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

Dear Hector

WE HAVE 2 DIFFERENT KINDS OF SYMMETRY: DISCRETE AND CONTINUOUS.

BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM

DISCRETE SYMMETRY IS STATIC SYMMETRY(REFLECTIONS,PARITY,ETC). NOT DEMANDING MOTION,CHANGE IN TIME

CONTINUOUS SYMMETRY IS DYNAMIC, DEMANDING MOTION(ROTATIONS,TRANSLATIONS,SHIFTS,ETC) CHANGE IN TIME.

THE MOTION SUPPOSED TO BE DIFFERENT VELOCITY (FROM SMALL TO RELATIVISTIC)

WHEN WE GOING TO RELATIVISTIC VELOCITY OBJEKT GET DIFFERENT LORENTCIAN DEFORMATION AND CONTINUOUS SYMMETRY LOST ITS SENSE.WE GET SOME KIND SELF-REJECTION OF CONTINOUS SYMMETRY.

DOES DISCRETE SYMMETRY ONLY REAL SYMMETRY?

Yuri

Dear Hector,

Thanks for you kind comments on my essay and I have down loaded your essay and shortly post my comments on it in your thread.

With my best whishes'

Sreenath

    Dear Hector,

    I read your whole essay which is based on an innovative idea called motion. It appears true that Time without reference to Motion makes no sense as you have rightly grasped and also that Motion can be easily grasped by mind. You have lucidly analyzed the concept of Time from prehistorical period to the current period in a systematic way and have shown how it is invariably associated with the concept of Motion. You have also said clearly how the concept of Time is still perplexing physicists and philosophers alike. That is why you have said 'we measure motion and no time'. According to you, our concept of Time is derived by analyzing the concept of Motion and hence there are Past, Present and Future. This is a novel idea that is to be considered seriously. In solving the problem of quantum-gravity (QG), the concept of Time has also become a problem. In the previous fqxi essay contest (2012), in fact, the essay I presented was on QG. You need to work up hard on this problem and present a theoretic model based on these ideas systematically and then only, I feel, physics community will accept your ideas. Since you are a physician you better seek the help of some mathematician in this regard to help you in your task.

    Thanks for presenting a thought provoking essay and wish you all the best in the essay contest. After seeing your response to this in my thread I am going to give your lucidly written essay a very high score of over 8.

    Sreenath

    Hector,

    It was absolutely wonderful to read you essay. My last two essays have developed this and it's implications but I was beginning to think I was on my own and going crazy! I've often quoted Einstein's;

    "There is no such a thing as an empty space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field."

    Currently I describe that 'motion' as what turns a simple rotating dipole into a double helix, and show it's power.

    The importance of this thesis can't be overstated. I propose that the great "simple idea" we've all been blind about is that, contrary to all current theory (including even interpretation of Einstein!) 'TIME' itself does not change or 'dilate,' only the emitted 'signals', physical motions of some 'thing' in motion, are effected, compressed or contracted, and they are not 'time'!

    Thank you and very well done for your essay on this massively important subject. A top mark from me for sure. But how do we get more to throw off the blindness? I do hope you'll read (and score) my essay, which is entirely field and motion based, where the concept is developed to demonstrate it's power.

    Congratulations, hold on for a big boost, and very best of luck in the run in.

    Peter

    Dear Sreenath B N:

    Thak you for reading my essay. This is a demostration, using centuries old proved facts. I don't need any theory,

    Thanks

    Héctor

    Dear Peter Jackson:

    About "time" we don't, even speak the same language.

    Thank you

    Héctor