Dear Georgina and All,

I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.

I give you all a 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.

As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstringtheory

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 from a basic singularity. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 (singularity) and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

Its also interesting to see the singularity is in the base seed of zero and how it is all pervasive all through out the DNA structure in the attached image. I have been telling that I is that nothing which dwells in everything and this DNA structure seems to prove that notion. Singularity is right with in the duality. Absolute is right with in the relativity. This proves that both of these states of singularity and duality are interconnected and are the source of life.

Love,

Sridattadev.Attachment #1: 4_iDNASeries.bmp

Ms. Parry,

I thought your essay was splendid. It held my interest from the first word to the last. Will you please allow this decrepit old realist to make a comment about it without becoming unduly upset?

You wrote: "It is wrong to think that the task of the physicist is to find out how nature is."

It is not wrong, it is totally impossible for any physicist to find out anything about nature for as I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, nature is unique, once.

Each real snowflake is unique, once. Each real molecule of each real snowflake is unique, once. The only question Wheeler ought to have asked was;

Is the real Universe simple? Yes

Is the abstract universe simple? No.

Is real unique, once simple? Yes

Is abstract quantum theory simple? No.

I do wish you the best of luck in the contest.

Joe

    Hi Georgina,

    Good to see you in another contest. I like your latest essay, very readable and informative.

    1. Perhaps it should have been titled "Everything About Information"

    2. I think it is the only essay that mentions the concept of noise at all. Shannon's mission for the phone company was to get information out of noise. If we look at the entries in this contest many of the entries are informational some are ... well .....noisy. Check my essay out and tell me if it is ... well.... noisy :)

    Giving you the best mark, And wishing you the best recovery.

    Don Limuti

      Dear Joe,

      thank you so much for reading my essay and for your kind words and good wishes.

      You have quoted me quoting Niels Bohr. I thought he had an interesting perspective on what physics is all about.

      I look forward to reading your essay soon. Fortunately we have been given a little more time. Till then, all the best, Georgina

      Hi Don,

      thank you very much. It is really good to hear that you liked the essay.

      Re 1. yes its a broad and interesting topic so lots of ideas to choose from but there's lots more that I could have written about. Maybe "information in a nutshell" would have worked. I did not just want to talk about perception and write something very similar to my usual old hobby horse so I had fun exploring the territory a bit.

      Re 2. Interesting that noise has had little mention in the other essays. I will read your essay, with pleasure, and let you know how I got on with it.

      Thank you very much for your good wishes. Georgina

      Good to see you back online Georgina.

      I for one was beginning to worry, as you'd mentioned health problems. I hope you are doing better, and I am glad your essay is doing well. Fine work, one more time.

      Have Fun!

      Jonathan

      Hello Vladimir,

      thank you so much for your positive feedback on my essay. Thanks too for your questions which I do not know if I can answer satisfactorily.

      I'm not quite sure what is meant by cognitive computer visualization technology. Or colour -musical cognitive images. Thanks for the link.It is quite a long article which I have only taken a quick look at. Certainly visual presentation of information can be helpful for cognition but I am not convinced that if everyone reports seeing the same thing it is the truth. Think of the illusionists performance as an argument against that.

      I do think visualizations are a very good way of presenting complex information in a way that is easily understood; Especially for very large data sets.The same would apply to mathematical abstractions, if it is possible to illustrate them. It can also bring out relationships and correlations that might not be obvious in raw data or a particular mathematical presentation. I think the colour and forms interest the mind which has evolved to make sense of complex visual information. I like very much the site Information is beautiful

      Re your second question, thanks again for the link. What a beautiful expressive voice. The words of a lyricist often speak to the mind of the listener about human emotions which he/she is then able to feel. Though, as I write about in the essay, it is the -observer who creates the meaning- in his/her image reality. For some people, no doubt, beautiful lyrics do not convey emotional feeling even when in their own mother tongue. In the same way some people find beauty in mathematics, and the mathematics of physics, but others do not. The logical mind and the emotional mind are different facets of being human and meaning can be found by both.

      Yes, I will endevour to read your essay too. Regards, Georgina.

      Vladimir,

      Yes I could cry, it is a very sad but beautiful poem.

      From http://lyricstranslate.com

      With the same anguish my days flash past, Monotonous/dreary as they were, As if roses are dropping their petals, And nightingales are dying.

      And she is also sorrowful, The Love that has guided me And envenomed blood Runs under her satin-like skin.

      And if I am in this world, It is for the only dream I have, That we both, like blind children, Will go to the mountain ridge

      There, where there are only reveries, In the world of the whitest clouds, To seek for faded roses, And listen to the dead nightingales.

      Author's comment:

      The lyrics is the poem by a Russian poet and translator Nikolay Gumilev (1886 - 1921)http://lyricstranslate.com One line is slightly changed: Gumilev has it as "There, where only goats are roaming" instead of "There, where there are only reveries"

      Hi Jonathan,

      thank you for reading my essay and your kind comments. I really appreciate them. I've been working my way down the comments left.

      I will read yours too, so don't worry that I haven't got to it yet. Fortunately we have been given a bit more time.

      Hi Georgina

      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

      Hello Georgina,

      Thank you for your the answers to my comment very valuable for me! Also a big thank you for visiting my forum and give your comment!

      In the russian version of the paper by Alexander Zenkin slightly different phrase: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators». I think that this phrase has a broader meaning. When I make a reference to this idea A.Zenkin, I primarily mean the idea of Kant's concept-figure synthesis.

      Many thanks for the link to the full text of the romance Nikolai Gumilev.. I always listen to it when I need to recharge the spirit... The last sentence is very interesting!

      Yes, physics and poetry must work together to come to a unified picture of the world, rich in all the meanings of being. Matter physicists is to acquire soul. Contest FQXi helps with that!

      Best regards,

      Vladimir

      Self-aware Universe ... Matter of physicists is to acquire soul ...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpnvu392xDM

      Georgina,

      I've been waiting with baited breath for the comments you promised. But I know you'll be as buried in essay as me. I also note I hadn't rated yours so if you just felt a little hike that was me. You well also have read mine and, not being familiar with the subtleties of Bell's theorem, missed it's value. If so there's now a more detailed explanation on the blog. The result is NO spookyness or faster than light QM nonsense! Most heads will go straight back in the sand as usual I expect, but many have resonated as you'll see in the blog.

      Anyway this little nudge is because, being passed over from 7th twice in a row, I'd rather like to finish higher this year so need the points! It's been called 'wonderful' and 'ground breaking'! which I obviously think is very perceptive! but I do hope you like it.

      Very best wishes in the run in.

      Peter

        Can I have something about information from Georgina on my blog? A comment will be appreciated, especially as we have some agreement on the existence/non-existence information.

        Best regards,

        Akinbo

        Peter,

        I will read it. I read the abstract and thought this is something for later as I could see from that that I would find it hard work, as you had said I would. Glad to hear you are getting some good responses. No doubt the scores will change a lot in the last few days of voting as they have in previous contests. I have only voted for a few essays so far, the ones I could make my mind up easily about. I'm not going to ignore yours. Don't worry. Georgina

        Hello Georgina

        Hoping you are feeling better. I found your essay to be readable (mostly) and a nice walk through some foundational matters. Some thoughts:

        You said:

        According to Niels Bohr, "there is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of the physicist is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature"

        How one (ie. Bohr) can 'say about nature' when one cannot say how nature is, seems self-defeating to me.

        Anyway...

        Barbour: 'So a direct correlation between macroscopic observed reality and theoretical quantum realm should not be expected.'

        I would have thought that the aim of a model of physical reality is exactly that the model has a strong correspondence to our apparent reality, and so at least in theory should be able to describe the macroscopic world.

        Your thoughts? (you might post on my essay page that you have responded, and I will have another look).

        Best wishes

        Stephen Anastasi

          Hello Stephen,

          Re Niels Bohr's words: I think it is possible to talk about something that is related to the function of the natural world without being an accurate portrait of it. Probabilities do become very accurate when very large samples are taken, the bigger the sample the more accurate. That is something about nature but it isn't a description of how nature is at any one time. I don't think that therefore we should say probabilities are not realistic. They have at least a quasi reality.

          Re Julian Barbour's words I agree with him because the two are very different "realms". The observed reality is described as space-time but the theoretical quantum realm is not in space-time but a theoretical space over time. The results of lots of experimental outcomes amalgamated into 'a picture' of what might be rather than what is. Well that's my naive understanding.

          I have just read Ken Wharton's essay and he describes a way in which some of the problems of incompatibility of QM and observed space-time could be overcome.A good read. Apparent reality is in my opinion only one part of reality and the underlying reality that produces potential sensory data together with observer selection gives the observed outcomes. I included a diagram setting out that explanatory framework as part of my essay last year contest, there is a high resolution version in that essays discussion thread.

          Thank you very much for reading my essay, your feedback and your interesting question.

          Thanks Georgina

          Is quasi-reality, reality? I suppose one could say, 'There exists a probability that...' but to me this would be a statement found in a possible ontology, rather than an actual ontology (see my essay . In this sense the reality is only a possible reality that has no proper existence.

          Interesting.

          Stephen.

          Dear Madam,

          This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

          Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic - "complex, even inexplicable behavior". Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of "the deer population in Northern Michigan", is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

          Infinities are like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others - every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

          Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use "a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers", you do just that through "comparison and exchange instructions". You develop these by "inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by 'mating' parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated" and repeat it "thousands upon thousands of time" till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought "evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible". After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

          Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area - the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

          The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

          However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally 'illuminates' the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

          Regards,

          mbasudeba@gmail.com

          Quasi: 1.almost but not really, seemingly 2. resembling but not actually being:so-called from the "Collins concise dictionary of the English language". Given this definition it seems that quasi reality is the best description of probabilities and theoretical quantum objects in superposition. Reality to my mind is what -is- and the perception of what -was- via the sensory system directly or using an intermediate device or sensitive material. Probabilities are excluded from reality as they are a prediction of the likelihood of what is but not yet observed (or will be) from amalgamated knowledge of what was.They can be found outside of Object and Image reality on the RICP diagram that I mentioned together with other theoretical things.

          Re the quantum realm when I said a theoretical space over time I did not of course mean over time as in everyday passage of time. I was trying to give a sense of the amalgamation of data. The quantum objects are 'timeless' not existing at or extracted from any single time.

          I hope that helps clarify what I was trying to convey. I will read your essay.