Dear Hugh,

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

Hugh,

WOW, I must say I truly appreciated your objective and analytical approach to the topic at hand! The fact that you are a software developer I also find intriguing since I, and several physicists interested in the findings of my work, are looking into developing new algorithms to apply this new paradigm.

When you get the chance, I would appreciate if you could review my essay and let me know if you would be interested in further discussions. My email address is on the essay:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Regards,

Manuel

    Hello Hugh,

    I very much enjoyed your essay. Very engaging and interesting. I liked that you explored various aspects of the cosmos and objectively displayed historical takes on it. I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire picture.

    I work around geometry, which is why I liked the fractal approach. I've partly unified the four forces of nature using a geometric approach (not in my essay), which also resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. Interesting that you point out the mass of the Proton from modelling it as a geometric Black Hole. My model geometrically links the masses of the proton, neutron and electron to 99.999988% of prediction. Further, as the data for these masses has been refined over the last few years, the result has improved constantly.

    In my essay you might like the Fibonacci approach. You mentioned Software and Hardware - maybe the Fibonacci sequence is the firmware.....?

    Anyway, well done for producing what I consider to be one of the best essays in the contest. Top marks from me!

    Best wishes for the contest!

    Antony

    Hello Hugh,

    I very much enjoyed your essay. Very engaging and interesting. I liked that you explored various aspects of the cosmos and objectively displayed historical takes on it. I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire picture.

    I work around geometry, which is why I liked the fractal approach. I've partly unified the four forces of nature using a geometric approach (not in my essay), which also resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. Interesting that you point out the mass of the Proton from modelling it as a geometric Black Hole. My model geometrically links the masses of the proton, neutron and electron to 99.999988% of prediction. Further, as the data for these masses has been refined over the last few years, the result has improved constantly.

    In my essay you might like the Fibonacci approach. You mentioned Software and Hardware - maybe the Fibonacci sequence is the firmware.....?

    Anyway, well done for producing what I consider to be one of the best essays in the contest. Top marks from me!

    Best wishes for the contest!

    Antony

      Hugh,

      I am pleased that my high rating of your essay (10) has helped move your well deserved essay up in the community standings. I was wondering if you had the time to review my essay, and if so, return my rating of your essay in kind if you see fit to do so.

      Best wishes,

      Manuel

      Hugh,

      Great essay. Fascinating to see a view from a software architect. Also relevant, original, well written, and arranged, so all boxes ticked.

      Your comments on Bell interested me as I construct an ontology via a 3D geometry with motion leading to a resolution of the EPR paradox with no FTL, as vo Neumann proposed (the uncertainty emerging at each detector). I'd completely somehow missed Recursive Quantum Gauge Theory it seems, as that seems to parallels and probably precurses my own model. Thank you for that. I'll check it out the moment I stop essay reading!

      As you're familiar with it I hope you may read my essay and look for connections. Mine starts from a holistic model appearing to unite SR and QM which I've discussed in my last 3 successful essays here, interestingly dynamic and hierarchically 'fractal', deriving a coherent and exciting solution to the quasar issue. Again I hadn't read the papers you referred and have them piled up!

      Thanks for that, and a great essay. Worth a higher mark. I hope you can follow mine and look forward to your comments, particularly on the Bell solution which I believe largely consistent with Joy's.

      Best wishes

      Peter

        Dear Hugh,

        I have replied to your comments in my thread. I will read your essay and shortly post my comments on it in your thread.

        Best wishes,

        Sreenath

          Dear Hugh,

          Great essay well showing all the interesting maths one needs to improve our understanding of the real world. I hope you will have time to read mine by the end of the game.

          http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

          More comments soon.

          A high rate in preparation.

          Good luck,

          Michel

          Hugh,

          Thank you for stopping by my essay page and for your comments. I will reply to them soon. I have noticed that you have chosen not reciprocated my support of your essay. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that your essay should make it to the finals and I wish you the best of luck in the competition.

          Regards,

          Manuel

          Hi Vladimir,

          I went through your Beautiful Universe Theory web page briefly, and what I saw was lovely, and I think, generally consonant with my own views. After the contest I will go back and study it in detail, but it appears to be consistent with a computational approach that defines an "architectural layer" for the physical world. In other words, your "nodes" are the "pixels" in a simulated world such as I describe. However, there may be a philosophical difference in our views, as I think the simulation paradigm can reach below the material level of reality.

          Complex hardware and software systems are usually layered, with each layer interface defined by an "architectural contract" that sets the rules that a lower layer must implement, and that an upper layer can depend on. Upper layers have little information on how lower layers operate (upper layers know only the architectural contract, not the implementation details). Yet upper layers are completely dependent on the lower layers for their operations.

          Lower layers, by contrast, are informed when upper layers do something. They are responsible for carrying out the orders of the upper layers, and so they need to know what is ordered, if not why.

          We can use the word "animate" to refer to the operation of a lower layer that provides the operations in support a higher layer of computation. In this sense, physical computers "animate" a virtual world like Second Life. They provide all the calculations that move things around in that world. The "architectural contract" here are the laws of physics for Second Life.

          As regards our physical world, the conventional view is that Matter is the foundation, and that Life and later, Mind emerges from that substrate. In other words, Matter animates Life and Life animates Mind.

          I would suggest, rather, that Life animates Matter instead of Matter animating Life. Likewise, I think that Mind animates Life and Spirit animates Mind. Defining what these intuitions mean mathematically is a research project, but posing the question in terms of software design allows us to take a new approach to an old philosophical question.

          Hugh

          Hi Manuel,

          I have not voted on any essays yet. My planned procedure is to read as many as I can, then rank them and allow myself (say) one 10, two 9s, three 8s, and so on. Is there a way to tell what rating other community members have given you?

          Hugh

          Hi Antony,

          Thanks so much for your comments. You wrote:

          > I think that it is important that you touched on so many aspects of physics rather than shy away as other essays have done. If we are every to have a theory of everything, we need to look at the entire picture.

          I very much agree with you, in cosmology particularily we need generalists and philosophers as well as theoretical specialists. Otherwise I think it can be difficult for specialists to tell the difference between anomalies that are part of the normal unknowns of science and those that indicate that the foundational assumptions of a given approach must be wrong.

          > In my essay you might like the Fibonacci approach. You mentioned Software and Hardware - maybe the Fibonacci sequence is the firmware.....?

          Yes, I think something like that is happening. A large scale software system is divided into layers, with architectural boundaries defined by interfaces. Below each boundary is the implementation of the interface, and above the users of it.

          To make best sense of the cosmos, I think that we must place the layers as follows: Mind is below (and animates) Life which is below (and animates) Matter. It is in the definition of the Life layer that the Fibonacci sequence plays an important role, and it is this layer which is the foundation for, not only Life, but music and art as well. These pre-exist and form the foundation for the material world.

          > Anyway, well done for producing what I consider to be one of the best essays in the contest. Top marks from me!

          Thanks again!

          Hugh

          Dear Hughes,

          I am quite sensitive to your (software) picture of the cosmos for the following reasons

          1) First but not least, I understand it. I already met (not physically except for Carlos Castro and Laurent Noittale) most of authors you refer to.

          2) Your model is relevant, interesting, of wide range and influencial.

          3) The S3 sphere has several clothes (i) the conformally compactified Minkowski space, as you mention,

          (ii) the single qubit (Peter Jackson call it the intelligent qubit!)

          as described in quant-ph/0310053, R. Mosseri, "Two and Three Qubits Geometry and Hopf Fibrations"

          with the Hopf fibration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopf_fibration

          (iv) Dirac Monopole

          , just to cite a few.

          The Hopf fibration of S3 by great circles S1 and base space S2 is that interests me here.

          This is because, in my essay, one important object is S2 (that can be seen as the Bloch sphere, the

          Riemann sphere or complex projective line CP1, you can see http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1005.1997).

          Many Dessins d'enfants (those of genus 0) arise from S2 (say) with three singular points 0,1 and infty.

          The idea would be to lift them to S3, through the inverse Hopf map, endowed with three rigidified circles corresponding

          to aforementioned singular points. I wonder is such a picture was ever imagined.

          This would be an instance of your implicate to explicate projection, I suspect.

          Good luck,

          Michel

            Hi Hugh,

            My pleasure. You deserved a great score for a great essay. Thanks for the comments over on my page. I've replied.

            Best wishes for the contest,

            Antony

            Hello Hugh,

            A very high mark to you. Now I do not understand everything you are doing, but in the best Don Quixote fashion you are (going to model reality) modeling reality. Doing this modeling will keep you very honest. Much more honest than John Wheeler, who in my opinion turned physics and a whole bunch of physicists into mystery monger's. Once you have your models in place, try out lambda-hopping as part of your implicit model.

            There is something about Calvin and Hobbes that gets real close to reality.

            What can you say to Don Quixote but: God be with you!

              I just wanted to let you know that Software Cosmos is on my Radar..

              Best,

              Jonathan

              Hugh,

              You asked, "Is there a way to tell what rating other community members have given you?"

              Yes and No. What I have found out so far is that as your rating and the number times it has been rated increases, the higher the rating needs to be in order increase someone's rating. However, this rating system is designed for entrants to cut throat each other by rating each other low instead of preventing such underhanded activity. What I find unfortunate about this system is that it makes science look petty and opinionated instead of being based on objectivity based on empirical standards.

              If you feel that you cannot return my high rating of your essay (you can email me for what that was - msm@physicsofdestiny.com), then I humbly ask that you do not rate it at all. I like to keep thing positive. So the way I see it, no harm - no foul.

              Best wishes,

              Manuel

              Dear Hugh,

              The whole theme of your wonderful essay is based on differentiating between two states of human 'cognition', implicate and explicate; where implicate represents independent 'reality' and explicate represents information from implicate. So information conveys the message about implicate to the mind and mind grasps it as explicate. This is also the conclusion reached by me in my essay when I say "Bit comes from It but mind can know of It only through Bit". So interpretation of Bit by mind itself is explicate. Representation of relationship between implicate and explicate on the basis of digital physics constitutes the next task of your article. You have made your essay a readable one by quoting the interesting aphorisms of well-known physicists. The figure of S3 hyper sphere is too good to grasp the essence behind it. But following Joy Christian, when you say S3 hyper sphere follows from parallelized 7-sphere you are not clear because we can visualize the figure of S3 sphere but not so that of 7 sphere. 7 sphere may be mathematically true but not so physically as long as it is made visualizable in the same way as S3 sphere. This was also the objection raised by me in Christian's FQXI blog the previous year.

              Your final conclusion, It from Bit comes as no surprise when you say "the explicate world of It arises from the implicate world of Bit" and you have given, like me, primary importance to mind when you say, "the content of that implicate information world comes from consciousness".

              Thanks for presenting such an interesting essay in an elegant and consistent manner. I have answered to your queries on my essay in my thread.

              Best wishes,

              Sreenath

              Dear Hugh,

              I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies.

              Dynamic Universe model is the model I formulated with God's grace.

              http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

              It was my proposition, it was not an inference to your essay. What I mean is that we should be more close experimental results for our propositions.

              I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.

              Now in this context, can we create material from information...?

              You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.

              Best

              =snp

              snp.gupta@gmail.com

              Hi Peter,

              (It appears that the FQXI database has been reset, so I will add my comments again)

              > As you're familiar with it I hope you may read my essay and look for connections.

              I have commented on your essay over on your blog. I think that Michel Planat (see below) has drawn an important connection by pointing out that the Hopf fibration links my S3 implicate space and your Intelligent qubit to his work on quantum contextuality.

              > Mine starts from a holistic model appearing to unite SR and QM which I've discussed in my last 3 successful essays here, interestingly dynamic and hierarchically 'fractal', deriving a coherent and exciting solution to the quasar issue.

              I will have a look at your previous essays after the contest, as I like your approach to this. I can imagine that there are several connections.

              Hugh