The Correlation of Bit and It in a Cosmic System by john stephane selye

Hello John,

I have studied your essay in an attempt to isolate the similarities you speak of in your comments on my essay. I find many similarities, and potentially concurrences, but this does not extend to extrapolations from your basic foundations. We all build clouds from foundations, and I must say that your foundations are close enough to mine that some rewording would make them even closer. But I suspect you are as fond of your terminology as I am of mine, but that doesn't mean we can not understand each other at the foundational level. With some simple rewordings of your essay, with words from mine, and visa-versa, we can understand each other with greater confidence, and possibly benefit by the exercise. For instance, I think of "Cosmos" as the ultimate encapsulation, and if the Universe is not the Cosmos, and there are entities larger than the universe, we will have to find a name for them because the Cosmos is the ultimate encapsulation. I also say centripetality because it may be spherical or vortex like, and that means I can use the word for the smallest things as well as the largest without invoking a shape in the imagination of those reading my essay.

Also, your vortex within a greater vortex, where vortices enforce an exclusion zone, can be likened to chips off the "primordial template form for thinking" which I depict in my essay. And if I were to reword your idea I would say that a centripetality, being a chip off the old block, repulses others of its kind because the direction of their intuitive domains is centripetal, and therefore apposite in direction, and in the case of centripetality that this opposite direction repulse each from the other. Likewise these same vortices (centripetality) have at their core the centrifugal domain, which while of the same nature and opposite in direction once again, attract each other via a mechanism which can explain the true nature of the conservation of energy. And it is the nature of the conservation of energy which allows us to define certain domains as attractive and the other as repulsive, even though they are both the same in nature and opposite in direction.

Also, bringing our conceptions of energy, and the conservation of energy, together, would facilitate greater understanding of each others work as well; and so on and so forth, but I am sure you have some understandings in reserve as I have.

Please feel free to reword some of my understanding within the context of my essay, with words from yours, which I can then agree with or disagree with, with appropriate reasons given of course.

Regards and best of luck in the competition.

Zoran.

Dear Mr. Selye,

Thank you for stopping by to comment on my entry. I have just read your essay where you paint such a vivid vision of the world. Your style flows easily exposing a skillful writer in you. Thank you for sharing your unique view. Happy holidays and good luck with the rest of the competition!

Dear John,

Nice prose which is expected being the head of an editorial team. The story is captivating but seems to be entirely original to you since you quote no references. Your account may however contain things that can be verified in future.

One or two questions for you: "on those 'quirky folds'.. which have troubled and motivated Physics more than any other science... for clearly, there can be no gaps in a single-field Cosmos. In seeking to smooth them over, Physics keeps searching for ever-smaller Particles that might LINK ALL THINGS TOGETHER... But for all these efforts, the gaps persist to this day;- and that it makes clear these gaps actually do exist, and really do violate the integrity of the single-field".

Is it only particles that can link all things together? Would gaps still not remain between such a particle and what it is linking together? If gaps do not remain, on what ground would you then refuse that both that particle and what it is linking together are not one thing, thereby returning to the same problem you initially tried to solve by conjuring such a particle?

Just food for thought. This is part of the discrete vs. continuous debate in physics.

Then you believe that the law of energy conservation is Sacrosanct. I am still thinking of an appropriate response on that.

My regards,

Akinbo

Dear John,

Your essay gives a non-standard reinterpretation of the 'it from bit' subject. It is also very well written in my opinion. Reading it, I had in mind two FQXI essays, the one by Eugene Klingman about the unity of the cosmos and the one by G. G. Miller about the Quaternio and the fourthness. I mention the latter essay because, to "the three pricipal vortices, the inorganic, organic and sensitive-cognitive ones" you add a fourth one, related to us. I have no idea if this analogy makes sense in your interpretation, at least you can check it.

I liked the "quirky folds" and the science fiction paragraph at the end.

Thank you again for your interest in my own work.

Best wishes,

Michel

Hello John,

I read your essay with great interest. I think you are absolutely on the right track in pointing out that we must think of reality as a multi-field Cosmos. To me, it makes sense that the Cosmos consists of several distinct fields.

I also agree that in order to understand what's 'going on' we must take into account the undeniable fact that Organic and Sensory realms exist within our universe. Life and Mind exist; we not only observe this - we experience it directly for ourselves. So any description of the universe/Cosmos as a whole must somehow account for these things.

Although my essay differs from yours somewhat on the details, I have given your essay a very high rating. I believe, that based upon the rules of evaluation of the contest, you have come forward with a fresh, new perspective and found it to be interesting and well written. I would invite you to read my essay at your convenience and would even be interested in corresponding with you in the future, if you are so inclined.

Best to you in the future.

Ralph

Dear John,

We are concerned with the same problems, but we diverge in the details of our solutions. As you note on my page, you propose multiple universes, and make a reasonable argument therefor, while I prefer a single universe, based on one field initially. You define this as "essentially, a very large 'room'... into which are heaped together all particles, entities, and organisms." In my view these are not 'heaped together' but have 'evolved from' the field. You say that "unbridgeable gaps... conceal the mechanism that allow atoms to assemble themselves from pure energy." You are correct in so far as there is currently a large monetary prize offered to the first to solve the 'mass gap' problem. But then you say that physicists search for ever smaller particles to fix these gaps. I do not. I have predicted for several years that no other particles exist, as my theory accounts for the currently known particles but has no way of generating others. As part of the self evolution, the gravitational field gives rise to the electromagnetic field, which for practical purposes is a second field. As I noted in my essay, I could propose a third, 'consciousness field', as you seem to do (?) but instead I associate this with the original primordial field of gravity.

You say that your fields are "prevented from interacting directly with each other", whereas I believe gravity interacts with both electromagnetic fields and itself.

We both identify vortices as extremely significant phenomena. And we both focus on gravito-magnetism as key, but, out of caution, I point out that there are two possible interpretations of those words, and mine is not involved, except analogously, with the 'magnetism' of the electromagnetic field.

I've not followed all of the structural details of your theory but you seem to generate more structure than I do. It's not clear to me whether you propose literal physical structures or abstract hierarchical concepts. Nevertheless our ideas overlap to some extent, and, as is the case in all FQXi essays, they diverge in many details.

Thanks for your comments on my page and good luck!

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear John

What an amazing essay! You relate a tale of physics and humanity as gripping as a Star Trek thriller: Vortices beckon, we zoom through a gear-mesh system, we correlate with a Greater Cosmos and look to a future of transformed humanity. The wonderful language (even the short paragraphs) is poetic - Blake comes to mind - but as science it is more Tiellard de Chardin isn't it? You obviously have seriously have thought long and hard about the concepts you can only outline in this essay, and approach the Bit from It question as relating to human consciousness and cognition. I think Wheeler's idea of Bits is much more basic and arid: just bits of "yes-no answers".

It does not lessen my admiration for your effort of thought and imagination that my reductionist approach to physics is quite different - rather than go beyond the quirky folds you speak of, I try to show that they are only tricks of vision that will disappear when a more fundamental scale is considered. In fact my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here here can be described as a flexibly correlated gear-mesh system (as in your your words) ...and nothing else!!

With all best wishes

Vladimir

Hello John,

Thanks for your kind comments over on my thread. As promised, I've read your essay. Still got 60 left to read and comment on! ;-/

I thought your essay was interesting and a nice balance of the sciences too. Also very well written.

The vortices and higher dimensions were a neat idea too. I can see a near overlap of our papers in the section you wrote:

"Omni-dimensional in nature - that is, of no fixed dimensionality itself, but perpetually expanding and sub-dividing into an infinite number of distinct dimensional systems, each representing a unique type of Cosmos - which is, in turn, sub-divided into its own internal fields".

I think you've hit on some very good points, that we need to assess if we've got things right since physics began and also we need to take an observer's consciousness into account.

Well done!

Best wishes,

Antony

Hi John,

Thanks a lot for your comment on my thread (topic 1810).

Some remarks while reading your contribution :

OUR physics began some 200.000 years ago in the present structure of our memeory.

I see history as changing every Planck time, with changing the life/time line in the what we call our past in time and the structure of "matter" in space.

This is the reason why I hope that in the future we will be able to choose our history line and make achoice for the one without anger and pain. Once we can do that every consciousness (individual) can choose his own reality, in fact we are already doing so but it is still an uncontrolable system of decoherence of subjective simultaneity spheres (see my essay : THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION, topic 913).

Your single field : The large room, is just one of the time/life lines in Total Simultaneity, but it describes "our" reality nicely. There are in my opinion still an infinity of "other" forms of consciousness that are receiving information in just other ways as just our five senses receivers.

The "folds" you mention have indeed always troubled our comprehensions because we just "invented" them as the explanation of a reality we think we are living in. It is not for nothing that 85% of our universe is so called black matter, we just cannot EXPLAIN it.

I like very much your omni dimensionality, it touches my Total Simultaneity, where all probabilities and possibillities and non possibiollities are available. The paralel universes are not together "present" but "available" for a consciousness.

The vortexes and pulsar fields you mention are your own forms of explanation of a reality as you are aware of, we are all researchers and seekers and once we are searching we compare the so called "forces" around us and are astonished, gravity is emerging but we want to deduct it to particles, it is just because we have only a view of 85% of our memory (history).

The degree of complexity is also relative , the "more" we think we know the less we understand. As Socrates one said : I am the wisest man , because I alone know that I know nothing".

thz 13 billion years old universe is only a moment in your consciousness, and perhaps in the future (whatever it is) this history will change to two moments, but what is a moment compared to a moment of understanding ?

the three field system (dimensions ?) : imagine a point, a point has no dimensions, so it is not existing in OUR dimensions, we imagine a point as a crosspoint between two lines, (between two one dimension entities), but apoint can very good exist without these lines in our consciousness. So indeed ALL dimensions are entities to make a causal universe possible. A causal universe where we are prisoners of time, so lets hope for a future where we master our causal consciousness and can reach our non-causal consciousness.

So John , I also could write an SF roman but I don't have the capacity of bringing text as an interesting reading.

I will reread your essay because a first read is not enough, and will also rate you positive because we have a lot of paralels in our causal awareness of reality.

Best regards

Wilhelmus

Dear John,

I am thankful for your attention to my work. I have read your comments and find there some points that fully acceptable for my. I will not start discussion on your some remarks because we are working in some different spheres and it will difficult bring in consensus of our basic approaches at all, to be have possibility got to a mutually acceptable conclusions. I hope you will agree with me. Meantime, I have read your interesting article and have find there one assertion, which is ,,energy vortex nature of primarily substance!,, My dear, I have come on similar confidence by totally other way! (see ref. [9] in my work)

I have rated your work as a ,,good,,. I see very necessary to have sections ,,abstract,, and ,,references,, in works, which can give more value to it.

Best wishes,

George