Dear Satyavarapu

Thanks for your comments and also for your's submitted essay, which is really encouraging.

The observers like us are digital, including instruments therein, because we are constituted by quantized or digitized ingredients or wave-corpuscular-phenomena and we are fundamentally unable to detect any analog messages apart from digital.

Of course according to modern scientific understanding, "matter" rather wave-corpuscular-phenomena, can not be created merely through thinking, because that process of thinking too inclined towards a digital process apart from spiritually mystic process of analog types.

The essay is fully based on all common experimental and established understandings in mainstream physics, particularly from cosmology, astrophysics,special relativity, quantum mechanics and so on.

Regards

Dipak

Hi Joe

Many thanks for the little & inspiring tweet comment.

Dipak

Dipak,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

    Dear Hoang,

    Thanks for your comments. But I doubt whether there would be really any 'absolute theory' of anything or nature forever for the observers like us. Because an absolute theory should have to be passed through tests every time and enough to disqualify even by a single test. Because our technological reach changes almost in every day as well as wisdom or perceptions about anything or nature is equally changing as well accordingly. At present, the property of quantization in all scales of systems (or wave-corpuscular-phenomena) is appeared as common in all micro to macro scales of systems in nature. Each of those scale specific quantize magnitudes are universally absolute to all observers' frames of reference but simultaneously relative to the magnitude of other scales.

    Otherwise its good.

    Dipak

    Jim,

    Thanks for good presentation. Apart from Anthropic views, both of our essays are probably on the same direction. Right now, we are not certain whether conscious part in an observer is analog in type or that could be explain digitally in near future as a super simulated artificial intelligence through neuro-digital-ways.

    As per current understandings, the Nature is there with all its inner dynamics and configurations of it's ingredients including digitized (and may or may not other types of) observers. Such an intrinsically digitized Observer (like us) would have only its own view or perception about that nature through his own range of observations. There would be remain the nature if there at any moment no observers like us. Therefore, he can not anthropically create any thing in nature as its one of parts, apart from his own views depend on the current observations. Those views have also the step wise modifications over the ages simultaneously along with the changes in wisdom based on the technological advancements.

    Dipak

    Dear Kumar,

    Thank you for reading my essay and inviting me to read yours.

    Yes, I like to have some poetry and visualization when it is possible.

    You tell us that each access to reality is digitized and I agree.

    But it occurs in a different way in classical physics and quantum mechanics.

    Myself I did measurements of the frequency of ultrasable clocks in the past; there I recovered the structure of rational numbers, you can easily google with the keyword "number theory and 1/f noise" and find my contributions. This is well in the spirit of what you are writing. Quantum physics is more seriously difficult in this respect in the sense that it undress in bits (the eigenvalues of qubit observables) and it is much more difficult to organize them. In addition the observer participates in the undressing as Wheeler explained.

    Best wishes,

    Michel

    Dear Dipak,

    May be you can browse this very well documented archive

    http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/physics.htm

    Best regards,

    Michel

      Dear Michel

      Thanks for the archive. Yes, of course, it "occurs in a different way in classical physics and quantum mechanics". From macro level it appears that "access to reality is digitized" but not necessarily always quantized; and from micro level access to reality is quantized but not merely digitized.

      Best wishes

      Dipak

      Dear Dipak Kumar Bhunia,

      I have read your paper and believe we overlap as follows: you support that nature is not (or cannot be proven to be) analog, and consider observers (us) to be digital: "then nature that perceives through such digits or quantum must appear as a digital." [and] "the digital observers (like us) have a natural limit to detect the nature non-digitally, even if it would be non-digital anywhere in its deeper levels beyond that digital limit. "

      This is a well-thought-out proposition, and the locus of our agreement seems to be here. I tend to believe that the deeper levels are non-digital, but, as you may recall, I view the transfer of information as energy transfer, that does, or does not cross a threshold. This is the digitization you refer to. If the threshold is crossed, then the digit is '1', else '0'. This sets the digital limit of observation. The crossing of the threshold results in a change in form or 'in-form-ation' of the contextual structure, and becomes 'information' at this point. It is, of course, the basis of all our observations.

      The details of the observed world are so rich that we cannot expect any two essays in this contest to agree upon all of them, but the basic mechanism seems to be in agreement.

      Thank you for reading and commenting upon my essay.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Edwin

        Thanks for the reply.

        Then all our quests seem to be such step after step

        'agreements'towards truth over the ages.

        All my best wishes & regards.

        Dipak

        Dear Hoang

        I'm "absolutely" agree with you. But hopefully the "communication" through the "messages" what I made to you may create a different "impact".

        However, I did not defined an "absolute theory" as merely "The absorption and transmission" of "information" to and fro the wave-corpuscular-phenomena. Rather I mean by that about our whole views related to the digital nature. I hope you must agree with me that (as per our ever changing views of the same nature with the progress of ages)our absolute theory concepts, say from Pluto or Aristotelian to Eisenstein or Quantum Mechanical, how it has step wise changed particularly with the advancement of our technological capabilities? That is why I wrote to you, I've doubt about any of such "absolute theory" concept for ever for the nature. Obviously such an "absolute" theory should have to pass through all the tests with time but could be enough to disqualify even by a single test which may contradict that theory. For example you can realize what was the fate of the classical ether theory in 19th century. There may be so many other similar examples too.

        Thanks for your "communication".

        Dipak

        Dear Dipak,

        Thanks for your comments over at my essay. I enjoyed yours too! Logical approach to explore whether reality is analogue or digital, followed by a thorough examination of Bit from It and It from Bit, concluding that they are "mirror" like in their foundations - something we seem to agree upon.

        The left handed nature you mention also seems to be back neutrinos nature versus antimatter.

        Best wishes for the contest,

        Antony

          Dear Dipak,

          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

          Dipak,

          I found that a very original and fascinating essay, carefully constructed and argued and certainly with some likely truths. I liked your

          "intrinsic quantization in both 'bit' and 'it" qualified by "observers (like us) have a natural limit to detect the nature non-digitally, even if it would be non-digital anywhere in its deeper levels"

          I did felt the lack of a comprehensive definition of the difference between digital and analogue as you saw them, but that wasn't important as it allows each reader to apply his own if he wishes. I'd none the less be interested in your specification.

          Finally I very much liked and agreed with your concept of time as a left handed flow and Inertial Anti-time: "there would be a mirror image counter part of t" That is somewhat consistent with a finding of my own in an earlier paper on astrophysics (not discussed here), but a very original approach.

          Lastly the important; "Special Relativity Principles correspond to c becomes Local", which I also argue and rationalise in my last two essays here, but still seems poorly understood by most. Some consequences of that model are applied to build an ontological construction in my own essay with, I hope interesting results. I hope you can find a chance to read and rate it. Your own position is ridiculously low and I'm very glad to assist you to a better place.

          Well done

          Peter

            Dear Peter

            Congratulations for your "IQbit"; and also thanks for some inspiring comments on my essay. I really like your essay very much as well.

            "The correlations predicted by QM appear classically impossible without spooky action at a distance or superluminal signalling" in entanglement processes is definitely inevitable. But I like to say here(in support of you) whether an intervention of a "mirror" in between two or more entangled particles would be more helpful to understand that event better?

            If two entangled particles or systems or a wave-corpuscular-phenomena (say A & B)suppose to have an 'inseparable & imaginary mirror' in-between. Then image counter parts say A2 & B2 of both A & B are also inverse to other parts say A1 & B1. Therefore, any change which can occur in say in A1 must be instanteneously create a change in the B1 part too. In my essay, it can define that, in mirror image (and inverse)relationship in-between 'non-void space' and 'non-void Anti-space', as far as A1 & B1 in once entangled A & B would be separated in 'space' their mirror image counter parts A2 & B2 would be instantaneously come closer and closer together in 'Anti-space' and vice versa. That is, the entangled pair of particles can be considered that they are never been completely separated in terms of their 'Space' & 'Anti-space' or 'Time' & 'Anti-time' or 'Inertial mass' & 'Inertial motion'.

            I definitely rate your essay at higher end of the scale and of course I would be glad to have your assistance for "better place".

            Thanks & regards

            Dipak

            Hi Joe

            Can you consider my essay for any rating?

            Regards

            Dipak Kumar Bhunia

            http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855

            Dear Antony

            Thanks for agreeing on my mirror concepts.

            I'm also wishing you best in the contest.

            Can you consider me for any rating? I'll doing of you.

            Dipak

            So? If "concept of the "vacuum" - is have nothing - is a vague imagination and unrealistic. So will be can not any measure can be specified to it"... then why the most funny people like you are wasting your time to proof "ether" back". I will be happy if kindly stop here to reply!

            Thanks!