Dear David,

Thanks for going through my essay in detail and with care. There is no exaggeration in what I have said in my essay. I would like to answer all your questions point by point.

String Theory, Loop QG and the like are not physical theories; they are just mathematical ploys which intimidate physics by posing themselves as unified physical theories. I reject them because in spite of their formulation since at least two decades ago they have not been able to make a testable prediction which would either verify their veracity or over throw them. Whenever you formulate a unified theory, you not only just combine two theories in your mathematical scheme but also must be able to make some new predictions because you are viewing the 'reality' from quite a different point of view. Have they been able to make such predictions testable, at least, in the near future? They say that they are testable at an energy range of the order of 10^18 GeV or at a scale of the order of 10^-33 cm (Planck length). The energy range that we have attained now is of the order of 10^4 GeV and the corresponding microscopic range we have reached is of the order of 10^-19 cm; now just tell me when are we going to reach this scale so that we can test their veracity? Do you say let it take thousand years to reach that scale when they will surely be verified? Let them make, at least one immediate testable prediction which is the hall mark of any physical theory then I will agree with them. So far testable predictions made by LQG, super symmetries, etc. have been falsified and string theory is sterile because it is unable to make any testable prediction and on the contrary it claims that there are 10^500 universes and no man who is having 'common sense' is ready to believe this outlandish stuff.

Regarding the definition of information, you are saying that it makes the position of physics awkward; the 'data' that we perceive from the world around us i.e., from physical objects are about their energy, position, motion, force, etc. and I don't know how it makes it awkward.

Regarding the existence and evolution of Life on earth; it is generally believed that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years and about a billion years after its formation in the solar system, the evolution of the 'biological network' (biosphere) started to take place by living materials, especially DNA and this I have explained clearly in the essay. It is this process which led to the existence of Life in its simplest form and this process continued to become the evolution of Life and it is continuing even today. So the evolutionary process started about 3.5 billion years ago to form the biosphere and after about a billion years later, that is, about 2.5 billion years ago simplest Life forms originated and later more and more complex forms evolved. Now tell me where is the mistake regarding the age of the existence and evolution of Life?

Regarding inexplicability of biology on the basis of physics; I want to give just one example which makes it quite clear to you why. Suppose I wave my hand towards a crowd and as a physicist you can explain the motion of my hand quite clearly but can you explain on the basis of your physics 'the intension or purpose behind the waving of my hand?' You know that it is absolutely impossible and it needs no explanation. It is because of this 'qualitative' difference between biology and physics, biology cannot be reduced to physics. It is this 'purpose' which is at the basis of the existence and evolution of Life. But this purpose is 'not divine'; it is as a result of the 'tendency' exhibited by 'living materials'.

Regarding 'man at the pinnacle of the evolution of Life'; evolution of Life is not to be viewed as simply production of more and more complex organisms but it is to viewed as 'analogous to the evolution of the knowledge of mind'. In this sense man is at the pinnacle of the evolution of Life but not in the sense of adoptability to the environment.

Regarding comprehension power of the human mind, you cannot restrict it and if you succeed in it like religious authorities in the past, remember that you would not have seen the sort of transformations in all fields of human activity that you are seeing now. But sometimes you got to ask right or useful questions to enhance the comprehension power of the human mind but not to mitigate it.

Regarding your last question on mathematics, I didn't know that Kant held similar views. Of course, Kant had no clue of the existence of non-Euclidian geometries and I don't understand what this has got anything to do with my view on mathematics. In my view, axioms are basic to mathematical theories and the veracity of the conclusions drawn from the axioms depends on the veracity of the axioms themselves but not on the type of mathematics used or applied. If you use in your axioms elements of non-Euclidian geometry, say, Lobachevsky, Bolyai and Reimann, the kind of mathematics you have to apply is what is already applied by them.

So, please, go through my essay once again regarding this and if you still find anything confusing, have discussions with me.

I will shortly post my comments on your essay.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Hi, Sreenath,

I appreciate you responding to my comments, but this response is supposed to be in the thread under your essay, not mine. The idea is that the discussion is supposed to be open to everyone reading that page, and your comments are relevant to your essay, not mine, and hence should be available for the readers of your essay, not mine. If you would re-post your comments (you can cut-and-paste) into the thread under your essay, I would be glad to continue the discussion.

Cheers, David

Sreenath: Postscript: I see that you have also posted your comments under your essay. I shall comment there. In general, when you reply to my comments, you need not post them in both places: just under your essay. I will be notified of your comments. Thanks.

David

Dear David,

You have well-structured your essay with both mythological and historical back grounds. In the end you have concluded that both It and Bit are intertwined and both dictate each other, although It is having its own independent existence. I have also similar sort of conclusion but mind as third party playing the basic role to unite them.

Best wishes in the contest,

Sreenath

David,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

To those who might want to follow up on my references, there is a small typo: "Löwenheim" was accidentally written "Löwenstein" (referring to the Löwenheim-Skolem theorems).

David

7 days later

Hi David,

Thanks for your comments over on my page. Hope you're enjoying reading so many great essays - I am!

Best wishes for the contest,

Antony

Hi, Joe,

The position that everything is unique is a philosophical position which is perfectly defensible. However, as you remark, without some way around this uniqueness, physics , along with most other human activities, becomes impossible. This is the reason why, in a strict treatment, equality is mostly replaced by "equivalent". Equivalence classes then form the backbone of a large amount of Mathematical Logic; physicists are a bit looser in their usage, often using equality instead of equivalence.

David

John,

You are right that time is a troublesome issue, and ideally time would be an emergent property. Barbour (whom I mentioned in my essay) has been working on this possibility for several years; alas, his solution is not yet worked out to the point that it can replace the present mechanics. Perhaps you would like to read his book (the relevant reference is given at the end of my essay); he also has an hour-long lecture on the idea on YouTube.

David

13 days later

Dear David,

A great essay! Excellent knowledge of physics, mathematics and philosophy, a giant fantasy, giant sense of humor! For the first time I read this intriguing essay! A huge amount of information and a clear path to a goal - "grasp" the nature of the information and its "place" in reality, "grasp" the fundamental structure of reality.

A Gottlieb Frege is brilliant! In the "point":

"But I want to go back to structure versus content. I've heard that physical reality gives 'meaning' to information. What, then, is 'meaning'?"

Yes, the "model of self-aware Universe" to design and paint a not so easy!

Here I added the idea of Alexander Zenkina from "Scientific counter-revolution in mathematics":

«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

David, but in your opinion?

Yes, of course, world physicists are gradually approaching the picture of the world lyricists her spirit, meaning and love. And the crisis «interpretation and representation " will be overcome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

Excellent! Ten points!

I invite you to visit my blog.

Best regards,

Vladimir

    Привет Владимир

    Because I type so slowly in Cyrillic, and for the interest of others who might want to read this thread, I will continue in English. (But feel free to refer me to articles in Russian if you continue this thread or the one under your article.)

    I am very grateful for your kind evaluation of my essay. To some of your points: starting from the bottom and going up, I have read your excellent essay, and will put a comment in a thread under it.

    The YouTube you cited led me to a romance by Николай Носков, which I assumed was meant to illustrate the lyrical spirit which physicists may one day return to.

    Thank you for introducing me to Alexander Zenkin. Many of the links to his further articles end up as dead ends, even when one knows his patronymic Alexandrovich. So the link you provided http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm was a big help. [Another article of his in English is http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=euclid.rml/1203431978; the bibliography in http://www.raai.org/about/persons/zenkin/ is not bad.] I won't go into his dispute about infinity (I think that there is room for both kinds of systems: some that admit actual infinities, and some which don't. But that is another subject.) I would welcome an attempt to provide a sense of mathematical systems in the way he suggests (reminiscent of the attempts of Steiner's followers, the anthroposophists, who tried something similar, but with less technology), although I would use the word "truth" much more cautiously. With new technology, that is becoming possible. Perhaps a new generation of physicists would arise with more inspiration; whereas physics also needs the number-crunchers, the truly great physicists also have poetry and music in their souls.

    Best, David

    Dear David,

    I'm away for a few days but have printed off your essay as it sounds fascinating, with some others I hope to read, so will comment and score when I get back. I do hope you may also manage read and score mine. To try to tempt you I include a few comments so far below.

    Joe; I accept unequivocally your solution to the unique/identical problem.

    Phil; you have made a valuable contribution to the essay contest. It is a pleasure to read.

    Akinbo; Very thought provoking essay... ..Many thanks indeed,

    Edwin; As always, you're impressive!

    Anthony; This seems to be one of the more interesting approaches I've read ... ...That's testament to your great writing ability - I think you've done a fantastic job.

    James; one could make a career out of studying your piece.

    Richard; Your essay has clarified the whole issue of no-go theorems.

    Jeff; Peter and others interested in his wonderful essay,

    John S; I think your work is clearly significant, and will resolve certain apparently 'metaphysical' aspects of reality to the 'physical' Cosmos.

    Ralph; I am deeply impressed with your depth of knowledge. I am also struck the depth of your thinking, your graphics, and your willingness to 'put yourself on the line' intellectually.

    Michel; Your essay is attractive and I read it with much interest.

    Than; we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

    Helmut; Technically challenging and philosophically deep - very few papers meet both. This is one of them.

    And; I hope this astonishing paper finds many many readers, especially among theoretical physicists: It is groundbreaking.

    Very Best wishes for the run in

    Peter

      Hi, Peter,

      I look forward to your comments. I have downloaded your essay (the advertising wasn't really necessary) and have begun to read it, and will finish reading it later, at which time I will put my comments under your essay.

      Ciao, David

      David,

      Thanks for your helpful comments on my blog, to which I've responded. I understood them better for reading your own excellent and entertaining essay, covering many of the issues my ontology physically contacts as it rushes through space over time (see my last 2 essays).

      I have to admit I was getting a little lost in the crowd at one stage as they all chirped in, a bit like Hyde Park Corner, but at least they respectfully took it in turn. If only real life were so well ordered and less uncertain!

      Two small comments;

      [1] Kierkegaard seems to dismiss the SR concept that; "an observer can be any particle not just a human." Yet I suggest that much is solved by proper definition, so if we add the requirement of 'computation' to 'detection' to obtain a measurement, then we can define 'observer' as one producing a measurement, yet Einstein's point about 'localisation by interaction' still stands, and we can now then say this is 'localisation to propagation speed c'. Which by my reckoning then tends to unify all physics!?

      [2] I simply couldn't make any sense of your position, which seems to be not just half way betwixt but even closer to the bottom than the top! I would have expected an incisive, relevant and readable work such as yours to be around 5 not 3. My very best double figure efforts to this end are on the way now. Perhaps we were both a bit to far out in the literary extremes, if not near the same edge.

      Well done and thank you for an enjoyable and helpful read.

      Peter

      Peter,

      Thanks for your comments. I enjoy constructive criticism; otherwise how does one learn?

      I have also continued the discussion under your essay.

      Could you give me the links to your last two essays?

      To your comments:

      [1] My fault for not making a Kierkegaard speak in complete sentences. Kierkegaard is meant to be embracing that SR concept, not dismissing it. Sorry.

      You make a very good point that even pairs of entangled particles can only be fully measured as a system within the appropriate light cone. I believe Penrose did some work starting with this idea, but I would have to look it up to get the details.

      [2] True, I would've liked to explain my central position better, but I ran out of room. The position is summed up in the final dialogue noting that information and physical reality are so tied up with one another (in a fashion best pointed out by a model-theoretic analysis) that it is a fallacy to assert that one is ontologically primary to the other.

      My low score is of little import, as I wrote the essay for the fun of it, but I am gratified to find a few readers who nonetheless enjoyed it. So, thanks again.

      David

      David,

      Was that anonymous unsigned post on my essay from you?

      [1] Glad to hear about Kierkegaard, I was concerned! my point about localization included an original concept; Fundamentally; If Light always propagates at c, and all particles re-emit absorbed EM energy at c, then if we consider two particles A and B, where A is at rest in the propagation medium (say a diffuse plasma cloud) but B is in motion v approaching the light source then something strange happens which needs kinetic visualisation to recognise;

      To an observer at rest in the cloud, The instantaneous emission speed from A will be c. But the instantaneous emission speed from B will B will be c-v. This is because it will be c in B's rest frame. Of course all those speeds are only 'apparent' so arbitrary. Only light meeting the observers lens can be directly 'measured', and that is always scattered to c by the lens. Think about it.

      My last two essays presented this case and it's implications, and were well received, but the importance missed.

      [2] Sorry my obtuse point 2 comment confused. There's a pointed lesson about current physics there! My point was all about pointing out your essays ridiculously low points (which I see my 10 points have now helped). I too think the 'it or bit' is naive and semantic. I't like a wave (or better a helix) depending where you are at any instant it's on one or the other side!

      I does look like you had fun too. The points are a bit more meaningful to me having been passed over from seventh twice, not for me you understand but the new dynamic needs to be noticed - then I can get back sailing!

      Peter

      Hi, Peter,

      I am on the run at the moment, and will contemplate your points and reply to them a bit later. Right now I just want to set your mind at rest that the anonymous unsigned comment under your essay was not from me. My response lies a bit further up on the list; you apparently got a lot of replies in a short period of time. I noticed that in one of your replies to another comment, you lamented the huge number of comments to sift through, and so I can understand if mine gets overlooked. Anyway, the anonymous writer mentioned that he or she had not yet read your essay, which is not my case.

      More later. Cheers, David

      Hi, Peter,

      These comments are given in little space, so it is always possible to misinterpret one. I will tell you what I see as problematic in your comment, and you tell me whether I am misinterpreting your statements.

      In a vacuum, it will not matter whether A or the observer is at rest or not, or whether you consider A or B's rest frame: the emission speed of a photon in a vacuum will always be c. But you mentioned a propagation medium, which could slow the photons down, so that they would not be traveling at c; in any case the emission speeds will not follow the Galilean relativity of simple subtraction of velocities. That's what Einstein's special relativity is all about, which is indeed, as you say, very strange. Calculating A, B and observer (aka measuring device, which may be without lenses) all being a single system makes the maths really nasty, but that seems to be the only way to get a consistent system. Mind-boggling, which is why relativity and quantum mechanics are so much fun.

      It is nice that we are in agreement that the essay question is posed in such a way that any answer in the short space of nine pages must look a bit naive. At least it gets some interesting discussions started.

      Cheers, David

      David,

      I agree the first part of your analysis, but your analysis reverted to the old confusion from around Gallilean.

      I have found a 'simplest of ideas' which lies invisible right before our eyes, so it' simplicity does not appear until the 'leap of faith' is made. (Just like Indiana Jones's'!) This is only as it is so unfamiliar. When Indy does that on his way to work each day he has no problem with it!

      Read my description again, but then discern two different 'types' of "speed", (just like the two different types of time that go into the speeds; 'Proper', and 'Co-ordinate').

      In 'co-ordinate' time we get only 'APPARANT' speed (like the car on the other side of the road to yours). All apparent speeds are scattered to 'Proper' (propagation) speed on meeting our lens. Ergo; CSL. Think about it.

      The previous paper links are here. (Both finished 7th and were passed over). Perhaps top 3 may do it? 2011 finalist; 2020 Vision.. 2012 finalist, Much Ado...

      Let me know how you get on. (Right before our eyes literally!)

      Peter

      Peter,

      Thank you for the links; I shall look at them after the week-end, and get back to you. In the meantime, I presume that your differentiation of different speeds is based on the difference between coordinate time t and proper time tau. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time) Is my surmise correct?

      David