Information, Misinformation and High Philosophy by Don Limuti

Hi Don! Good to see you here again!

Dear Don,

I read with agreat smile your essay, really encouraging of meeting people who want to go to the essence and also accept that perhaps we will never find it.

I also feel like the grain of salt trying to measure the depth of the ocean.

You mention the lambda-hopping. In my perception I use the Planck time as the limit of our causal universe, beyond this length and time we enter in what I call Total Simultaneity. Your hopping is thakin place (I think) in this TS from where it can "hop" to every place, every time and every existing or non existing universe.

I hope i will meet you on the thread of my essay :"THE QUEST FOR THE FINAL SEQUENCE3" where you can also give it a rating.

best of luck Don

Wilhelmus

Don,

You have an interesting approach to writing an essay I must say. I appreciated the back and forth dialog approach you used to express your points and counter points. However, I would have liked to see a more structured analysis or presentation on some of your key points in order to give them their proper due. Nonetheless, I enjoyed your presentation overall and have rated it accordingly. Good luck with your entry.

Meanwhile, I hope you take the time to review my essay which touched upon some of the topics in your essay as well. The findings as presented in my essay have led me to how causality unifies gravity with the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministc force, see:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Best wishes,

Manuel

Dear Don,

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.

Hi Don!

Nice style for essay! I have no words. But I see some more important thing behind of your words! You have well comprehend that in this topic only the joke may contain, nothing more! I appreciate your essay as "good" (8) with clean heart! Open my work please, there you will find also jokes but somewhat with more poison!

Best wishes,

George

ESSAY

Don,

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

I've enjoyed reading your essay, so far Don..

Very entertaining, oh liberated one. I'll comment further and rate your essay thoughtfully, when I'm done.

Regards,

Jonathan

Also,

You are invited to check out my essay, when you get the chance.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Oh thou exalted one, ...yourself

Enjoy,

Jonathan

Dear Don,

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

Don,

Good to see you back. Hope you and SIRI had a good hols. Does he translate?

Great fun essay. A nice change from the more standard fare. How nice to have a SIRI not entirely dictated by mainstream doctrine!, are you working on the latest upgrade?

I entirely agree that; "Wheeler should have fixed theflaw in quantum mechanics instead of putting the band aid of information on top of it." and also that he has confounded physics with the 'delayed choice' nonsense, which as you say is entirely dependent on the wrong starting assumptions.

I have to admit I still recall my first intro to lambda hopping, and have to admit it was I who called for the men in white coats to check you over. But I'm very glad to see you fooled them... No No!..I mean "passed the test"!! But seriously, I never immediately reject anything (well .. almost...!) and the more I thought about 'hopping' the more I warmed to it.

I've found two very solid analogies in my own work, the fist is the simple absorption and re-emission of atomic scattering, which may be considered as a continuous process in a dielectric medium (i.e. everywhere). The second is instantaneous condensation and annihilation. In a two-fluid plasma model the particles are continually condensed and annihilated, with the 'energy' thus 'relocating' in a close analog to the 'hops' you describe.

I haven't yet reconciled this with the ubiquitous case of orbital angular momentum, but I'm not sure I have to as the 'entity' orbiting should be much bigger than the planck mass. I'd be interested in your view. Anyway I think your very original presentation, not to mention proposition, is worth far more than it's lowly position and I shall be very glad to induce a number of vertical 'hops'.

I do also hope you'll read and smile on mine again this year. Like yours it's based on the same consistent logic as previously, but I do take it to some quite dramatic conclusions, certainly not inconsistent with SIRI's beliefs (were any programmed in?). What does he eat for breakfast? Old decrepit theories? Will the upgrade work on a Samsong?

Congratulations, and very best wishes.

Peter

Don,

Thanks for your kind comments on my blog. When we take bold steps challenging doctrine I think it's warming to find not all dismiss our propositions.

For me I'm a little surprised and disappointed so few of our most senior physicists seem to really understand all the subtleties of Bells Inequalities, so the form and importance of the resolution. Perhaps that's why it hasn't previously been identified. Interesting.

I'd assumed SIRI was asexual like god, but I suppose an asexual voice is tricky! I can see us all having our own eventually. Will they look for disagreement like most of us and argue amongst themselves? Or find the more valuable unity in hidden likenesses?

Very well done and best wishes.

Peter

Dear Don,

Yours was the most fun essay of all. You managed to keep lambda-hopping in our awareness and Siri was an excellent foil.

Your ideas are expressed well and your humor is superb (just a little computer glitch on the pod bay doors!). You integrate lambda-hopping with Zeno, Newton, Heisenberg, Feynman, Wheeler and Einstein very well. And we both agree that "quantum mechanics is made up a mathematical story that fits the data" but has big gaps in the physics. As one with a bad case of the continuity gene, I'm not yet on the lambda bandwagon, but FQXi essays are the ideal vehicle for presenting ideas to the community, improving the ideas from user feedback, and presenting the idea again in the context of new topics.

You noted that you're "under no illusions a fundamental discontinuity of motion (not time and space) can be accepted readily (the gene thing)."

That's an important reminder! Your casual reader, who does not understand as thoroughly as you all of the subtleties involved, may tend to assume lambda-hopping implies discrete time and space. If that is not the case, then it needs to be emphasized. For example, my model is based on continuous time and space, but has a quantum of action (energy*time). I tend to interpret this as meaning that unless sufficient action exists, an event will not occur. Recall that the units of angular momentum are the same as action (mvr). So if lambda-hopping is analyzed in terms of the quantum of action, it becomes more feasible for me, whereas discontinuous time and space is a deal breaker! So it's good to remind readers that you don't require discrete time and space.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Don,

Firstly where can I get that version of Siri? ;)

Very readable and interesting essay. Also relevant. I think you took the reader on a fluent journey through history and where perhaps physics has taken a potential wrong turn.

If you find the time, I'd be grateful if you would read my essay.

I like anything that challenges mainsteam, so top marks from me!

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear Don,

Congratulations both for you and Siri for such sound dreaming to out put the essay!

In my essay I also used the term quantize inertial motions for the wave-corpuscular phenomena as like "hopping" of photons etc.

Most importantly both us like to propose that 'It from bit' and 'Bit from it' are just two side of a "coin".

Regards

Dipak