Chris,

Thank you for reading my essay, and your insights. I suspect you are not alone in your reservations, and I thank you for presenting them, but you needn't have been so delicate. Dr. Klingman says, no two essays have 100% overlap, yet I am amazed at how much crossover there is between my structured development from a philosophically derived foundation, and the conclusions of numerous physics based developments. The nature of time is the sticking point in most developments, yet it seems to me that the nature of space is inextricably linked, and if we are to say that space is discrete, then time, gravity, force and field must all be discrete, and in being discrete everything must trace its origins back to the element which constitutes the primordial substance (pbit). I don't know how Wheeler came to his own conclusion that everything is derived from immaterial bit, i.e. information, and how he imagined his participatory universe, it all seems vague to me, and I am a software engineer. But then the raw imagery I presented is not that different. In my mind the imagery is clear, and in time I hope to present imagery relating to the conservation of energy as well, but with just nine pages to work with I can understand why it's fuzzy for everyone else. I suspect you find it intriguing because it potentially opens the door to knowing things previously considered unknowable. I say only time will tell, and it is, after all, just a hypothesis which hangs its hat (bets everything) on one observation.

An open question to all: What odds do you give me?

Many Thanks.

Zoran.

Zoran,

Actually, I find it intriguing for a somewhat different reason. Basically, by definition, that which cannot be known can never be known, since by definition, such becoming known would mean that such never was in fact that which 'cannot' be known. And as such, the definition itself refuses this as a possibility. For example from my essay, the exact decimal value of PI cannot be known within our perceptual reality; if this were ever to be known within this context, then the example itself would be falsified by definition, but the definition would stay intact.

However, your presentation provides a somewhat different philosophical avenue which may support the concept that there is nothing manifest which cannot be known, as suggested in my essay. In the case of my essay, I excluded that which cannot be known from the realm of information by definition, and thus such is excluded from the realm of physics, since that which cannot be known can never be known and thus presents no information and is thus not within the context of physics, at least within our perceptual reality. And as you've recognized, I've scoped this to our perceptual reality.

Though I have not yet solidified this pattern of thought, it may be that any scope beyond our directly perceptual reality may also follow a similar hierarchical logic, thereby allowing some manner of indirect detection of realities not directly perceived via some hierarchical construct; this also speaks to a subset of your essay.

Though it doesn't change the essence of the duality of information and material objects, it does suggest that there is a possibility that the duality exists beyond a direct perception but not beyond detection via inference. The question here becomes again one of definition, in that if something were inferred outside of being directly perceived, should it still be considered to be within our perceptual reality as it has now been perceived albeit indirectly? It seems so, and thus the term 'perceptual reality' appears sufficient and proper to then to encompass all such hierarchies and needs no further hierarchical description; such was partly the basis of my response.

Chris

P.S. As I had posted earlier on John Brodix Merryman's essay thread, I will say that in my own estimation, I find 'time' an abstract contrivance of information (that is, a measurement) that is simply based upon an observed state in accordance with an equally abstract definition.

To clarify, we've defined time as the passing of motion according to some arbitrary reference; thus, it should be of no surprise, and perhaps expected, that motion of that reference itself may create a different time measurement. Of course, experiments suggest this is true (i.e., tests of SR). But, to attribute more character to time than this measurement by which it is defined is to abstractly extend its meaning into areas of which are not defined and which there is no evidence and perhaps no meaning at all.

Without getting into extensive detail, based on the above there is no reason to think, given current evidence, that a future or past exists as a physical reality other than our own fiction in creating it from imagination. If we can show via experiment that a time measurement somehow confers an existence of its own future and past (that is, not speculate or imagine such, for instance as sometimes done with certain double-slit explanations) then we would have evidence, but that's simply not the case - all time measurements provide us instantaneous information from which we then abstractly draw conclusions.

Chris,

I should have known better than to misinterpret an absolute definition such as "That which can not be know, is unknowable!"; I now see the last sentence in your essay more clearly, thank you.

In my essay I try to avoid conceptions which rely on, or are derived directly or indirectly from infinity, singularity and simultaneity, because they can all be characterized as unknowable. You could say I cheated by relegating them to the side line, but then my exposition has no use for them, I need not divide by zero or add together an infinite number of infinitely small extensions to give me the circumference of a circle, or measure radius with perfect accuracy. Indirectly defining the void as the absence of thought allows me to place the burden of all existent things, including space, on gravity and the elements (local-signs) of gravity, including three distinctly different conceptions of time. Time not being the essay question is a side issue, but a very important side issue, and as I see it, it can be know fully via its hierarchical elements. All known measures of time (sense-qualities and sensor-qualities) are subjective and conceptual and belong to the conceptual domain, and that's one of several reasons why I call it conceptual-time; intuitive-time is objective in so far as the subject has little if any control over it, and is often unable to distinguish between conceptual and intuitive-time other than through learned mediation; and last but not least we have metaphysical-time which I believe is directly involved in the transfer and conservation of energy, and at the sub-atomic level "time" is an effect derived from a physical process involving the recirculation or exchange of energy. What meaning and conclusion can be drawn from my conception of hierarchical-time will depend on its detailed description and the means put forward for the successful observation of its actuality.

I hope this helps you understand better what I mean by hierarchical-time.

Zoran.

4 days later

Dear Zoran,

Intelligently written and an interesting piece. Very relevant too. I like your hierarchy diagrams as well as agreeing that information can't necessarily have meaning without observation. If you get chance, please take a look at my essay. I hope you like it too.

Best wishes & congratulations on your work,

Antony

    Hi Zoran,

    You conclude:

    "Our task now, with our combined ability to jump tall building in a single bound, is to observe a perfectly spherical Cosmos..."

    In Software Cosmos I take up this task using the model of a virtual simulated world. I make a distinction between explicate views of the cosmos (which observers can label with past-present-future) and the implicate order (which is more of a spherical block-universe). A key result in my picture is that the distances we measure in the cosmos are the stereographic projection of spherical arc distances, so the cosmos is a hypersphere.

    I deal mostly with the physical appearance of the cosmos, but consciousness plays a role behind the actions of the observers. Unfortunately, I did not have space to delve into a model for Mind in such a cosmos, but I did conclude with "It from Bit and Bit from Us" meaning that the information in the world ultimately comes from the minds of its participants.

    I would be curious how my construction fits together (or not) with your philosophical views.

    Hugh

      Hello Hugh,

      Thank you for reading my essay, and your invitation to compare cosmological constructs. After reading your essay, I was struck by the number of disparate efforts to simulate theoretical physics that you referred to, especially particle physics; I had no idea. The last reasonable simulation of galactic formation that I am aware of could not be made to accommodate the apparent lack of mass necessary for a galaxy to hang on to its wandering stars. Nor could dark matter alone be made to explain this, and nothing to date has explained why galaxies are so orderly. If we extrapolate what we know of planetary formation to spiral galaxies, they should by rights be a pile up of cataclysmic collisions, or at least show evidence of it happening in the early galaxy. I suspect we will in the end need a new formulation for gravity if we are to explain the plethora of different stable galactic forms already classified. Not to mention the map of the universe we are seeing emerge as we speak, which seems to be a different story once again. Simulating my own conception where gravity is composed of discrete elements would be a task for a super computer that may never be built.

      Anyway, good luck with your essay and your simulation.

      Zoran.

      Hello Zoran,

      I am enjoying your essay, but must continue in the morning as I am too fatigued. I wanted to comment while thoughts are fresh. First off; the duality of transcendent space and metaphysical space in Geometry and Physics is mirrored, to an extent, by the notion of micro and macro scale. As Tom Ray pointed out in last year's essay, an observer defines a sense of toward and away, or near and far, by the act of observation.

      Since an observer is always a particular size; and regions of increasing size and distance must of needs be outside the observer's bounds; this also fixes a sensibility of great and small - all arising from the act of observing, because it is centric. What is within? The realm of the extremely small. So; in this way, there is a road to Physics description of hierarchal spacetime. As it turns out this topic is what's being discussed on the FQXi forum page.

      Dimensional reduction in the sky

      I would also like to make some comments about the connection of some of your ideas about presentist cognition with Korzybski's notion of time binding of fleeting ideas being the purpose of semantic symbols. More must wait 'til morning, though.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        Hi Jonathan,

        Thanks for reading my essay, and I too need more sleep; I also look forward to you completed comments. With regard to your comments above, and the discussion you mention, I agree that semantics helps us understand something about how the brain processes indications and how knowledge must be stored, but it can be taken to extremes, and the clues provided are insufficient in and of themselves to move us forward. It seems to me that our use of particular words can divide science and scientists more than a sequence of words. For instance, "dimension", which, if it means "freedom of movement", must be qualified by a reference to a coordinate system, otherwise we have an infinite number of dimensions instead of potential directions. When scientists assume that virtual dimensions are actual, rather than freedom of movement, they can not be understood by those who live in a three dimensional world. We all know that a brick wall can constrain our freedom of movement in a whole bunch of directions, but it doesn't mean we have lost a dimension, and when we're constrained to move in a particular direction it doesn't mean we have lost a second dimension, and when we can not move in any direction it doesn't mean we have no dimensions, just claustrophobia. At the quantum level, freedom of movement and the number of potential directions for energy exchange may in actuality be discrete and heavily constrained, as science has already surmised. The ultimate example of this constraint can be seen in my overlaying the "primordial template" for consciousness, onto a black-hole. If I were to use the word dimension, instead of direction, then at the centre we have 0 dimensions because there is no freedom of movement, and then both the conceptual domain and the intuitive domain are constrained to a single but opposite direction (dimension). Beyond the event horizon, which is the brick wall, so to speak, it becomes possible to move in more than one direction (dimension). As we move further out from the black hole's even horizon potential directions for the exchange of energy between quanta probably increases in a discrete steps, in other words more and more room for (its). In a discrete universe where gravity is comprised of (pbits) which constitute the fluid coordinate system in three dimensions, the primordial force of gravity may increase/decrease in discrete steps, and mass (it) as we know it, then confuses our formulation of it because it contributes to and takes away from the force at the same time. Under these conditions the unification of known forces is not impossible, but something well beyond my meager math skills.

        Zoran.

        Dear Zoran,

        Your essay is highly perplexing to this sort of essay contest where you find mentally physics oriented people participate and they usually no nothing about this sort of article fit to be published in philosophical journals; this is the reason your essay is currently undervalued although it deserves a very high rating. But I can understand the significance of your article, because I am a philosopher and I have read as one of my special subjects Kant's "critique of pure reason". You have also developed your ideas on the basis of his philosophy, especially, epistemology. So I can understand your thoughts and also how much energy you have put behind this article and the mental stresses and strains you have undergone. By just understanding Kant you cannot develop ideas like this but for this you have to 'meditate' over how he formulated his metaphysics and as a result of your meditation you have been able to write this sort of essay. For this sort of effort, I congratulate you. I feel, you could have written in a much more simple form by treating the relationship between It and Bit in the back ground of his distinction between "Noumenon" and "Phenomenon". You have beautifully summed up your epistemological considerations in the simple sentence "intuitive space-time is sandwiched between metaphysical and conceptual domains".

        You have discarded Time as fourth dimension and considered only three dimensionality of Space as sufficient to cognize and explain the events taking place in the world. You have connected this idea to explain the Big Bang and Black- Hole radiation; but, here, I feel, you are not clear in connecting your ideas to explain these processes. So think more on this and also think of including Time in to your conceptual network.

        Considering the mental effort you have put up behind this essay, I am going to give you full (maximum possible) rating now. Have a look at my article and express your valuable comments on it in my thread and I sincerely hope you will do this. If you have not found conclusions of my essay satisfactory, please, point out the defects.

        Wish you all the best in the essay contest,

        Sreenath

          Zoran,

          Congratulations on an excellent essay and hypothesis, fitting absolutely centrally with one I've developed the last two years here but at a higher philosophical plane. It was a pleasure to read. Well handled organized and written.

          I was a little disappointed you didn't further explore the avenue where;

          "the nature of consciousness, thought and the cosmos are redefined in terms where the nature of information is related to the mechanics of observation; and where the mechanics of observation allow us to differentiate between indication and information." But this was only because I do, and I wished to compare notes. With limited space you used your space very well. Worth a high score in all respects.

          I hope you can read my essay, born of the hierarchical discrete field model (DFM) but this year building an ontology to test the thesis, including defining the mechanics of detection, observation and measurement.

          I did look for something to criticise but failed! And we also agree a "singularity is not possible". As an astronomer whose researched them I can confirm that active galctic nuclii AGN's are not singularities or black holes as many imagine but toroidal EM fields, and indeed probably run a recycling process.

          Well done, thank you, and very best of luck in the run in.

          Peter

            Hello Sreenath,

            Thank you for reading my essay, and your generous comments. I must admit that when I finished writing the draft it was more than twice the permitted size. The hardest part was condensing the presentation of concepts, but that wasn't anywhere near enough. In the end I had to decide what to leave out that would not compromise the justification for my prediction. Something had to take a hammering and it turned out to be time, entropy and the conservation of energy. I will have a look at your essay and post a comment.

            Regards and best of luck.

            Zoran.

            Hello Peter,

            Thank you for reading my essay, and your generous comments. I see the deadline for reading and rating essays has been extended, and that's a good idea whatever the justification. Too many essays to read and potentially rate in such a short a time; I will comment on yours shortly.

            Regards and many thanks.

            Zoran.

            Hello Zoran

            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 you have touched some corners of it.

            Best of Lucki,

            Than Tin

            Hi Zoran,

            I have not read your essay yet. I will get to it soon. Your abstract was just about good enough to rate highly all by itself. Your reference to Kant reminded me how "the thing in itself is is unknown and unknowable by the categories of the mind" gives a clear picture of information.

            Will get to your essay in a day.

            Great Abstract.

            Don Limuti

              Hello Don,

              I read your essay at your invitation, and with great interest. I also went straight out to get a Siri of my own, but down under, i.e. Australia, they only have 1XL or 3XL upgrades, and the HST dialoged mode is a hack which must be added manually. They say the 2XL upgrade is on back order, and so those who what to have one foot in continuous space-time (1XL) and the other in discrete space-time (3XL) must wait because programmers are having a hard time making its conversation add up.

              In DDM mode your Siri says "I think that lamda-hopping or teleportation for particles would strike most people as unreal?" and in HST mode mine says that lamda-hopping by particles is a travelling salesman problem, far out! We all know that a travelling salesman hops from one place to another, and that a group of travelling salesmen who travel as a group find it much harder to get from one place to another because they are connected and must travel as a rag-tag bunch, and to get them moving quickly they must be energised and polarised. And as everyone knows, once you get a bunch of salesmen energised and polarised they're very hard to stop, but at least where they are and where they're going is more predictable. HST mode seems to explain inertia and momentum, but only if space-time is discrete and those who hop have hotels and motels to hop to and from.

              Cheers!

              Zoran.