Voyage from Discovery to Invention; Information & Reality in Physics, Biology & Mathematics. by Sreenath B N

Dear Sreenath,

The breadth of your knowledge is so vast, this essay deserves book length treatment.

I know next to nothing of biology and little of physics -- where mathematics is concerned, however, I think you have well captured the attitude of most research mathematicians toward the meaning of their art. It is quite telling that you cite Paul Ernest (have you also read his work on mathematics as social constructivism?) as well as Brouwer. Your hypothesis -- that classical physics is discovered and quantum physics invented, and yet both are objective -- is deep, and I'm going to be pondering it for a while to come.

I agree with Dr. Corda that the statement "Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit" is wonderful. It is an elegant way, I think, of getting to Murray Gell-Mann's (*The Quark and the Jaguar*) hypothesis of a continuum of consciousness from the very small to the very large, with which I agree without reservation. Recent research in the evolution of consciousness that combines computability with organic evolution includes Chaitin's *Proving Darwin: Making biology mathematical.* I have one semantic nitpick regarding " ... prerequisite consciousness and intelligence as inherent traits." I can accept conscioussness (represented as free will) as fundamental, which preempts intelligence (represented as adaptability) as fundamental. In other words, conscious organisms cooperate to form intelligent adaptive systems; we know that even a human body is at core a corporation of cooperating cells and organisms.

Yours is a wonderful essay to which I can lend my highest compliment -- I was compelled to read it slowly and carefully. It also made me feel good, which is another rarity.

Expect a high score from me, and all best in the compeitition.

Tom

Hello again Sreenath,

I appreciate the kind remarks left on my essay page, and that you read my essay. Now it is my turn to return the favor. Judging by your abstract; there is indeed a lot of common ground explored in our essays, and it should be affirming as well as enlightening for me to explore. I wish you good luck in the contest.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Thank you for the high rating, Sreenath! Will reciprocate when I am on my home computer where code is stored.

Best,

Tom

Dear Sreenath,

I read it once and I will retread again to understand it better. But I do like your conclusion:

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. For classical physicists, 'It' is basic and more important than Bit; but for quantum physicists, Bit is basic and more important than It. For biologists, both are equally important and for mathematicians, both are engraved in their axioms. Biological Reality (BR) basically differs from quantum Reality (QR); QR is a probability allowed by QM to show up at any time in Time; BR is the Reality created by the biosphere out of the Information content available to it from the environment over Time; so QR exists as virtual Reality in the quantum sea before it is found, but BR exists or realized only after it is created by the biosphere at its will. Mathematical 'It' would be in semi-realized state in the axioms and when conclusions are derived from them, it becomes self-realized. In math, Bit is contained in the axioms; but in biology, environment feeds Bit to the biosphere..

After I read it again I will comment and rate your excellent essay.

Best regards,

Leo KoGuan

Hi Sreenath,

I read your essay very carefully and I liked the clear and down to earth analysis. That is very refreshing compared to the many mind bending and complicated analysis that I find in many essays. Many essays mangle basic concepts so that even an expert will get confused, but I think you have written a very good essay that a layperson can really benefit from it. I have even learned few things from it.

So you deserve the high standing and you get a very good grade from me. Thank you.

Adel

Dear Sreenath;

Following your post: I gave a high rate to your essay (at the time I red it), I like it very much. Hopefully we can still have fruitfull scientific exchanges about this topics or others.

Good luck,

Michel

Dear Sreenath,

I read with great interest your participation in this contest and even printed it out the content has parallels with my own essay (topic 1810) but you are staying on "earth" and perhaps my perception is more metaphysical.

However your deductions that "the evolution of life is analogous to the evolution of the knowledge of mind" opens both ways , the actual awareness and the future possible awareness. In my perception the actual awareness is described as just one life-line available in Total Simultaneity, the eternal now moment we are experiencing as our reality with its specific past (that is dependant indeed of the era you are living in) is just one of the infinite eternal now moments available.

The evolution of the mind (consciousness)is the way that our consciousness will be able to "construct" more and other life-lines , until now however our causal consciousness is just caught in a time line where reality is dependant on so called "dimensions".

There are lots of other points we can discuss and I really hope that you will read, comment and rate my essay "THE QUEST FOR THE PRIMAL SEQUENCE". I rated yours high and hope that your final opinion on mine will also be favourable. I count on you.

Wilhelmus

Dear Sreenath,

Thanks for your comments on my blog and I am expecting your rating.

On your essay, I like the way you properly differentiated the concept of information in Classical and Quantum physics. And also in other branches of science, Biology and Mathematics. But eventually all views must eventually logically boil down to one view since all are expressed in this universe. I commend your pain staking analysis so will be rating you 6.

Now for my reservations...

I don't agree with your introduction of "mind that receives information" into everything. Who owns the mind? How many minds are there in the universe, one or many? If one, how come different conception and processing of information? If many, where are they? Is mind only on earth or also on Mars? Do cockroaches and bacteria that process information also have mind? Can mind be affected by chemicals like alcohol? Does computer function with mind? Can mind fall sick? Or does psychiatric patient have mind? When does human being acquire mind, in the mother's uterus or after birth? Does mind change, improve and deteriorate with age? After death, does mind remain? So sir, leave mind out of it, unless you want to list out the attributes of mind, what it can do and cannot do and why you feel we cannot do without mind.

Then for my questions...

You say: "In CP both Space and Time are continuous in nature; i.e. and so there are NO GAPS in Spatial and Temporal intervals, whereas in quantum physics, both Space and Time are discrete entities and hence there are GAPS in both Spatial and Temporal intervals; i.e., Space and Time are quantized. As a result of this, when an electron moves from one orbit to another one in an atom it does so by jumping discretely between them without covering the distance continuously as is to be expected from classical physics. In other words, there is no path between the orbits".

What is a GAP? Is a gap not a geometric thing, which then must be spatial (or if you want to broaden it as I do in my essay 'time'). If a GAP connotes space, then banish the thought of something jumping discretely since it has still traversed that space which you call gap, especially if it is still the same electron occupying one inner orbit then the outer one.

Then talking of continuous space, I will like to learn your opinion of whether the Planck length is just a mathematical abstraction or is physically real? Answer this on my blog.

Many thanks.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Dear Sreenath,

Your essay last and this year are extremely sophisticated. You are a curious person who is thirsty for knowledge and for an absolute truth. I share your passion. Many times, I question my own foolishness to seek the absolute truth knowingly that this truth could be a different truth for each person. However, we are the owner of our destiny and yet simulataneously we are compelled to fulfill our own unique destiny whatever this destiny will lead us. We do have our own unique role in this life, a wonderful but challenging life.

You wrote: "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. Metaphorically, this is just like seeing the reflection of the whole universe in a small pot filled with water." We are in agreement but in KQID: All things are one Qbit. And this Qbit is the the only one singularity Qbit Multiverse/Existence. Thus Existence is within this Qbit and Existence = Qbit. The Qbit contains Existence. This Qbit computes in realtime the evolution of Existence. The computation is instantaneous. That is why we see and live in quantum entangled reality that unifies the parts into a consistent and persistent world. May I sing and praise Qbit nature. I am living totally in the land of the magical Oz. This leads to what you wrote below and I concur: "According to quantum-entanglement, even if two entangled particles are separated by huge distances, the measurement of, say, spin state of one particle can give accurate Information of that of the other particle instantaneously without measuring it; this is possible as a result of quantum-correlation and thereby proving that quantum-correlations are far more stronger than corresponding classical-correlations." Wonderful.

However, I beg to differ with below statement. KQId accepts Landauer's principle that information such as knowledge is physical. KQID goes a step furthere that bit = it. Existence inluding idea, God/s, Multiverse are physical. Any thing that exists is physical. Thus I respecfully disagree with your statement "Information is non-physical in nature, although it may be having its origin in the external world." Again, KQID: Qbit is Existence. Thus, knowledge is existing in physical form. It is monism, not Descartes' dualism. Everything is one in many and many in one whole. There is no separation between the idea of a thing with the thing itself. It is Wang Yaming's unity of knowledge and action. It is Wang Yaming's one bit.

KQID agrees with this statement "the magnitude of knowledge acquired is the product of the Intellect of the mind". KQID defines this intelligent mind as the Qbit, Planck's matrix of all matter and Maxwell's infinite being with unlimited storage capacity that contains all time-past-present-future conscioussness.

Last year essay you wrote: "The jets of mass gain energy of the order of 10^14 times the initial energy with which they enter the BH at its 'event-horizon'.This is nothing but the ratio of QG energy to self (or free) energy possessed by the particles at the event horizon as a result of intense gravitational interaction taking place there. This is the reason which explains why a certain amount of mass, cannot be compressed below its gravitational radius thus avoiding singularity." Great statement!

Wonderful Sreenath, I rate your essay highly. Thanks for sharing I am enriched by your sharing of your wisdom.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

I rather be a bumblebee poet than not to be

Dear Sreenath,

Your essay has been educating.

I appreciate that you have allowed of plants and bacteria and other live forms with perhaps non-human sensory modalities that: "It is obvious that they also must have their own way of receiving Information from the event and will have their own vision of its Reality and then respond to the situation."

Personally, I think it is a crucial question on what basis a single sensory modality (or any other ensemble like our five senses) should have in principle PHYSICAL prominence over every other. Special Relativity has questionably elevated the sense of sight. It is still to me baffling how a bat for instance (which orients more via echolocation) should prize our speed-of-light over his speed-of-sound. Indeed it is possible that for any life form the KEENEST sense defines the "sense-of-sight".

My question: what is your definition of biosphere? You have said, "The evolution of the biosphere in Time means the expansion of its Information content and this result in increasing its conscious and intelligent activities, and later leading to the evolution of Life (Darwinism)."

I intend to score you well because we need the interfacing of concepts like you have done.

Regards,

Chidi

Dear Sreenath!

I have found your essay very unique and well prepared.

In my field - linguistics there is a strong connection between development of biological and linguistic processes.

Please have my highest rate for nice explanation of the main topic with great intra science vector.

With regards, Stanislav

Sreenath,

What a thought provoking essay! Your descriptions and explanations of a biosphere (even before Life) that gathers information isn't a point of view I had considered previously. I especially liked your concluding remark of "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." I do agree with your summation of my essay in the context of your own.

Would you state that the evolutionary process of gathering data becomes more fine tuned as Life attempts to reconcile discontinuous Bits in Information of It(GR and QM)? Since technology has allowed us to view further into space, would you call this an enlargement of the Biosphere since we now can absorb Information from previously undetectable sources?

Your highly interesting and topical essay deserves the high marks it is receiving, to which I have added.

Regards,

Jeff