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

    Dear John,

    Already have a download of your essay. Was going to invite you to my page anyway. I will certainly be back here after reading.

    Regards,

    Chidi

      "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..

      Thanks for your comments on my essay forum. I'll be reading your essay tonight or tomorrow, and will return here with comments.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        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

        Dear John,

        I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

        Regards and good luck in the contest,

        Sreenath BN.

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

        Dear John

        Thank you for comment.

        Are you relative with my favorite scientist?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Selye

        Good luck in contest.

        Yuri

          Yes, Yuri - he was my father. I'm glad he's your favorite scientist - when you've had a chance to read my essay, let me know if I can be number two!

          John

          His book "From Dream to Discovery" on my book shelf right now....

          Russian translation.

          I am read his other books too

          Why your last name no cap letter?

          Also my favorite quote on the entrance Stress institute

          about observability and original approach for scientist....

            Great Jonathan -

            Looking forward to hearing from you!

            John

            Hi Yuri -

            The original approach is always the key, isn't it?

            (No caps ... just a typo, I think.)

            John

            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

              Dear sir -

              I thank you for your kind comments.

              I will certainly try to read your essay. ( Have you read mine?)

              John

              To science writer John from his Dad.

              Although I had learned a lot about Dr. Selye and his Institute from my colleague and good friend, at the main entrance, near the elevator, there was the inscription:

              "Neither the prestige of your subject, and the power of your instruments, nor the extent of your learnedness and the precision of your planning, can substitute for the originality of your approach and the keeness of your observation."

              Hans Selye

              Hi John,

              "...we came to dominate our environment, and its creatures, by manipulating Bit and

              It..."

              That is very common misconception about the evolution. The only scientific theory of evolution is that Darwinian one. Its modern version tells us that the genes (and not biological organisms) are evolving entities. The genes are pieces of information (Bit). So in fact Bit is manipulating us and not vice versa. Our mind and consciousness are only phenotypes. You said that Bit is not DNA. OK, it is something more than that. But DNA is a form of Bit.

              We do not dominate our environment. There is only 7 billion people and billions of billions of other biological organisms that partially share the same genes. Some of that genes have dominated their (not our) environment. So in a sense the information (as Bit and It) have dominated the spacetime. Also memes (another pieces of information) that create the essays fight each other to unconsciously dominate the contest and physics.

              In my view everything (also the genes being an information or a piece of matter) is only a wavepacket (a deformed spacetime region).

              Best regards

              Hello Jacek -

              Darwinism is the only interpretation of evolution currently accepted by science; but it is important to always exert our logic and pursue our inquiries beyond what is currently accepted - or evolution stops.

              It is by exerting our minds, and acquiring the skill to do so, that we developed tools, weapons, language, and technology. We also developed social structures such as marriages, and classes, legal systems, and so on.

              It is perfectly impossible to survey this panorama of history, and the growth of the mind that consistently dominates it, and to say that this in no way distinguishes us from turtles and worms, and that evolution is really only taking place by chance.

              It is also impossible to say that this effect of the mind does not in itself further the development the mind.

              When I say we came to dominate the planet, I mean that we've reached a certain platform - for instance, we need not fear a great many other animals as much as we used to, and we have acquired a great measure of access to resources so we can build cities, and produce medicines, etc.

              Of course, it's understood that we're still vulnerable and that evolution never ends; but we have moved on to other fields of inquiry - and palpably to a broader field of inquiry.

              I cannot therefore simply state that everything is a deformity of space-time, and leave it at that. But I do thank you for reading my paper, and for your thoughts.

              Best regards,

              John