Joe Fisher,

Thanks for your comments. As you have pointed out, it is not the age of our galaxy which is 4.5 billion years but it is the age of our earth which is 4.5 billion years. You have obviously confused. Age of our galaxy is about 13.8 billion years. So there is no exaggeration in the time scale for life to have existed on earth as it is supposed to be of the order of about 3- 3.5 billion years.

I will go through your essay and post my comments soon.

good luck,

sreenath

Dear Basudeba,

Thanks for your lengthy but healthy comments. It is good to see that we both agree on some fundamental points. I will go through your essay and post my comments soon.

Best regards,

Sreenath.

  • [deleted]

Paul,

In the quantum world, it is 'only' after a measurement is performed you will come to know of the form of reality and not otherwise. So measurement has to occur before the corresponding reality is determined. The fact that similar kinds of measurements give different kinds of readings suggests that the quantum reality, or what you call physical existence, definitely has some form of indefiniteness because it is probabilistic in nature. This is what QM asserts repeatedly. It is true that quantum reality, or what you call physical existence, exists in a discrete form in the quantum world but this doesn't mean that it is independent of quantum measurement nor is it having a definitive form before the measurement is performed. What you say applies to classical reality in the classical world but not to quantum reality in the quantum world. So, please, don't confuse between the two worlds.

Sreenath.

Dear Sridattadev,

I read your enchanting essay. In my essay, if the word 'mind' is replaced by 'Atman' in your essay then we are on the same plane travelling to reach our preordained destination, The Absolute or The 'Brahman'. And I know that you are yearning for that.

warmest regards,

sreenath.

Sreenath B N

Actually, nobody knows the age of the real Milky-Way Galaxy. Depending on which website's one visits, the estimates run from 800 million up to over 13 billion. There is no rational way you could determine what did or did not exist before anything else existed.

Sreenath,

Excellent and most insightful essay! You have made numerous noteworthy comments but my favorite is this:

"So if a mathematical theory devised to explain the Reality of Nature, succeeds in comprehending it from all aspects then it becomes the successful scientific theory. Like an artist who is having a blurred vision of Reality when he starts drawing his sketches and envisions it fully when he completes his drawings, a mathematician too will have a blurred vision of Reality and frames axioms to deduce mathematically from them the Reality which he is after and realizes it completely when his mission is accomplished."

I believe you will find the graphs I have created to explain how this art we call mathematics can be used to help unify gravity with the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministc force. I invite you to rate my essay when you get the chance: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Good luck with your entry of which I have rated highly.

Regards,

Manuel

    Joe Fisher,

    I am sorry for your knowledge on the age of our galaxy. How can it be 800 million years when the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. Please check the data properly.

    sreenath.

    Manuel,

    Thanks for your inciting comments. I will go through your essay and post my comments soon.

    Thanking you,

    Sreenath.

    Dear Hoang,

    Thanks for going through my essay. Can you, please, explain me how my conclusion is 'ill defined'?

    I will read your essay and soon post my comments.

    Sreenath.

    Dear Sri Sreenath

    I enjoyed your sane and clear-headed survey of physics, biology and mathematics from the points of view of Information and Reality. If I disagree with some things it is your overly trusting faith that GR, SR and QM correctly describe Reality. Yes they make corrrect predictions that have been tested experimentally. But is that Reality? It will take too long to explain here why I think these theories reach the correct results through wrong premises - please read my last year's "Fix Physics" fqxi contest paper.

    I was surprised by your statement "the idea that the Information of the whole universe can be stored in an area smaller than the size of an atom shows us what power the quantum computer technology has got". It is poetically true, like William Blake's "...universe in a grain of sand, eternity in an hour" but quite wrong as informatics! For one thing the atom itself is part of the Universe so it will have to hold all of its own information in itself - and so on ad absurdium - a logical paradox! I think such a paradox was discussed by Godel in the last century about an all-knowing computer.

    I liked your triangular conclusions that Mind understands Reality through Information.

    Well done.

    Vladimkir

      • [deleted]

      Sreenath B N

      I know that the Universe is eternal. The website I checked reported wrong. Instead of reporting that scientists guess that the Milky Way is about 13 billion years old-give or take 800 million years. This website stated The Milky Way is between 800 million and 13 billion years old.

      Joe

      Dear Vladimir,

      Thanks for going through my essay. When a scientific theory has the power to clearly explain all facts concerning a physical phenomenon and even predict some hitherto unknown facts and these are subsequently verified, is it not describing reality? But then what is reality according to you. If a theory is constructed adhoc and can explain only a limited number of facts connected to a phenomenon then you are right in rejecting it; but if it has the above mentioned power, you got to accept it as long as it contradicts no known fact. It is true that reality is having many facets and it is the task of science to find them. If GR and QM have succeeded in their task, why can't we trust them?

      Regarding storing information, if according to the widely accepted theory of 'big bang' the mass of the whole universe was squeezed to a dimension 25 orders of 'magnitude' smaller than that of an atom (Planck's length), why can't the information of the whole universe too be squeezed at least to the dimension of an atom? More over, information is not like mass/matter and there is no reason why it can't be stored in smaller and smaller areas as technology progresses.

      I have gone through your essay once, but I want to go through it one more time before I post my comments and which I will do in a day or two.

      Best of luck,

      Sreenath.

      Dear Sreenath

      In my essay I described how all our knowledge and theories are separated from Reality by a cloud of unknowing. I stressed that precisely because of the overwhelming attitude of physicists these days of accepting elements of Einstein's Relativity (flexible spacetime, fixed speed of light ) and of QM (probability) and elevating these concepts to actual unquestionable and complete physical truths about Nature. They are nothing of the sort. Yes they work in their own ways, but in other ways they not contradict each other. QM needs a vacuum structure (the Higgs field?) but Special Relativity cancelled the aether. SR assumes a fixed speed of light, but (as Einstein himself admitted) GR requires a variable speed of light. QM is full of strange, weird, magical explanations that totally contradict experience. I suggest a more realistic explanation (see below). The photon is supposed to be a point particle, but Eric Reiter showed it is not. The list can go on.

      Relativity can be expressed through Lorentz transformations where clocks slow down (not time as a dimension) and measuring sticks (not space as a dimension) contracts . GM can be expressed without SR as a density gradient in space. In QM Born's probability interpretation is just that - a mathematical convenience that is not derived from actual physical observation. One can go on saying "but every QM measurement is probabilistic". True but there is another interpretation of QM where probability emerges from an exquisite crystal-like order of the Universe. I have such a theory: Beautiful Universe suggesting such an approach.

      Now I understand what you meant about the Big Bang 'atom' and the information of the Universe. I thought you were talking about one single atom in AD 2013! Forgive the misunderstanding.

      With best wishes,

      Vladimir

        Dear Speenath,

        I check your essay. You have concluded ,,Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit,, This is excellent, my Dear! This words saying everything.

        Open please the reference in my article ,,Rethinking the Formal methodology ...,, and email my from there. I think we need talk seriously!

        Sincerely,

        George K. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1804

          Dear Vladimir,

          By chance, I noticed you writing "Special Relativity cancelled the aether".

          Wasn't a light-carrying medium already disproved in Potsdam, 1881?

          You mention "Lorentz transformations where clocks slow down (not time as a dimension) and measuring sticks (not space as a dimension) contracts".

          Wasn't Lorentz trying to rescue the aether with a transformation that was called Lorentz transformation by Poincaré? I agree, time dilution and length contraction are merely fictions that can be ascribed like the simple Doppler effect to questionably referencing one physical object to an other one, e.g. to an observer. The measuring stick itself does not contract, cf. my endnotes.

          Best,

          Eckard

          Dear George,

          Thanks for your response and I will post my comments on your essay in a day or two.

          Till then best of luck.

          Sreenath.

          • [deleted]

          Dear Vladimir,

          Thanks for your inciteful essay. According to you, the object (reality or Nature) is absolute in nature and exists in itself, and it cannot be known by the subject (mind) completely as there exists 'a cloud of unknowing' between the subject and the object. I want to know, how far a subject can know about an object by squeezing this 'cloud of unknowing?' so that we can have a much better knowledge of reality. I, sincerely, hope that you know answer and I want to know it.

          In the end of your essay, you are idetifying Nature with Information. Are these two views compatible? If, yes, I want to know how?

          Besides yourself being a physicist and a philosopher, you are also a 'gifted artist'. Your art work is very impressive and helps in conveying your thoughts to any one with ease.

          I will give you maximum score that you can expect from me.

          Best of luck in the contest.

          Sreenath.

          Dear Manuel,

          I went through your thought provoking essay and appreciated your innovative endeavour to unify all the four forces. But have you derived the relationship between them theoretically? Your equation E = G2 is interesting and I too have a basic equation in QG and the equation is E = kg; where 'E' is quantum of energy possessed by a particle in the field of QG, g = gravity or acceleration and 'k'= QG constant. You will find it in my previous fqxi essay contest of 2012 and my article is on QG.

          Can you, please, give me the details (website) of the Tempt Destiny experiment?

          I will shortly give my score on your essay and I will rate it highly.

          Best regards and good luck in the contest.

          Sreenath.

          Dear Hoàngcao,

          I read your short but imposing essay with care. You are right when you say that 'an absolute frame of reference' is needed when we assess the reality of the physical world. This we find in classical as well as in quantum physics. Shortly I will rate your essay.

          Sincerely,

          Sreenath.

          Dear George,

          As I went through your article, I noticed your brilliant analysis of the current trend prevailing in the field of physics and exploitation by the authority. It is an eye opener for all of us.

          You have rightly realized that mathematics is a 'tool' to derive the reality from the hypotheses and that the choice of right mathematics depends on the nature of the hypotheses. This you find in my article too. It is good to see that we both agree in the final analysis on our triangular approach to reality.

          For your reference, my e-mail is bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in

          I will soon rate your essay.

          Best regards,

          Sreenath.