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

            Cristinel,

            Thanks for your kind comments. I will shortly post my comments on your essay soon.

            Best wishes,

            Sreenath

            Screenath,

            Interesting thoughts.

            "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."

            If there is no mind at the time of the Big Bang and before humans were possible (1 billion yrs after), is reality (material world) empty and blind? What is your concept of consciousness -- when it appeared? Are "it" and reality the same?

            Cristinel,

            I congratulate you on your well written essay in which you have clearly pointed out the defects prevailing in Wheeler's views stemming from his delayed choice experiment.

            But, your interpretation of Zero Axiom, I feel, is not right. Because you have said that according to Zero Axiom, the proposition p 'and' its negation -p is always true; that is in symbols it is written as (p&-p). But this is wrong, for (p&-p) is 'always' false. So you should say, (p v -p). This proposition is always true for whatever value you ascribe to 'p'. Hence, you better change the last sentence of your essay which reads "Assuming both propositions p and -p are true, we want to prove q. Since p is true, p v q is true. But since -p is true, p is false. From p v q and -p follows that q is true" to "From the proposition (-p or q) is true, we want to prove q. If p is true, q must be true and the whole proposition (-p v q) is true. But if q is false, p must be true"; where 'must' is logical.

            In symbolic logic (-p or q) is written as p > q, meaning 'if p then q'.

            [p > q, p, * q; p > q, -q, * p] where * means therefore.

            Regarding this, please, consult a 'symbolic logician'.

            Wishing you best of luck in the contest,

            Sreenath

            Dear Dr.Michel,

            Thanks for your response and I too will post my comments on your essay soon.

            best regards,

            Sreenath

            Dear James,

            I, like a classical physicist, believe in the objective reality of the physical world. But how to have a conception of it without reference to mind is the problem. Can you just imagine how it appears without mind? That is why I called both information and reality, empty and blind. This is just like the absolute concept of space and time in the Newtonian system as exposed by Einstein; what is space in itself and time in itself 'without reference' to something external to them (say, change). They have no 'meaning' in themselves.

            By 'It', I mean 'reality' as it is evident from the title of the essay itself.

            By 'consciousness', I mean it is an innate quality possessed by the mind as a result of billions of years of the evolution of Life. To know more about it, please, go through 'biology' section of my essay in which I have clearly described how mind, through the evolution of Life acquired this innate quality by interacting with the environment; there I have said how on parallel lines the relationship existing between the evolution of Life and the evolution of the knowledge of mind can be comprehended.

            Thanks for your kind query and welcome more discussions.

            Best regards,

            Sreenath

            Dear Dr. Michel,

            Your essay is highly original and intriguing but at the same time it appears as if it is written for the experts in the field but not keeping general audience in the perspective. It is interesting to know how far the different geometric methods, you have followed in this article, are capable of solving other problems prevailing in QM. I congratulate you for producing such an innovative essay.

            Sreenath