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]

      • 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