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

      Thanks, Yuri, I look forward to reading your essay.

      Having spent many hours researching and writing my topic, as I'm sure you did, may I ask your evaluation of my essay?

      Jim

      Vladimir,

      I rated yours on 6/30 and I assume you rated mine when you commented above.

      Good luck.

      Jim

      Dear Lee,

      I think you already forget me(see my post above.) I hope yet to hearing your valuable opinion to my work.

      Regards,

      George

      Hi Jim -

      I agree with you that both consciousness and the Anthropic Principle get a lot more play than they deserve, in speculations about quantum physics and cosmology. Though I would guess that it's a minority of physicists who take these ideas very seriously. I don't believe either plays any role in any accepted theory.

      I think the basic problem here is that we have no well-developed approach to the physics of measurement... I try to explain the reasons for that in my essay. Quantum theory makes it pretty clear that the determinate states and properties of things depend in some way on the processes that make them observable. If we had a clear idea of what "observing" means in physical terms, it would never have occurred to anyone that consciousness was involved. I don't think there's any strong inclination among physicists to "self-idolatry"... except maybe for some who write books for the popular market.

      Thanks for the nice piece of writing -- Conrad

      James

      Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

      said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

      I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

      The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

      Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

      Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

      I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

      Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

      Good Luck!

      Than Tin

      Hi James,

      I got ready for your essay by getting familiar with "A History of the World Part 1". It was just wonderful.... Mel Brooks is King of comedy!

      After reading your essay I got the image of Dolly Parton doing a southern accent saying "That Wheeler chap sure does get carried away" :) Who would have thought a FQXi essay could be so enjoyable.

      High marks for King James, Thanks

      Don L.

      4 days later

      Hello James,

      Nice critical essay!

      I'm critical of quantum mechanics myself*, although I'm even more critical of the community of quantum physicists - I think it's the paradigmatic example of what a scientific community should *not* be.

      Anyway, to stimulate further critical thinking I have given your essay a nice rating.

      Best regards,

      Marcoen

      * That is, I find (nonrelativistic) quantum mechanics an elegant theory and I'm compelled to accept that it has some merit, but I do not believe that it is the final answer regarding the fundamental workings of the universe.

        5 days later

        Dear James,

        Well written essay with focussed critique on several speculative anthropomprhic ideas and claims. I enjoyed the satire running through consistently.

        Felt, however, that perhaps you did not want to directly address or take sides on the issue of ontological relativity of Bit or It, which of course is also a position one can take. The implied criticism gives the impression that you are leaning on matter, though!

        Unnikrishnan