Dear Chidi,
Thanks for your good rating and I am too going to rate you very high.
Regards,
Sreenath
Dear Chidi,
Thanks for your good rating and I am too going to rate you very high.
Regards,
Sreenath
Dear Screenath BN:
As I clarified later on I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. Your essay did teach me a lot about where Physics, Biology & Mathematics are placed now days and the relations between them. I never read about the subject something as concrete and clear as your essay thank you.
Maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".
I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".
I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).
Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.
I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.
With my best whishes
Héctor
DearScreenath BN:
The Anonymous july 21th post it is mine Héctor Daniel Gianni
Sorry
Héctor
Dear Screenath,
I have been reading your article and although I like in general and I gave a good mark I want to mention some points to you about which we can discuss if you want.
First I recommend you read the article Causation as Folk Science of John D. Norton which you can look for in google. Although I am not agree with all his conclusions it is going to give you a new view about causality.
Second, I don't understand completely your sentence "The evolution of Life is analogous to the evolution of the knowledge of mind" Can you explain me better?.
Third, I am not sure our intellectual power is enough to understand all universe. For example we have really headache with the duality wave-particle. So my doubts about we don't have limit of comprehension because also I am not sure we don't have limits on our imagination. We have only as 300 hundred years of scientific knowledge to know if we have limit. We would need as 10.000 years to see if there is something which we can not understand (But we are not enough intelligent to survive that long time because we have too power in our hands and few intelligence to use it).
Finally, I have a good friend who has dedicated all his life to the brain "Mind is only one of the functional states of the brain" and I am very agree with him. So I don't think there is a triangle, just physics and mathematics because the brain it is only a physical system although probably one of the most complex of the universe.
Best regards,
Sergio
Dear Sergio,
Thanks for your nice comments and a few queries on my essay and I am glad to answer them convincingly.
I will go through the article "Causation as Folk Science of John D. Norton" as suggested by you and I want to know how you have grasped my views on causality.
You have asked a very good question to clarify the meaning of the hypothesis that I have framed at the basis of my thoughts on biology and this hypothesis is, "The evolution of Life is analogous to the evolution of the knowledge of mind". The theme behind framing it is that 'the evolution of Life' and 'the evolution of the knowledge of mind' are not simply 'wholly conscious purposes nor simply 'wholly unconscious purposes' but a combination of both of these purposes. This can be realized if you go through my views on mathematics in my essay; when a mathematician frames his axioms he will not have grasped completely what conclusion (reality) he is going to get but will have a vague picture of it and is the same theme that underlies at the bottom of the evolution of Life. So 'the evolution of Life and the evolution of the knowledge of mind' are 'trial and error processes', of course, depending on the opportunities available to them. Whenever you are in doubt and having problems regarding 'the evolution of Life' at any stages in its evolutionary history you can try to understand it by reverting back to 'the evolution of the knowledge of mind' and comprehend how it could have evolved and similarly whenever you have doubts regarding 'the evolution of the knowledge of mind' you can try to understand it by reverting back to 'the evolution of Life' and try to comprehend how it could have evolved. If you want more discussions on this point (I think there needs to be) we will try to dwell deeper in to it.
To your third query, regarding our 'intellectual' and 'imaginative' powers of the mind, I can confidently say, based on my wisdom, that there is no limit or boundary to them because it is the question of 'time' before we find answers to our present problems, say, in physics such as wave-particle duality, dark-energy, dark-matter, etc. But then we will have other problems as a result of our advancement in knowledge and this is a perennial process. Now considering the advancement in the knowledge of man during the past, say, one lakh years, we can only imagine what would be his magnitude of knowledge after, say, another one lakh years because we have no precise laws to describe and predict this evolutionary process of 'the evolution of the knowledge of mind'. It is immaterial whether we live that long or not.
To your final query, I agree with you when you say, "the brain it is only a physical system although probably one of the most complex of the universe".
I thank you once again and also for rating my essay and now I am too going to rate your well written essay with much more favor.
Best of luck,
Sreenath
Dear Hector,
Thanks for you kind comments on my essay and I have down loaded your essay and shortly post my comments on it in your thread.
With my best whishes'
Sreenath
Dear Hector,
I read your whole essay which is based on an innovative idea called motion. It appears true that Time without reference to Motion makes no sense as you have rightly grasped and also that Motion can be easily grasped by mind. You have lucidly analyzed the concept of Time from prehistorical period to the current period in a systematic way and have shown how it is invariably associated with the concept of Motion. You have also said clearly how the concept of Time is still perplexing physicists and philosophers alike. That is why you have said 'we measure motion and no time'. According to you, our concept of Time is derived by analyzing the concept of Motion and hence there are Past, Present and Future. This is a novel idea that is to be considered seriously. In solving the problem of quantum-gravity (QG), the concept of Time has also become a problem. In the previous fqxi essay contest (2012), in fact, the essay I presented was on QG. You need to work up hard on this problem and present a theoretic model based on these ideas systematically and then only, I feel, physics community will accept your ideas. Since you are a physician you better seek the help of some mathematician in this regard to help you in your task.
Thanks for presenting a thought provoking essay and wish you all the best in the essay contest. After seeing your response to this in my thread I am going to give your lucidly written essay a very high score of over 8.
Sreenath
Dear All,
It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.
iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.
One of the sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
the second sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.
Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation
Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i
Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".
Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.
Examples
starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5
-27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5
Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 2 5 13 34 ...
Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 3 8 21 55 ...
Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)
The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.
As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.
Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.
I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.
I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.
All this started with a simple question, who am I?
I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.
I super positioned my self or I to be me.
I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.
I am Fibonacci series in iSeries
I am phi in zero = I = infinity
I am 3Sphere in iSphere
I am pi in zero = I = infinity
I am human and I is GOD (Generator Organizer Destroyer).
Love,
Sridattadev.
Dear sridattadev,
It is good to hear from you in my thread. I liked your referencing to Fibonacci series as relating to QG because I have also worked on it.
Thanks for that.
Best regards,
Sreenath
Hi Sreenath,
Overall an excellent essay, and I rated it that way.
Your conclusion, was spot on, and I do detect a little Vedantic logic in the triad. This is good.
However, your conclusion is all yours and is enlightening: its and bits are context dependent!
If your context is classical physics it is one way, If your context is biology it is another, etc, etc.
This is original thinking, and very insightful.
Thanks,
Don Limuti
Sreenath,
I enjoyed your discussion on classical and quantum reality and I gave your essay a high rating.
Current physics endorses the probabilistic nature of QM. However I believe that there is a physical system that explains all the weird results of Quantum experiments. In my theory I posited that the absolute motions of particles in a stationary, elastic and structured aether called the E-Matrix give rise to all the forces, all the particles and all the processes of nature.
Good luck with your essay entry.
Regards,
Ken Seto
Hi Sreenath,
Wow. First, I want to offer my sincere apology for not having read your essay sooner. You mentioned several days ago that you had downloaded my essay and would be reading and rating it and asked that I reciprocate. I was out of town all last week, but now I wish I had read your essay immediately.
Sreenath, I know that there are many essays for us to read, but after having read your essay I want to tell you that I believe you are absolutely correct in your thinking about classical physics, QM, biology, and mind. Up to this point I haven't asked anyone to read my essay, but now I will - please read my essay. I don't even care if you rate it. I just want to discuss your ideas afterward.
Again, I think the points you make are precisely on track. I do hope you'll have the opportunity to read what I've written, particularly regarding the definition of Life, how it interacts with the environment, and how the interactions of living things convert 'physical' into 'mental' and additionally, create 'bit.'
Best to you, Sreenath, and I hope that, if you are so inclined, you would consider staying in touch in the future.
Sincerely,
Ralph
Hello Sreenath,
I enjoyed reading your essay for a second time. I find little to disagree with, and that which I disagree with isn't really worth mentioning because it reflects the current consensus accurately. While I said I would comment, I am struggling to find something to say that hasn't already been said, so I present the following as simple cautions in areas where I feel your essay needs extra caution.
1. Gravitation according to General Relativity (GR) is being questioned because it fails to account for observed galactic dynamics. The fact that there is no current alternative forces scientists to postulate the existence of "Dark Matter", but a solution can not be formulated however this matter is distributed, and/or however much or little is imposed. When we add "Dark Energy" to the mix, no solution is possible, at least not until we define the relationship between "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" and their relative distribution within and without the galactic framework. The fact that no conclusion is currently possible doesn't mean that (GR) is uncontested. We must remember not to bet the farm on anything that fails to explain objective observations.
2. With regard to quantum superposition and the state of a "quantum entity", I concur with Prof Unnikrishnan when he stresses that the actual state is conditional on the entities local environment, and that in turn to a wider environment, etc, etc, etc. Even though I agree completely, I see it from a slightly different philosophical perspective. I see the "quantum state" as being broken down into the abstract qualities owned by the entity which give it a tendency to particular states (quantities), and this distinct from the quantities demanded by the entities environment. When we translate this to the (it/bit, 1/0, true/false) context, the inviolable abstract qualities are the entities rock, i.e. its conceptual self, then we have its non-secret open responses to measurement which are limited. The meat in this sandwich, so to speak, are the entities secret inclinations (superposed attributes) which contribute to one or other open response according to the entities inherent predisposition, the demands of its environment, and more especially measurements permitted by the environment. Those working on quantum computing have bet someone else's farm on the possibility that there are an infinite number of secret states which can be used to not only store vast amounts of information in computer memory registers, but through entanglement of qubits solve problems that current computer technology struggles with. But the "quantum" being "discrete", and its possible states being "continuous", seems like something made up with little justification and little or no possibility of verification. Moreover, this possibility of infinite information carrying capacity is in direct contradiction to the premise that evolution is an evolution in information carrying capacity. I agree with you that the complexity of consciousness evolves with an increase in information carrying capacity. I also believe there must be an à priori template for consciousness if there is to be an evolution in consciousness and its intelligent behavior.
Thank you for your essay, I rate it highly.
Zoran.
Dear Don,
Thanks for your kind comments and I am too going to rate your essay accordingly.
Best of luck,
Sreenath
Dear Ken Hon,
Thanks for your kind compliments and I am too going to rate your essay accordingly.
Regards,
Sreenath
Dear Ralph,
Thanks for your kind compliments on my essay and I have down loaded your essay and going to post my comments in your thread shortly. I will rate it too accordingly.
Sincerely,
Sreenath
Dear Zoran,
Thanks for reading my essay and expressing invaluable comments on it. I also would like to answer your doubts but a little bit later. Thanks for rating my essay with a high score.
All the best,
Sreenath
Dear Sreenath,
Thanks for your high valued philosophical essay pointing to the basic links concern over the three realities of nature: micro, "classical" and "biological".
I am rating the essay at highest end.
Regards
Dipak
Dear Sreenath;
his essay is masterful. Make an analysis concise yet profound reality of the concept of observation attached to process. also manifests a realistic critical string theories and severity of ties. Indeed: the assertion that these theories suffer from predictive ability, both experimentally, as new physical phenomena. some basic ingredient missing in these theories to represent a realistic theories, in terms of the physical phenomena. Then, you engage in the wonderful concept of the information regarding the biology, pointing out the fundamental aspects of this wonderful symbiosis. In short, his essay is a worthy candidate to win a prize. I would encourage you to write a book about this thematic, for how to translate your deductions using pen promises that you can be a writer of popular science first class. Thank you very much. I'm sure it will be a winner