Hello James

Nice essay. I thought the idea of retroactive control of the universe was interesting. I guess, if the laws of physics actually don't have a preferred direction in time, then this might hold a grain of truth. Think of the lotteries I can retroactively win!

Hope you like my essay.

Stephen Anastasi

Dear James

Wheeler's many fans are here in force among this contest' contributors. The more reason to admire your courageous and well-reasoned debunking of the Anthropic Principle and its descendants. Your beautifully-written analysis makes the right points.

My own objections to the Anthropic Principle appears in my own essay "The Cloud of Unknowing..." as follows:

" Nowadays we have almost lost our confidence in the reality of Reality. We accept the observer-centered world of Relativity Theory and the Copenhagen Interpretation without batting an eyelid. We seriously consider ideas such as the Anthropic Principle that the Universe was created just so, to enable us human beings to come into being. We ask if IT is from BIT - i.e. whether the Universe grew out of BITs such as those we regularly manipulate in our computers and devices to email jokes and play Tetris. It is time we stopped being too clever for our own good and make a concerted effort to rid physics of its current bedeviling philosophy: The lack of confidence in the absolute existence of physical Reality in which we live and breathe."

...and pinch and squeeze, one might add, after seeing the "Good to be the King" clip on YouTube!

With best wishes

Vladimir

Hi James,

Thanks for your comments over on my page - I found this link which elaborates on the stress engineering concept you mention.

The maths here is relatively simple, which is always a good starting point for a good theory. I think that minimum energy states are important when we're transitioning from 3-dimensional space towards singularity, as they perhaps define certain "boundaries" or borders which are crossed.

Also this ties in nicely with the entropy aspect of the Fibonacci approach.

Thank you for highlighting another part of the ubiquitous nature of the Fibonacci sequence.

I agree with what you say and think you perhaps have hit on a way to perhaps test my theory.

Best wishes,

Antony

Antony,

You have the passion and spirit of a good researcher.

Jim

Dear James,

As the wave particle duality has constrains on describing the nature of observational information continuum, we may assume a generic spiral propagation of string-matter segments, in that the Quantum foam devised by John Wheeler is in analogy with the tetrahedral-brane ascribed in this scenario. Thus cosmic connectivity of the biological systems is descriptive on this in accordance with anthropic principle.

With Best wishes,

Jayakar

Dear Lee,

Thanks for your post and attention to my work! I think you did not read it carefully and fully, but no problem here! We cannot study every work in details in this short and tensioned time! Moreover, our works directed to a definitely different targets and are written in different styles! However, I want tell you honestly that you have offered nice written review article which is interesting to read.(I suggest you to check recent observation of authors R. Penrouse & V. Gurzadyan - about possibility of Cyclic Universe. You can it find in arxive.org)

I am going to rate your work as a ,,good,,(8)only. You see as right for you!

Best wishes,

George

    Dear James,

    Yours is one of the few best essays written in this essay contest and I hardly find words to describe your elegantly written essay with so much of wit and logical consistency. I completely agree with what you have said in your essay, especially misinterpretation of the experimental results of the quantum world. Your denouement of AP and SAP must be welcome by all rationalists. You have, like me, made it quite clear that mental activities cannot be described in terms of quantum physics; but, on the other hand, according to me, quantum physics can be described in terms of our neurological activities. You have rightly emphasized that It is more basic than Bit when we consider the birth and evolution of the universe, and that Bit comes only after the universe existed and I quite rightly agree with you in this respect. This misunderstanding arises as a result of misapplication of quantum physics to explain the facts of the macro (classical) world where its tenacity is questionable. Quantum physics must be restricted to the quantum world. I, once again, congratulate you for producing such a beautifully written essay. I would like to rate your essay with maximum points and also I would like to know whether you have rated mine. Please inform me at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in

    All the best,

    Sreenath

      Sreenath,

      You leave very kind comments. As you know, most of us spend a great deal of thought and time on our essays and an objective evaluation is most appreciated, more than anything else, since our concepts and words are a personal extension of ourselves.

      Hope you enjoy this contest in all ways.

      Have contacted you thru email as you requested.

      Jim

      Thank you, George, for you kind words. Many essays require more than one read and research, especially for non-physics professionals like me. I will revisit your essay and comment further.

      Jim

      Dear Jim, I reread your outstanding but human essay. I rated hight your essay before. I did reply to your post in my section. You wrote beautifully: Yes, there seem to be a lot of coincidences regarding the character and the make-up of our universe, but long after we disappear from the scene, matter will still transition with quantum events and the atoms in stars will radiate photons. While we're still here, it would be nice to be god-like on our own Olympus, throwing thunderbolts of consciousness and assembling a beautiful world in our own images. With great relish, Mel Brooks said in History of the World, Part I, "It's good to be the King," historically a position many thought inherited through divine right. But it was only a satirical movie, and we are not divine." I beg to differ with you that KQID genuinely found that we are indeed divine being as Tianming Ren(people) descended directly and in fact our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit lives as us in this world as the great Carl Sagan wrote: "Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return. And we can. Because the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." I do think that we are both king and genuinely divine, not as God but as person endowed with great creative power of our Ancestor Qbit. Here what I wrote in my site in reply to your post: "I read your outstanding essay, I whole heartedly agree with you that we are kings of our own world. I made similar conclusion. I stated in my speeches that we are Xuan Yuan, the Yellow Emperors of our own Erosverse, the relationships of our core-selves with selves, family, community, mankind, and nature that encompasses the whole Multiverse itself." Again thanks for sharing your wonderful thought, I know I sense your sense of mortality in your writing and I do as well share this feeling but I do think we are immortal beings in time. Peace, Leo KoGuan

        KoGuan,

        Thanks for your words of wisdom. I look forward to reading your essay.

        Jim

        Dear Jim,

        As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your Essay. I have found it very nice. It reconstructs the Universe's history by stressing how great it is and how little is humankind. It sounds like an appeal for scientists to be humble. I agree with point of view and I appreciate your humour. Surely, an enjoyable Essay. I am going to give you an high rate.

        Cheers,

        Ch.

        Thanks James,

        Likewise - best wishes in the contest,

        Antony

        Thank you, Christian. I don't exhibit the mathematical or scientific knowledge many of you have, but I did perhaps work equally as hard as many others. I was impressed with your entry as I indicated in my comments.

        Jim

        James,

        Thank you for stopping by to review my essay and for the kind words. Funny thing, I was just reviewing your essay yesterday and was going to request your email address to run some questions by you, but you beat me to the punch. What is your email address? Or you can send me an email to: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

        Thanks,

        Manuel

        Jim,

        I wish all the essays were written this well. As a public service, you should give a workshop on how to write an essay, so I never have to muddle through another poorly written essay ever again. You clearly explained the principles at the heart of the debate, defined the debate and showed the reason for your side. You have a style that "lets the reader in", keeps the reader interested and you even added a little bit of humor.

        I have said this before in other reviews, the theme for this contest is not clear. If the theme of this essay constant was "what is the nature of observed reality or does reality need an observer?", then you have nailed it. I honestly do not know if that was the topic of the contest or not. I wish you had written the topic, because then the topic would have been clear and concise.

        I think what Wheeler had in mind was an "interaction" and not a true "observation" made by a human or Paleozoic worm. If all that is needed is an interaction then the first interactions could occur moments after the Big Bang. We would not need the "chicken or egg" problem of an observer needed for the universe to be, yet the universe is needed for the observer to be.

        Thank you for the essay.

        I hope the mysterious rankings treat you well,

        Jeff

        Thanks, Jeff, your comments are very kind.

        Of course, we all like to be appreciated and rewarded for our long hours of work and thought, but in my retirement, I am having a good time writing fiction, writing online columns, spoiling my grandchild, and sharing my thoughts with others.

        Cosmology was the place to go. Poetry of the past described the Hubble images:

        In what distant deeps or skies.

        Burnt the fire of thine eyes?

        On what wings dare he aspire?

        What the hand, dare seize the fire?

        Jim

        Hello Jim,

        You did a great analysis of the present essay fundamental knowledge in the spirit of Descartes, "has come under has come under doubt". You have correctly pointed out: «After all, ancient gods took larger-scale human forms and interbred with humans, even today's superheroes are in our basic image. Our pets and children's fairy tales still see the attribution of human characteristics. While Christian, Islamic and Jewish traditions generally avoid anthropomorphism, connections between the divine and the human world are in doctrine and images.» The crisis of modern fundamental science (especially physics) - this is a "crisis of interpretation and representation " (T.B.Romanovskaya) . And Alexander Zenkin was right in his article "The scientific counter-revolution in mathematics" offering "constructive way", which is true not only for mathematics, but for all basic science era of the information revolution: «the truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to "an unlimited circle" of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.» http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

        Your good conclusion: «Empowered by a visual clairvoyance, we can project our consciousness into the fabric of space. Perhaps as our embedded consciousness stretches we can call it white energy, realizing hegemony over an ever-expanding sensory space.» This proves only one thing: an old unsolved problem of the structure of space is an important issue of fundamental science. However, always in search of the truth should bring a very sharp Occam's razor. Looking into the past - it is a look into the "memory of the Universe" - Ontological memory. And the human mind ("consciousness is a vector quantity - a vector of consciousness) has the capacity due to the presence in the universe of the ontological (structural) memory. Matter is that from which all is born (Plato), the Ontological memory is that all breeds. And you said, well figuratively about "lightning consciousness»: «While we're still here, it would be nice to be god-like on our own Olympus, throwing thunderbolts of consciousness and assembling a beautiful world in our own images.» I think , these are the images of Einstein built when trying to unravel the idea of the Creator to the creation of the Act (especially the last thirty years). I am sure that you come up with the correct name of your very essay - without the quotes ... Jim, I have not found your post, my ideabank@yandex.ru

        Regards,

        Vladimir