• [deleted]

  • Post #28

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.

Dear Jacek,

I went through your short but lucid essay with enthusiasm. As you have said in your post, it is true that we agree in our final analysis on the triangular nature of reality. You have also talked of 'New quantum geometrodynamics with a new universal metric' and such a metric you may find in my 2012 fqxi essay contest in my paper on QG.

I will soon rate your essay.

Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath.

Dear Sreenath,

Following your request, I read your essay, and since you summarized your view in the Conclusion, I will address it.

You state: "Although Information & Reality (Bit & It) have physical origin, without mind they are in themselves empty and blind. Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit. Thus the relationship between them is triangular and so all three are equally essential for knowledge to coexist."

In my opinion, and it appears that this was the idea of this contest, the task of science is to reduce this 'triangle' to one 'point' only. My choice of this 'point' is the 'mental'. Actually, for many non-scientists, this choice would also be preferable. Please note that in my essay I address exactly this issue.

My best wishes to you!

    Hello,

    So mind is made of neither bit nor it in your view.

    Is mind made of anything?

    If not, how does it work?

      Hoang cao,

      Thanks for your reply and understood your view on reality much better.

      regards,

      sreenath

      Dear Lev,

      You are right when you say that 'mind' is the primary source of knowledge but at the same time you cannot deny the 'objective' existence of both It and Bit. For, otherwise, this becomes just 'solipsism' and science being objective wants to avoid it at all costs. Although both It and Bit are objective, they have meaning if there is mind to comprehend them. This is just like the absolute view of space and time, and in themselves both have no meaning without reference to change. That is why relative view of space and time is preferred. I hope this point makes my stand clear. We can have more discussion on it, if you like.

      I will post my comments on your essay soon.

      best regards,

      sreenath

      Michael,

      You, probably, haven't gone through the 'Biology' section of my essay and there I have said how 'mind' came in to existence; it is as a result of billions of years of the evolution of Life. It is identified as the over all function of brain and brain,in turn, is composed of living matter in the form of 'neurons' and the brain (now we can call it 'mind') is designed to comprehend its surrounding (i.e., environment) through its cognitive powers.

      Mind can know of what happens in its environment only through Bit and there by assessing the situation itself is It. We can have more discussion on it, if you like. I will post my comments on your essay soon.

      sreenath

      Sreenath,

      Biology is not my field but I liked the analysis and analogies with my own findings and mechanism logically defining and explaining detection, observation and measurement. I agree both bit and it are indeed required and harmonious as wave particle duality. A well balanced view and essay. Congratulations.

      Best of luck

      Peter

        Peter,

        Thanks for your comments. So is your essay.

        Best of luck in the contest.

        sreenath

        Dear Basudeba,

        The subject matter of the essay you have written, I feel, is as a result of build up of your thought for over a period of more than two decades. So you have better grip over what you have written. In the beginning of the essay itself you have made it clear that Reality = Answer and also that it sits at the center of every question. It is true that we often ask a question to know the reality hiding behind it. Your idea of quantum weirdness as due to observer's inefficiency may not be appealing to all but yet it could be right individually. You have analyzed both classical and quantum worlds from the point of view of a classical physicist. Your classification of 'information' in to different categories is interesting. Your idea on the motion of galaxies and dark energy is worth noting.

        For the enormous strain you have taken in writing this essay, I would like to rate it highly.

        Sincerely,

        Sreenath

        Dear Sir,

        Thank you for the gracious comments. But the credit goes to our ancestors, whose ideas we only presented in our language. Most of what we have written are contained in the first chapter of Maha Bhashya of Patanjali. The rest are from Shatapatha Brahman, as interpreted by our fore-fathers and received by us from traditional sources. It is a pity that there is not a single book that interprets the texts correctly. Those like Raja Ramanna or presently Sridattadev Kanchrla have tried to show off their knowledge of Vedanta in a wholly inappropriate manner. In any case, they have not understood what they are talking about.

        We find that the Westerners are more interested to secretly study our ancient works and publish whatever they understood as their original work or at best Buddhist thoughts to misguide others. But since they have not understood it properly, they are often misled. This creates the confusion. For example, string theory was developed on the basis of "vayurvai tat sootram". But the Vayu here has 11 pairs of subdivisions unknown to them. Thus, they are talking about 11-dimensions in vain. In various threads here we have shown that dimension can only be three. It is a pity that scientists and Sanskrit Pundits in our country shun our work equally. Scientists due to bias and Sanskrit Pundits to hide their ignorance.

        We have published a book on Vaidic Theory of Numbers, which discusses many subjects of physics apart from Number theory. The book is free of cost. In case you want a copy, you can send your postal address to: mbasudeba@gmail.com,

        Regards,

        basudeba

          Sreenath, well done for this engaging essay. Classically you have "bit from it", but in quantum physics the reverse. Fine, the world it quantised so "It from bit" must be the reality. You say the mind is required to make this work which is a commonly defended point of view, but what was there before the first mind?

          cheers Phil

            Dear Basudeba,

            If you are talking of Maha Bhashya of Patanjali and Shatapatha Brahman, then you have a very good knowledge of Sanskrit. Sanskrit is such good language that it is very rich in vocabulary, literature and grammar. But it is almost forgotten in modern India. I am moved by your courtesy to send me a copy of your book by post. For that I will send my postal address later to you.

            Thanking you and best of luck in the contest.

            sreenath

            Dr. Philip,

            Thanks for your query. Before the first mind? Of course there were Its and Bits, but to make meaning out of them the existence of mind or something similar to that is essential. I have stated in my conclusion that, 'It and Bit in themselves are empty and blind without mind'.

            If you are asking regarding the existence of first mind, you will find answer to that in detail in the 'biology' section of my essay. There I have explained clearly how mind came in to existence (as a result of the evolution of Life for over billions of years). If you have further queries, please, inform me.

            Regards,

            sreenath

            Sreenath, it is a nice synthesis of ideas. I wish you luck in the contest.

            Phil

            Sreenath,

            Nice multidisciplinary perspective. In the quest of understanding the universe, each scientific discipline contributes, and you provided a well written unified view of this.

            Best regards,

            Cristi