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!

      Dipak,

      I agree you proposition of mirror symmetry, but as the real relation between the so called 'singlet state' pairs, so I don't need to invoke and real 'anti space' to find the same result. I've scored you essay very high as I am convinced the solution is correct and valuable, however described.

      But there is then no inevitability about FTL because there is another parameter not allowed for by Bell. The pairs have opposite spin but the same spin axis orientation as orbital angular momentum. Detector settings will then be reciprocal, and uncertainty increase at each detector when settings are not identical or opposite around the 360 degree orbit. I hope you then also consider mine worth a top score. The experimental evidence of this is shown in the link to the expanded essay in the top blog post, with the additional figure towards the end.

      Best of luck in the results.

      Peter

      Hi Deepak -

      I think many of your conclusions concur with mine, though I produce a more structural, or physical version of the Cosmos.

      It seems you conclude that It and Bit are correlated, which is the same conclusion I reach - but again in different terms.

      I hope you'll be kind enough to read and rate my essay, and I wish you all the best in the competition,

      John

        Dear Dipak,

        Yes let me know on my thread if you want me to rate soon, otherwise I'll probably do so when I've read all essays.

        Best wishes,

        Antony

        Hello John,

        Thanks for your reply on my essay. I read your essay as well. I rated your essay and I also request you too to rate my submission.

        However, instead of simply 'bit' in your essay, I call rather 'vbit'. The three vbit's: inorganic, organic and neuro-cognitive are e comprised the nature 'it', where 'it' and 'bit' are inseparable. We are proceeded towards obviously same direction of thinking but approaches are different.

        Regards

        Dipak

        Dear Kumar,

        Thanks for your attention to my work. I understand that it written not vein because many people have reading it with enough interest. I have rated your work by quick acquaintance as a good, but my comments I hope I will send you later (now is tensioned time, as we understand!) I can just suggest you to use more references and more certainly formulated conclusions/resume. Please in your free time to read the references in my work. I hope that these will some useful and interesting for you. Particularly about old dilemma of duality problem, you can find some more.

        I wish you all of the best,

        George

          George

          Thanks for your comments and rating on my essay.

          I also need to keep in touch in future and sincerely want your

          precise constructing comments.

          Wishing you best in contest.

          Regards

          Dipak

          Hi Dipak,

          Enjoyed you essay. I think it is just the two of us who say "two sides of the same coin" as describing the situation of -it from bit or bit from it-.

          We differ a bit in how to interpret the deBroglie wavelength. I believe the deBroglie equation is a better wave equation than the Schrodinger for photons and particles below the Planck mass. Above the Planck mass I believe that masses no longer have the property of wavelength, and essentially become "analog" to use your phrase.

          Still we have a lot in common.

          Don Limuti

            Hi Don,

            I enjoyed your essay equally.

            Obviously,above Planck mass, the wavelength of particles/systems are not visible or may not even perceivable to us, but you must agree that if one can manage to see the same masses from other side of the "coin", a kind of scale specific quantize "radius" could be visible or appeared there.

            I again convinced from your essay that, to understand better about any "analog" part (if any) for nature, your quote from Ramakrishna related to the example of a salt grain (consider a "digital observer" in my essay)who tries to measure the depth of a sea (say that "analog" part of nature)would be good proposition what I wrote. A salt grain can not measure the depth of sea by simply dipping into that sea. That's the limitation for a salt grain. Equally there is a limitation for the digital (or quantize) observer to observe "analog" part of nature in its deeper level if there any.

            Can I expect any rating on my essay?

            Regards & thanks

            Dipak

            Dear Dipak,

            I am glad to read your lucid essay because you are a student of philosophy, whereas I am a philosopher. It is good to note that you have given equal importance to both It and Bit, and also that both are inseparable. You have given primary importance to 'digital' nature of reality rather than to 'analog' nature of reality and also you have given reasons for it. Digital nature of reality follows from the quantum mechanics but analog nature of reality follows from the classical physics. For computer programming digital nature is preferred and so you seem to have opted for it.

            In the equation (1), m. λ = h/c, here λ corresponds to Compton wave length rather than to de Broglie's wave length, because you have used 'c' instead of 'v' for velocity. If you use 'v' then λ means Broglie's wave length. Please check up.

            You have treated both micro and macro scales on the same footing based on your concept of MMSS. Thanks for writing a smooth going essay with full of bright and intelligent points, and wish you best of luck in the essay contest. Make your essay available to others in the fqxi essay community by posting in their threads and also for rating; have a look at my essay also (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and express your comments on it in my thread. More after you post your comments.

            Regards,

            Sreenath

              Dear Sreenath,

              Its my extreme pleasure to read your comments and advice.

              However in some broader aspect (i.e. for MMSS) in a very generalize sense, I have tried to use the term "de Broglie wavelength" which is nothing but the 'matter wave' in wave corpuscular duality propositions by de Broglie. On contrary the "crompton wavelength" usually used in respect of photons or other micro scales of particles. In Wikipedia also, such terms are almost defined in such a manner.

              But, whatever that may be, my sincere thanks and gratitude to you to point it out from one philosopher's point of view. In future I will definitely cautious while I will encounter with these terms.

              Also many thanks for your advice how to reach better to the FQXi Community and I will try to do that.

              I'm also reading your submission and try to make my comments on it of my earliest.

              With my best regards and wishing you best luck in this contest too.

              Dipak

              Dear Dipak,

              Your essay is truly the work of a philosopher and deep thinker. We share the same digital philosophy so I am rating your essay 8. You may also check my essay which contains a dose of philosophy and a description for 'digital motion'.

              My best regards,

              Akinbo

                Dear Dipak,

                when I read your paper I felt indeed some similarity to my own ideas, in particular with respect to your view of the "velocity of light". I am convinced that the "velocity of light" is actually given twice - in a wave-like version and in a particle-like version. It follows as such QM as supposed by you.

                In my 2012-FQXI-paper "Is the Speed of Light of Dual Nature?" I've presented a popular paper about this idea.This idea leads us - as conceived by me - directly into the realm of (Eastern) spirituality.

                Kind regards

                Helmut