regards,

                Edwin Eugene Klingman

                  Hello Mr. Klingman.

                  Thank you for reading my essay, and your kind observations. Given that you have put no questions I will respond to some of your observations, especially the one's which I feel need additional clarification. But first, Professor Wharton's essay is a treat, and I rate it highly, and recommend it even though I no longer subscribe to a fourth, fifth, or sixth dimension, etc, etc, etc. I have downloaded Daryl Janzen's essay and will read it as per your recommendation, after yours of course. I also compliment Lorraine on her essay, which I rate highly, but I think both of you would do better without the word "apprehended". There is a difference between grasping something fleetingly and understanding it on a superior level, and given that this is not easy to understand I will explain. There is a difference between a transient impression which gives rise to the basic recognition of a presence, and an understanding from which most of our conscious acts spring. Transient impressions are grasped by the forms which contribute to the intuitive canvas, and it is this canvas which gives us subjective space and time. Understanding, however, is more permanent, it is knowledge (information), and when I speak of forms within minor fabrics, and a plethora of minor fabrics, I am not speaking of the intuitive canvas or the forms which comprise that canvas. It is the minor fabric of the conceptual domain, and the forms which comprise the minor fabric, which when they do not resist the influence of a transient instance captured by the intuitive canvas, and in then reinforcing that instance with their own abstraction (generalization), make more of the instance than it would otherwise be, and that something is "information". If the presence of something is too indistinct to be recognized, for whatever reason, the information content is limited to "presence only" because non of the minor fabrics respond to and help clarify the presence. When the presence is crystal clear numerous minor fabrics respond, and when numerous minor fabrics respond together it brings all the contexts within which the instance can exists to the fore. It is the complimentary nature of a generalization making something more of an instance of that which it represents which constitutes the observation of information.

                  Finally, I can not speak for your approach to space, time and gravity, I will have a look at your essay and comment if I can, but in "Hierarchical Space-Time" gravity is granular, it is comprised of sticks which you can poke someone in the eye with, or dogs with heads and tails, and time is not what you think it is. Thanks again for the kind comments.

                  Regards

                  Zoran.