Dear Don,

You have the knack of spellbinding your readers with your literary style and your conversation with your protégée Siri is highly interesting and charming too. Your reference to Indian philosophy of Vedanta in describing the relationship between It and Bit is very attractive. In Vedanta there are three branches and one of them is the famous 'Advaita' (literally meaning- nondualism) and in it your description of Nirguna and Saguna Brahman comes. Sri Ramakrishna was a follower of this system of philosophy.

Your view of the relationship that exists between It and Bit, that is, they are both inseparable or intertwined or represent two faces of the same coin, matches with the one that I have expressed in my essay. In your conversation, you have historically but lucidly analyzed how the problem between analog and digital nature of reality arose, and up till now how the problem persists.

You want to remove the uncertainty plaguing quantum theory by eliminating Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy from QM, but you have to bear in mind that it is at the core of QM and hence eliminating it means eliminating QM itself in its current form unless you have an universally acceptable another form of QM. But you have set forth before yourself such a task and I wish you every success in your endeavor to accomplish that feat and thereby become a model to others. I am curious to know how you do it through your computer simulation program.

Please go through my essay also (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and express your comments on it in my thread. After seeing your comments, I am going to rate your essay with maximum possible score.

Wish you all the best in the essay contest and congratulate you once again for producing such a beautiful essay.

Sreenath

    Hi Don,

    As promised in my Essay page, I have read your beautiful Essay. It is well written, particular and humorous. Do you think that Siri's statement "It is neither IT from Bit nor Bit from IT" could be in agreement with mine "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"? I have also found interesting your comparison between Einstein's hidden variable and Wheeler's information. In general, I agree with your and Einstein's point of view on the incompleteness of quantum mechanics.

    Your Essay give a lot of fun to me. Thus, I will surely give you a high score.

    Cheers,

    Ch.

      Hi Shreenath,

      Thanks for stopping by. I still have my doubts about my dialog like approach, so thanks for expressing your appreciation. As you noted, I am a fan of Ramakrishna and the high philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. I find it most humorous that the list of world religions now includes physics thanks to Wheeler and other physicists. The concept promoted by Ramakrishna of the harmony of all religions needs to be expanded a little :)

      You have pointed out quite rightly that I am a mosquito biting an iron bull. It will be very difficult for my work to get any recognition if it gets to be judged by professors who have been publishing and teaching about the validity of the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle is like a tax loophole, something that will be difficult to get rid of. And who knows, maybe the community of physicists have enough ethics to get rid of the tax loophole?

      Thanks for your encouragement. I will be getting familiar with your work and post on your site.

      Don Limuti

      PS Please, if you would, ask your last question again, the one about computer simulation. I am not sure what it refers to.

      Hi Christian,

      Without stretching too much I think our viewpoints are the same. Here goes:

      1. Start with: "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"?

      2. Change physics to "it" and change information to "Bit" and you get:

      "Bit tells "it" how to work. "It" tells Bit how to flow"?

      3. Lastly change tells to determines and we get:

      "Bit determines "it" how to work. "It" determines Bit how to flow"?

      4. This is a little awkward so we make it smooth:

      "Bits determine how "it" works. "It" determines how Bits respond.

      5. This is close enough for me to say we are saying the same thing. IT and BIT are two side of the same coin.

      What do you say will "Russell and Whitehead" accept this logic? Siri says the logic is OK!

      Don L.

      Dear Don,

      Thanks for your kind compliments on my essay and also for rating it highly. Just now I have too rated your essay accordingly.

      Best regards,

      Sreenath

      Thanks Don, I agree with Siri that the logic is OK. It should be OK for "Russell and Whitehead" too. Definitively, our viewpoints are the same!

      Cheers,

      Ch.

      Dear Don and All,

      You are right about the intertwined nature of the it and bit.

      I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.

      I give you all a cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

      iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

      One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

      Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

      the second sub series is always defined by the equation

      Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

      Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

      Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

      Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

      Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

      Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

      Examples

      starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

      where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

      -27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

      Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

      0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

      Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

      0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

      Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

      0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

      The above equations hold true for any value of I.

      As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

      http://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin

      d-super.pdf

      Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

      Its also interesting to see the singularity is in the base seed of zero and how it is all pervasive all through out the structure. I have been telling that I is that nothing which dwells in everything and this DNA structure seems to prove that notion. Singularity is right with in the duality. Absolute is right with in the relativity. This proves that both of these states are interconnected and are the source of life.

      Love,

      Sridattadev.Attachment #1: 3_iDNASeries.bmp

      Hi Don

      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.

      Good luck,

      Than Tin

        Don,

        Your running conversation is quite natural and engaging for such a weighty question. Your FQXi answer perhaps is the most sensible answer. I started this contest believing that philosophy and metaphysics had no place in this problem but now wonder. Even the current issue of Scientific American says, "Acquiring a comprehensive picture of the physical world requires the combination of physics with philosophy.

        I am critical of Wheeler's ideas as well, speaking of retroactive determination with his tie of consciousness to reality, even when the mind and body didn't exist.

        I like your approach. It is simple and engaging for the reader but I don't have the final answer like everyone else.

        Jim

          Hi Than,

          Thanks for the thought provoking excursion into "analogies".

          I consider the wave-particle duality as a traveling energy:

          h----space-time----h----space-time----h----space-time----h

          Best of Luck in the contest,

          Don L.

          Hi Jim,

          I am still laughing from reading your essay.

          Thanks for visiting my blog and sharing your kind comments. My mission is to unseat the uncertainty principle as a part of physics, so wish me luck I will need a lot of it.

          I have a story idea for you. It is sort of like Les Miserables with Heisenberg as John Valjean being pursued by Schrodinger's cat (Javert) ....

          Yes, some of the practitioners of physics want to expand to philosophy/religion, when it has a house of its own that is messy.

          Thanks for your excellent and enjoyable essay.

          Don L.

          Don,

          I must say you feel like a king when appreciated. I visited your website for more playful amusement as well. Now have it among my favorites.

          Jim

          Hello Don,

          I have been skipping your essay not knowing how very informative essay. This inspite of having an informal flavour. Areas of agreement with you include that motion is digital. In fact, we share a lot in common in this respect by referring to Zeno and Newton. I do the same here. By the way, the Dichotomy paradox also has a big bite, especially if there is a Planck length limit. All mathematical solutions like those of Cauchy require division beyond this length.

          Wish you luck in unraveling the mystery behind Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I don't like it so I will check that reference. And finally, a big thank you for revealing so much misinformation in 9 pages!

          Best regards,

          Akinbo

            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.

            • [deleted]

            • Post #44

            Hi Akinbo,

            Thanks for visiting, and thanks for your insightful essay.

            I am going to give you a mark of 10, and if I could it would be 20.

            I believe I my be one of the few who know what you are talking about.

            I liked you history of monads, it made me realize that what I had

            labeled as a "thingy" and later called a Planck Instant is very, very close to

            a monad.

            Best of Luck,

            Don L.

            Dear Don,

            Your comments on my blog are treasured. If you can lay hold on Sir Heath's account of Euclid's elements you will enjoy the aspect on how geometric objects came to be defined.

            Yes, I agree Zeno left out a detail. What is that detail?

            The answer is "Nothing moves, everything changes". AGREE. There is no such thing as velocity outside of calculations we make on a changing space-time. PERFECT! How can CHANGING SPACE-TIME give us the phenomenon of motion?

            A suggestion I have is that in the direction of motion extension (or space-time) changes to non-extension while in the opposite direction space-time becomes extended. So while not actually leaving your own place and the space-time that is intrinsic to you as Zeno says you experience motion and get to your destination.

            Then a little poser I have asked a few, just for my knowledge:

            Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

            NOTE THAT in no other frame can circular motion between the bodies be described in this circumstance except in the 'observing' sub-atomic particle.

            I will check here for your reply.

            Best regards,

            Akinbo

            Hi Don,

            Thanks for an engaging essay that treats the core issue straightforwardly. You wrote:

            > A particle or photon consists of a core element that never moves, but disappears and reappears. It has a distance dimension that is the particles wavelength. It also has a time dimension that is the particles period. The particle itself consists of the core element plus its wavelength and period. Said another way, the actual particle is the core element and the hop.

            In any computational model, there is a need for some kind of discrete interpretation, and this looks like an especially simple one (which I mean approvingly). This appears to be consistent with my view (the simulation paradigm), in which observers take discrete snapshots of the cosmos.

            > This mistake can be forgiven because the Calvin and Hobbs cartoon is really good.

            Love the cartoon. One of the interesting aspects of the simulation paradigm is that it can have something to say about biology and philosophy, not just physics.

            > Wheeler's analysis of the delayed dual slit experiment is extremely creative and correct except for his misinformed conclusion... Wheeler has mistakenly calculated a position for the photon which it does not have.

            How does this resolve the timing problem in the delayed choice experiment? Is it just that the photon can determine where to reappear knowing the delayed choice of the experimenter?

            > We are becoming conditioned to magical thinking and this has lead us to over elevate the immaterial (bits, information) and make it the cause of the material (the IT).

            To my mind, a computational substrate for the material would be a way to create the effect of lamba-hopping. Consider a video game world as a model for the material world. You might say, by analogy, that the red (for example) pixels making up a video game character lambda-hop from place to place on the screen that is taken for reality within the game. Would this interpretation be consistent with your views?

            In my essay Software Cosmos I construct a computational model for the cosmos based on the simulation paradigm. To me, it seems consistent with your model, but I am curious what you think.

            Hugh

            Dear Don,

            One single principle leads the Universe.

            Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

            is under the influence of this principle.

            Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

            I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

            but the main part is coming soon.

            Thank you, and good luck!

            I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

            Please visit My essay.

              Amazigh,

              I replied on your blog and voted for your worthwhile essay.

              Thanks,

              Don L.

              Akinbo,

              Thanks for your questions. I will attempt to turn a lot of coffee into an answer. Give me a couple of days. I will post here and on your blog.

              I still think it is amazing that have such similar conclusions coming from such different directions.

              Thanks for visiting,

              Don Limuti