John,

A very imaginative essay. Your sentence "Further into the future, it can be expected that we will be able to predict the dissolution and recurrence of facts themselves - given the orbital nature of Vortices and if so, we might well sub-divide humanity into groups that will perceive different facts, and variant systems of reality." caught me a bit off guard. At first this thought was disturbing, but don't we already do this now? We need imaginative writers to probe not only what we don't know but also to question whether we have considered all perspectives. I do have some issues with your use of vortices, and what you mean by that, but I think this may be due to a limit of ideas explored. I have rated your work highly, and many thanks for the review.

Regards,

Jeff

    Hi John,

    I found your essay difficult to understand at first, as it has no references to explain the terms it uses, and no sections to divide the flow of narrative. But then I let your images work with me, and it opened up like a work of literature, a kind of stream of consciousness as James Joyce might write. What I initially saw as a deficiency became an asset.

    It occurs to me that the essay is rather like the cosmos itself, a continual Creation Story that tumbles ahead heedless of our comprehension. The cosmos does not explain itself, it just presents itself to us, and that is a good part of its mystery, and its charm. It just is what it is, and enchants us or not. As regards the cosmos, I could argue with it, or accept it, but what do I know? I am only a part of it anyway, after all.

    I realize that the organizers did not ask us to produce a scientific proof of a theory for this essay contest. We were not asked to be right, just to be interesting and on topic. I do not know whether to judge your essay as literature or as science, but in the end I find a lot to admire in this bold and original mirror of the cosmos itself. Perhaps only by looking back after we have a Theory of Everything can we really know its value.

    I think the closest thing I have come across to your ideas are those of Edward Close and Vernon Neppe and their TDVP model. Perhaps their work will be helpful to you.

    And you may enjoy Mark Peterson's article regarding Dante's Divine Comedy. He shows that Dante was describing, in a literary masterpiece, the S3 hypersphere, which may just be the Correlated Vortex System that you describe.

    Hugh

      Thank-you for your beautifully expressed and sincere critique, Hugh. I am very touched ...

      I will definitely check out Close and Neppe - and the essay on Dante sounds very interesting, too. Thanks for these recommendations.

      I wish you the very best of luck in the contest,

      Best regards,

      John.

      Dear John,

      I read your essay with great pleasure. An essay written by a beautiful language and it is easy to read. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions. I largely agree with you, and fairly priced essay...

      Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution 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

      I have only one question: why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

      I wish you success,

      Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir,

        I'm delighted you enjoyed the essay. It really means a lot to me when any of my color-musical cognitive images affect someone else's essence, as you can well imagine - and therefore, I thank-you, and I will look up Alexander Zenkin.

        I also really liked the video - but you have to understand, we're all involved ... the 'physicist' is simply anyone who interacts with the physical world: someone who makes musical instruments, for instance - or the sound machines, or the cameras and the lights.

        There's more than two people on that stage: ultimately, everyone's involved.

        All the best, my friend -

        John

        "Though modern Physics is striving to master dimensionality itself - to discover where space-time begins and ends, both within Particles, and in the farthest reaches of the Cosmos - the complex root system that sustains Physics also impels it to explore Information as a fundamental component of the Cosmos; and in order to do so, Physics must trace the coils of the Organic, Inorganic, and Sensory-Cognitive systems to that merging point that first bound Bit to It."

        Well said. Couldn't agree more and was an element of the tail end of my submission as well. Nice read.

        Regards,

        John

        Hi John,

        So sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I forgot to look at your thread to see if you had responded. I'm unaware of a problem, but here's the link in case that helps:

        http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1910

        I read your essay again for the 3rd time. I must say that in addition to your excellent writing style (you should seriously consider becoming a New York based science writer or editor, or something along those lines . . .) you are squarely focused on what I consider to be the central area we should be direct our efforts toward a better understanding of the cosmos and our place within it. Without question, we need to develop a paradigm "that would enable the various branches of Physics to examine the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive phenomena of the Cosmos within a single mathematical and empirical framework. This Paradigm will then be developed in detail, based on new assumptions that reveal the Observer and the Cosmos as being involved in a 'gear-mesh' system that establishes their reciprocal interaction . . ."

        I couldn't agree more. Again, I look forward to corresponding with you in the future, if you are so inclined. I think there is the possibility of shared interests in our thinking.

        Best to you,

        Ralph

        Hello John

        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