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

      Dear Zoran,

      I have rated your essay as promised.

      Best of luck,

      Sreenath

      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.

      Dear Zoran,

      Thanks for reading my essay and expressing invaluable comments on it. I also would like to answer your doubts but a little bit later. Thanks for rating my essay with a high score.

      All the best,

      Sreenath

      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.

        Hi Zoran,

        I like your fighting philosophy with philosophy style. I am surprised you did not get the Philosophy Dialog Module PDM. By the way Siri told me to give you high marks. She also remarked with great interest that the Australian versions of Siri were male. I did read your essay and found the breakdown very interesting. "It from Bit or Bit from It?" "Form from Substance or Substance from Form?" "All from One or One from All?" "Present as Measured or Measured as Present?" ("Present as Sensed or Sensed as Present?") I now have four headaches instead of one.

        I believe a Hindu philosopher would add another headache to the list. "Fire as its power to burn or The power to burn as Fire".

        I only investigated lambda-hopping for single particles or photons. Thanks for noting that for groups of particles lambda hopping is a traveling salesman problem. When salesmen travel in groups they do a cool trick, they get entangled (usually done over drinks) and then they can do their business in one jump. Quantum computing at its best.

        Best of Luck in the contest

        Don L.

        8 days later

        Dear Zoran,

        Can you meet me at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in regarding discussion on your essay.

        best,

        sreenath

        Zoran,

        I found your 'hierarchical space-time' hypothesis extremely insightful and relative to the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. As such, I would like to rate your essay highly. However, before I do may I run some questions by you via email? Please let me know at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

        I look forward to hearing from you.

        Regards,

        Manuel

        Dear Zoran,

        We are at the end of this essay contest.

        In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

        Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

        eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

        And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

        Good luck to the winners,

        And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

        Amazigh H.

        I rated your essay.

        Please visit My essay.

        Dear Zoran,

        I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

        I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

        You can find the latest version of my essay here:

        http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

        (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

        May the best essays win!

        Kind regards,

        Paul Borrill

        paul at borrill dot com

        Hello again Zoran,

        I did read and enjoy. I rated your essay, and will comment more when there is time.

        Jonathan