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

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

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....

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

John

Say hello to dad

Yuri

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

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your post in our thread. We have replied it there. We have read your essay cursorily. Soon we will give detailed comments on your essay here. We will also rate your essay soon.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

You description of "Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms", reminds us of the ancient treatise "Kanaada Sootras", which describes these as "Vishaya" - meaning "object", "Sharira" or body, and "Indriya" or instruments of sensory perception respectively. This, he applies to each (5) type of perception. Unfortunately, it is very precise and its detailed commentaries by Atri and Ravan that explained the science are lost. We will describe our understanding of those.

In the mechanism of perception, each sense organ perceives different kind of impulses related to the fundamental forces of Nature. Eyes see form by measuring (comparing) the electromagnetic field set up by the object with that of the electrons in our cornea, which is the unit. Thus, we cannot see in total darkness because there is nothing comparable to this unit. Tongue perceives the chemical composition when the object is dissolved in the mouth, which is macro equivalent of the weak nuclear interaction that leads to changing chemistry. Nose perceives the distinguishing characteristics of the mass of the object, when the finer parts of an object are brought in close contact with the smell buds, which is macro equivalent of the strong nuclear interaction. Skin perceives heat and cold when they are in motion leaving the body that is macro equivalent of the radioactive disintegration. Ears hear sound waves that come near or recede from us or stay at a fixed distance (all signifying the relation between two bodies) that is macro equivalent of the gravitational interaction (see our comment in our thread).

Individually the perception has no meaning. For example, what we see is the radiation emanating from out of the body and not the body proper. What we touch is the state of the mass that emits radiation and not the radiation it emits. Since eyes cannot touch or hand cannot see, individually they cannot describe the body fully. They become information and acquire meaning only when they are pooled and stable in our memory. In the lower animals, all the sense organs are not fully developed. Hence their capacity to function in tandem is limited. Thus, they only respond to situations based on memory. In human beings, the sense organs are fully developed. Hence they not only respond to situations, but also plan future strategies. This is the difference between them.

Since all these sensory perceptions are nothing but measurement of the objects in space in time, they are not ghostly, but real. Measurement implies the existence of the Conscious Agent who does the measurement of an object in space in time using an apparatus (of sensory perception). The result of measurement is information about the "physical Cosmos of Atoms and organic matter" stored for future use. Thus, they are related. All perceptions require energy to reveal the object and take the reading. In fact, energy connects both. But information or perception is not energy, but stored stable data.

The Cosmos appears to be a single field for two reasons: First, as the background structure (a General Field of Cosmae), it is common to all. Secondly, perception of information is common to all. The content of all perceptions is: "I know.....". This part is common in all perceptions, though the object of perception change. Without this commonality, there cannot be communication. What we express must be understood by others exactly as the same. The gaps are not in the field, but in the non-linear distribution of mass and energy that seem to violate the integrity of the common description (density) and not that of the single field.

We hold that mind (Information-Assumption), which is also an instrument of perception, functions mechanically and thought is the inertia of mind. Once we receive an external impulse, our mind compares it with all stored similar or related impulses due to inertia that we call as the train of thought. Like inertia of motion is destroyed due to air friction, gravitational attraction or impact with other bodies, thought is destroyed by evaluating the impulse with all stored memory (knowing whatever is possible), getting the object of desire or pain that distracts our attention.

The states of matter are described by their dimension, which differentiate the "internal structural space" - bare mass, from the "external relational space" - the radiative mass. It is perceived through electromagnetic radiation (ocular perception), where an electric field and a magnetic field, move perpendicular to each other and also to the direction of their motion. Thus, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. For this reason, we classify the states of matter as solid, fluid or gaseous, depending upon whether the dimension is fixed, unfixed but bound or unbound. Plasma belongs to a different state altogether.

The curvature of Cosmos can be viewed in two ways: As we have explained, equilibrium of a body ends and motion begins when one of the forces stabilizing it is overpowered or removed. This application or removal of force has a direction. On motion, the body interacts with the field or other bodies and its inertia of motion gets affected making it behave like a projective tracing out a curved path. Reaction of the field to this curved path creates a bow-shock effect, creating a wave pattern. Thus, all bodies or energy flows move in wave like trajectories. Since the space, which provides the background structure, is interval between bodies, it can not be described as a physical object perceived through our sense organs. Thus, we use alternative symbolism to describe it by the curvature of the objects. Thus, instead of Principal Vortices, it will be better to state the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms as representing the tripod of the Cosmos.

Your concept of gravito-magnetic force is very important. Black holes, which are macro examples of neutrons in atoms, are more a magnetic phenomenon than a gravitational phenomenon. Thus, we find the strongest magnetic fields at neutron stars and black holes. Protons are macro equivalents of Jupiter like planets. We have shown their similarities elsewhere. Just like n-p cycle creates the energy that binds the atom, the interaction of mini black-holes and big Jupiter like planets flare up as stars and galaxies. The resultant force acts upon the system as a whole. We hold that unless the five fundamental forces of Nature (including radioactive disintegration) are present, no structure would be stable. Earlier, we have shown how the five forces are different representations of the same force. Hence, you views are correct.

Regards,

basudeba

Hello John

Thank you for your comments on my essay.

I have read your essay. I felt your argument was insufficiently supported. I'm not saying its 'wrong', just that the evidence seems coincidental, and the ideas lack any causal connection beyond description.

Apologies if this seems harsh, and maybe it is because of the word limit prevented space to properly establish your case (I found this challenging also). I look forward to next year's entry to see how you have improved the argument.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi