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

Thanks, Sir

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Dear Sir,

This is our letter to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic - "complex, even inexplicable behavior". Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of "the deer population in Northern Michigan", is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

Infinities are like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others - every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use "a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers", you do just that through "comparison and exchange instructions". You develop these by "inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by 'mating' parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated" and repeat it "thousands upon thousands of time" till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought "evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible". After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area - the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally 'illuminates' the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

I hope to have something to say about your essay, before day's end John..

Best wishes,

Jonathan

John, Highly speculative but you are one to see the forest then work down to the trees. This was a delight to read in that you offered imaginative solutions to age-old (200,000 years) problems. Thanks for contacting me. -Darrell Poeppelmeyer

Dear John,

You describe an intriguing, speculative view, combining physics with biology and philosophy. It seems that there are some strong relations between these fields, in the problem of it from bit vs bit from it. Good luck with the explorations and the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Hi John!

You may recall that we corresponded at the beginning; I was one of the first people to reach out to you, because when I read your essay, I was struck by the similarity of our thinking on several main points. You kindly responded right away, but mentioned that you had trouble downloading my essay. I wrote back and provided the link, but didn't hear back again. Were you ever able to access it?

Either way, I do hope that we'll stay in touch in the future. I would enjoy sharing thoughts and ideas with some of the like-minded/open-minded people I've met recently.

Best to you!

Ralph

Dear John,

No judgement below although I found Ojo's report extremely attractive.

As a complement to our previous interaction, I copy part of a recent post (to Gordon Watson) that may be relevant to the discussion we had.

******************

Concerning counterfactuality, as soon as a good theory of quantum observability is written, one will be able to check it as others assumpions in science. I claim that Grothendieck's approach with dessins d'enfants is an excellent starting point because it has all attributes of an archetype (read Dickau's essay) or a monad (read Ojo's essay) and other good ontological properties which I don't list here. Topos theory is not too far.

There are important essays here that pushed me to see the dessins d'enfants as "explicate imprints" of a more general (possibly spatio-temporal) algebraic geometry. I have in mind the Hopf fibrations as an excellent tool. For example you can lift S2 (the Riemann sphere) to S3 (the 3-sphere, i.e. the space of a single qubit (Jackson's intelligent qubit?), also the conformally compactified Minkowski space (see Matlock' essay and in relation to Bell's theorem Joy Christian 'realistic' approach).

Local/nonlocal arguments are insufficient, I think, mathematics should help in revealing the hidden machinary of the physical and ontological universe. May be this is Einstein's dream, not contradicting Wheeler, at the end of the day because we are, more or less, their children in knowledge.

************

May be this type of ontological/physical approach may be operational in other contexts such as the mind/body duality, i still do not know.

Kind regards,

Michel

John, as you may be aware, FQXi has just been moved to a new server and many people have found that posts are missing. The post I sent to you on the 1st or 2nd of August is missing, so I am resending the post in case it never gets restored:

Dear John,

I liked the fact that your essay is clearly and beautifully written, with a very natural progression of assertions and arguments.

You build a picture of three types of complex vortices (Inorganic, Organic and Sensory-Cognitive) interacting with a "General Field of Cosmae", with a fourth type likely to form which will allow us to:

"participate ever more intricately in the creation of Information...we will manipulate Bits and alter their nature - transforming them into tools of dimensional exploration that will enable us to peer into those gaps that were our impassable borders till now...this path leading to future generations that will be as divergent from us as we are from animals"

This is a techno-optimist science-fiction-like view of reality.

However there seems to be at least one flaw in your argument: You assert that the Primal Particle in the Organic Vortex is Omni-dimensional, while microorganisms are Intermediary Particles and DNA are Composite Particles. You also assert that the Primal Particles evolve to the more complex Intermediary Particles, which in turn evolve to the more complex Composite Particles. But surely it doesn't make sense to (in effect) assert that microorganisms are less complex than DNA and that DNA evolved from microorganisms?

I can see that we come to several similar conclusions about reality, e.g. that information is subjective experience, and that new categories of information evolve - but it's clear that the underlying mechanisms we propose are very different!

I congratulate you for building a very complex, convincing and original view of the nature of reality.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz:

I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

Maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Dear john stephan selye:

What I wrote is for you I directed to the wrong person, whos name came from my list of names sorry

Héctor D. Gianni

Dear All

A standard-issue big city all-glass high-rise stands across the street from my usual bus stop. When I look up the high-rise facade, I can see the reflections of the near-by buildings and the white clouds from the sky above. Even when everything else looks pretty much the same, the reflections of the clouds are different, hour to hour and day to day.

After I boarded the bus, I rushed to get a single seat facing four others on a slightly elevated platorm. From my vantage point, I can't help noticing the shoes of the four passengers across from my seat are not the same, by either the make , the design, or the style, and that is true even when the four passengers happen to be members of the same family.

I could change the objects of my fascination from shoes to something else, to buttons on the dresses for example, but I do not think the result would have been any different. Diversity or Uniqueness would still rule the day! (There is a delightful essay on the subject of uniqueness by Joe Fisher in this contest.)

I am pretty sure people are fascinated by the diversity and the uniqueness in the world, when the other side of it is the inevitable boredom of sameness every time.

However, we have a need to know where all this beautiful and enchanting diversity comes from. Borrowing Wheelerian phraseology of "How come the quantum?", I ask "How come the diversity?" A standard physics answer is "Entropy always increases." (I am not a physicist, and I don't know if that is the final answer.)

Whenever I'm out of my depth, I go back to my theory of everything (TOE), which is a mental brew of common sense, intuition, gut, analogy, judgement, etc. etc. , buttressed when I can with a little thought-experiment.

The thought-experiment is simple. Imagine cutting a circle into two precisely, identical, and equal parts. Practically, there is no way we can get the desired result, because one part will be bigger or smaller in some way.

Physics - especially quantum physics - says it don't matter, do the superposition!

But superposition is fictive, an invention like the Macarena dance, and it has given us a cat, alive and dead at the same time.

I have heard that angels can dance on the tip of the needle, and now I'm finding out some of us can too!

Cheers and Good Luck to All,

Than Tin