Essay Abstract

The deep nature of reality I choose the following ideas of John Wheeler, because since we know that with clocks, we are measuring "motion" and no time, my essay perfectly feats with those ideas. "It from bit or bit from it" are just the words with which John Wheeler condensed his main thoughts as: "According to the it from bit, we create not only truth, but even reality itself--the "it"--with the questions we ask". "Reality might not be wholly physical; in some sense, our cosmos might be a participatory phenomenon, requiring the act of observation--and thus consciousness itself". "How could we all have been so blind for so long!" "I would like to stand for. We can and will understand." What you do, makes a big difference, if you don't have the necessary information "you are measuring time" so you are measuring something that flow uniformly that have a direction that can't reverse, that can't be physically related to any other physical existing thing, but if you do the necessary observation you become conscious that what you are measuring its "motion" not time Our participatory phenomenon that required the act of observation and thus consciousness itself, makes that when still doing the same, "measuring with a clock" we are not anymore measuring time but "motion" Our careful observation allowed us to become conscious, that what we always were measuring was "motion". So time disappear, becoming physically inexistent "motion" comes with definition and empiric meaning Since around two thousand years the physic discipline began as such, one of the most fundamental parts of it, "motion" occupies its own right place as one of the legs of the physics table Wheeler "a mystery left to explain", was time "now it lights up"

Author Bio

University of Buenos Aires, degree MD. MN. Nº 32.803, 1967. ECFMG Candidate number 097729 approved 78 % Jan/22/1968 Surgical Intern The Queen's Medical Center, Honolulu Hawaii 1968-1969 Psychiatry Residency Metropolitan State Hospital, Waltham Mass.1969-1970-1971-1972 Advanced Study in Psychotherapy at Harvard Medical School, Mass.1971-1972. I taught Clinical psychiatry at Tufts Medical School, Boston Mass. 1971-1972 Staff psychiatrist Florida State Hospital, 1972-1975. Research: "The Institute of Medical research, Dr Alfredo Lanari" University of Buenos Aires, field: nervous transmissions. 1979-1983. Private practice: Psychoterapist

Download Essay PDF File

Hola, Dr. Gianni,

Your essay raises a central and valid question, that of the lack of a clear definition of time in physics: or, as some would put it, there is no time operator. Your point that one deals with durations rather than points of time is also a good one, which is why much of the mathematics used in physics is based on algebras of intervals. You also hit upon a key question in asking how far we confound psychological time with physical time. The questions are good, and it will be interesting to see whether they are, or even can be, answered.

Suerte,

David

    Dear Gianni,

    Your essay or abstract are not visible here. David's Post is visible....

    I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

    I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

    Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

    Best

    =snp

    snp.gupta@gmail.com

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

    Pdf download:

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

    Part of abstract:

    - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

    Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

    A

    Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

    ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

    . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

    B.

    Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

    Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

    C

    Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

    "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

    1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

    2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

    3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

    4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

    D

    Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

    It from bit - where are bit come from?

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

    ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

    Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

    E

    Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

    .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

    I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

    Hello Hector,

    I can't seem to find the link to your essay on various devices and browsers.

    Best wishes,

    Antony

    Respectfully Dr. Gianni,

    Reality does not have a nature. I went to extraordinary lengths in my essay BITTERS to explain that the real Universe is unique, once. I even helpingly noted that the absolute of time is now.

    You wrote: "Reasoning about something is a continuous process, which its recognizable unique limits, are given by the beginning and the finalization of it. Unique, once cannot have limits. Unique, once cannot be continuous. Unique, once, cannot have either a beginning or an end. That is why the unique Universe is eternally occurring.

    Hola David:

    I didn't raise the central question, mankind did it for us at least the last 25 hundred years. What I offer is the answer physicists are searching for the last 50 years. Most of them to be able to join general relativity to quantum mechanics. I don't deal with durations that just imply the "motion" length; I do deal with "constant" "uniform" "motions" as celestial bodies and clocks and with no "constant" ones, which are the most of them, and we usually measure. "Intervals" as a main difference with "motion" doesn't have physical existence. I am glad you become interested by my essay, by the way I don't ask myself any question about physical and psychological "time" that is just a remnant word of which mankind forgot its meaning. I 'm just referring to physical and psychological present past and future and that the last two only exist during our consideration of them in our psychological present.

    Muchas gracias por tus buenos deseos

    Héctor

    Dear Satyavarapu Gupta:

    I don't understand how you are answering me, if you was not able to read my abstract and essay, that as you whish are about reality, and with a demonstration base on solid arguments and centuries old proves.

    First you don't know if you fail yet, you have to keep trying, certainly is hard to go against mankind main stream and specially on science, they use to keep flowing in the same direction. I answering now, later I going to read your essay, but I know almost nothing about cosmology.

    Héctor

    Hi Antony:

    I am sorry but I wasn't able to understand you. I thank you for whishes.

    Héctor

    Dear Joe Fisher:

    I choose to titled my essay "The deep nature of reality" I wouldn't say that "Reality does not have nature", but I would agree that the meaning of "reality" could be included in the meaning of "nature" so my essay title is a kind of redundancy.

    As you can see in "The End of Science, John Wheeler and the "It from Bit" by John Horgan "the two words" are being use as synonym's . The son of Bohr said " physicists sought to penetrate further into "nature"; Horgan book, quotes John Wheeler saying "that "reality" might not be wholly physical". In Einstein book "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 365, repeatedly uses reality and nature as synonym's in his short verbal description of "space-time" he refer to "reality" implying the whole "nature" the "field". I know nothing about the subject of your essay, but I suppose that what I wont to do with this title is reinforce it, also with the word "deep" About when I write ""Reasoning about something is a continuous process, which its recognizable unique limits, are given by the beginning and the finalization of it" if you don't like "unique limits" I can say "only limits" I didn't mention the word "once". Most probably you are right when you said "the real Universe is unique" the word is not exclusive of universe "every human been is unique" and of course have limits. "Once" you are right have not limits, and also can't be continuous. May be you are right to say that a universe unique can not have limits, but many unique things have the limits we decide they should have. I think that to know "that the absolute of time is now", first we should know what's time. I know what you and most people mean by that, but this doesn't give physical existence to "absolute time" or to the remnant word time either, and "now" is just a convenient word to express ourselves, can't have physical existence in a continuous "space-time" or if you like a continuous "space-motion" "the unique Universe is eternally occurring" If we can imagine "eternally" this one is an attained phrase in my opinion. I am really regret that we don't agree in so many things.

    Héctor

    Hector,

    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

    Dear Dr. Gianni,

    thank you for stopping by to comment on my entry and for your kind invitation to read your essay. I appreciate your unique view of the continuum inherent in the arrow of time and your answer to the question of the ever-elusive 'now'. I also find your apparent aversion to . in the end of a sentence intriguing, as if you never want it to end or perhaps to be so crudely extracted and separated from the continuous flow of the context it is in. This makes a vivid illustration to the main theme of your essay. Thank you for sharing it and good luck with the rest of the competition.

    Hector,

    in response to your feverish post in my thread:

    Once upon a time there was a fisherman who went into the sea daily. One day, far away from the shore, he caught a fish he had never seen before. So beautiful and unusual it was, the man was certain he could ask a good price for it. He brought it to the market as soon as he could. But. Alas. The fish was so delicate that by the time he showed to people, no-one saw any value in it.

    Your essay is hard to read. Knowing your limitations, you could hire a translator. You did not. Now you are upset that people do not understand you.

    Ah?

    Dear Dr. Gianni,

    Your highly original treatise was most absorbing. I am a science writer, and my work preparing texts for publication has bred a broad perspective in me - one that also takes into account the interaction of Mind and Cosmos, as is the case with you.

    Mind defines the Observer's 'patch of reality' at any given moment, and continues to do so throughout evolution.

    Even if we could describe the quantum world in perfect mathematical language, we would still have only described some small part of our Cosmos perfectly; and we would still be involved in our distinctive human Cosmos ... one that displays a continuous correlation between Bit and It over the course of evolution.

    As you can probably tell, this is one of the strands of my essay - which I think you would find very interesting. I hope you will have a chance to read it.

    All the best,

    John

    (jselye@gmail.com)

    Hello, Héctor

    A very interesting essay. The main task of the contest FQXi-depth new ideas. You bring forth new ideas. But the real mystery is the mystery of reality "generating structures." If we "grab" (understand) "generating structure" we "grasp" the mystery (nature) of the time and information. If we split the "generating structure" (which physicists do in their experiments and theories, "guessing the equation "), the mystery of time is not disclosed. "Protean nature" (a metaphor matter) need to catch small "network", a form which tells us the goddess forms - Eydoteya. Excellent rating. Look, comment on my essay and fair vote. We can understand each other as a lyricist lyrics. I wish you success and respect, Vladimir

    Hello Héctor,

    Thank you for your invitation to read and comment on your essay. Even though your English made it hard going, I believe I got the gist of it, and because I think I understand where you're coming from, I will make a few constructive observations.

    1. We all use time whether we know how to describe it or not, indeed, we have no choice because the period between something being in one place and then another, i.e. the result of motion, would make no sense without our ability to appreciation that that period has elapsed. At this basic level, appreciating the passage of time is distinctly intuitive, in other words it is something automatic and not under our direct control. This intuition is evolved in us as it is evolved in other animals. Apart from people who take drugs which interfere with their perception of time, most people experience this intuition in much the same way. I can not say how lower animals appreciate the passage of time at the intuitive level, but I have no reason to believe it is significantly different to ours. The fact that dogs can catch a ball better than we can suggest that their appreciation of time is more accurate if not different.

    2. The notions of "day", "hour", etc, and any other non-intuitive period of time is a conceptual quality, that is to say, an abstraction, generalization, and information about time which is not time, just a means to its description. We must differentiate between conceptual-time and intuitive-time because conceptual-time varies greatly even between people, that's why we have calendars, and of course lower animals are unlikely to debate such conceptions at all. Now, you differentiate between "psychological present" and "physical present", but that's only two out of three distinct conceptions of time, so I think you need to show that you have taken all three conceptions into account.

    3. You speak of continuous motion within continuous space as not needing time, but this doesn't explain the conservation of energy, and especially the relationship between energy and kinetic energy. I don't know if you subscribe to the notion that energy must be conserved, or not, because you do not speak of it, but if you do you have a big job ahead of you describing the means to the conservation of energy without bringing time back in one way, shape or form. Plus, those who believe that time is something, and something continuous, can not separate one point in time from another, and so they must consider a block-universe where objects exists in past, present and future concurrently. When people believe that space is something, and something continuous, they too have trouble separating one place from another, and that means something can be in more than one place at the same time.

    I do not subscribe to continuous space or continuous time, and I say that time is a function of the elements of gravity, which constitutes space, and so "force" and "field" are also discrete; and in that I have a big job ahead of me describing the conservation of energy.

    Good luck with your essay, and the job ahead of you.

    Regards.

    Zoran.

    Dear Dr Gianni and David Reid

    In my essay I deal with time, which seems to be an area of focus for you. I hope you find it interesting, in that I locate the initiator of time as the action of a global principle that is not time related. You may find the essay rather abstract, but one would expect this, given the need to step outside empiricism.

    Unfortunately, given the page limit I was unable to do more than provide the bare bones (and could not, within the essay constraints talk about our local time or experiential time). The rest will be contained in a nearly completed work, "The Armchair Universe" (working title). I would be very keen to receive feedback on this essay, especially as it relates to time.

    Stephen Anastasi.

    Dear Héctor,

    As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your Essay which I have found enjoyable and a bit provocative. I have also found interesting your rational demonstration which should prove that with the clock one measures motion rather than time. On the other and, by setting c=1, time and motion, in the sense of travelling in space, become the same thing. In any case, I enjoyed in reading your Essay, thus, I am going to give you a high rate.

    Cheers,

    Ch.

    Hi Héctor,

    In your essay, you say that time is a useful concept that early humans created, with the "day" being an example of a time concept created by humans.

    You say time can't be sensed or described like gravity and inertia can be sensed and described, because time doesn't really exist. You say that a lot of confusion would be avoided if we realised that time is actually motion. You discuss factors like temperature that affect motion.

    You say that there is a psychological present separate from the physical present, and say that the psychological present is approximately one second behind the physical present or "now" .

    But I think that time (properly understood) DOES exist. In my essay I contend that "laws of nature" represent static information category relationships: they do not represent nature actively performing mathematical calculations, so laws of nature do not represent change in numerical information. I argue that time and change of number is injected via quantum decoherence. In other words "time...unfolds...[and] the unique actual physical outcome...unfolds in an unpredictable way as time progresses" (physicist George Ellis).

    I am sorry that I cannot agree with you. Best wishes,

    Lorraine

    (I have also posted the above comment on my essay forum)

    Héctor,

    I found your essay much in keeping to the findings that time is relative to the existence of motion. I would like to run some questions by you via email. What is your email address? My email address is msm@physicsofdestiny.com

    Regards,

    Manuel