Information, Misinformation and High Philosophy by Don Limuti

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

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.

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.

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.

Dear Don,

Your essay was a real pleasure to read. Not only was it an engaging dialogue, it was very informative and fun too. I loved the explanation of the nature of Brahman compared to a two sided coin.

You wrote that the experiment to test the predictability of electron movement with a coherent source is easy to do.

Quote "Siri: Are you sure of this? Infallible one.

Don: An experiment can be easily done to verify it. Just use a controlled electron or photon source "

Has it been attempted? Is that what the references refer to? Or do you have plans to see it done?

A really enjoyable and 'different' essay. Good luck, Georgina

Dear Don,

I enjoyed reading your essay. You mentioned Wheeler's assuption of continuity. My opinion is that he used continuity when he couldn't find clearer ways to explain ideas. But his "it from bit", as described in "Information, Physics, Quantum The Search for Links" (1989) and in other articles, is fundamentally discrete, and it seems to me to be more close to your view of photon hoops. The difference seems to me to be that at Wheeler the observations (which are means to obtain the bits) are the "stops" of the photon, and not some points separated by the wavelength. Considering that the photons do the lambda-hopping, where are the "stops"? Are they the points of maximum? Are they points where the phase is 0? This works for real waves, but since photons are complex waves, it seems to me difficult to find a gauge invariant choice of the stops, but maybe you have such a choice, or maybe you adhere to a different description of photons than in QM.

Your proposal can, as you observed, be easily distingushed from QM by experiments. While QM was confirmed so far every time, it is not impossible that someday a new experiment invalidates it. One possible experiment to confirm your lambda-hopping proposal, for instance, is to send coherent light through a wall. It seems to me that it should pass through the wall, if the stops of the photon are not inside the wall.

You use at the beginning of the essay some philosophical ideas, mainly from Vedanta. The duality Nirguna Brahma / Saguna Brahma parallels that of unmanifested Tao / manifested Tao (a theme in my essay). Of course, nondualism is the answer to this koan.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica