The Play of Mind in Emptiness by M. V. Vasilyeva

Dear Vasilieva:

Congratulations, seems to me that your essay will help people to come down to earth and keep their feet on it. This does not mean that they should not dream, but if they want to have their heads at cloud level, they should grow all they can, tying for it without leaving their feet from the ground. Seems to me that I am out of your field of knowledge, but from your last paragraph I can try to give you a no to satisfying answer to your question, What is now? As I say in my essay is just a useful word, the physical present is a continuous like an arrow flying, its flight it is not a sum of little "motions" like points in a line, but its flight it is only one and continuous. Being the physical present a continuo makes impossible its existence. We must consider an static one to be possible the "now" or the "instant", this circumstance took people to confusions without end.

Héctor Gianni

Marina,

I like you down to earth approach and insight. May I ask what your thoughts are on 'how' these observed states come into being?

This is the focus of my essay and so I looking to see if this was also a consideration of yours. So far only Alexei essay has addressed such a consideration. I highly recommend you check out his essay... and of course mine as well if you get the chance.

Best of luck.

Manuel

Dear Ms. Vasilyeva,

You are right to define information in biological terms, giving importance to our experience of reality. Over the centuries we've moved away from a balanced 'intuitive-abstract' take on reality, so that we now accentuate abstractions. This leads to excesses: The proposition that the universe is entirely composed of information is limiting and impractical, as you say.

I agree with you that all living organisms participate in the Cosmos - and in my essay I develop the idea of Species Cosmae, which I believe you'd find interesting.

I particularly liked the way you consider the It-Bit question to date from Special Relativity, and the speed of light. This is a very good way to understand information.

Since you essentially conclude, I believe, that we cannot truly choose between 'Bit to It', or 'It to Bit' - is there not then simply a correlation between information and the physical universe? This point is central to my essay - 'The Correlation of Bit and It in a Cosmic System'.

In it, I describe how this correlation occurs as a result of our Cosmic system's interaction with the General Field of Cosmae.

I describe our four fundamental forces as being the 'splitting up' of a 'Gravitational-Magnetic Force' that comes from the energy field that envelops our Cosmos - a Force that simultaneously affects each of its Particles individually, and sub-divides them into the three groups that define our Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive entities.

Both the Cosmos and the Observer are similarly affected by this Force, so that it maintains them in Correlation over billions of years.

Thus, the 'single-field' Cosmos (consisting of the Observer viewing the Cosmos) is replaced by a three-field structure that includes the Observer and therefore accounts for our participatory Cosmos.

I'd love to hear what you think of this.

In closing, I found your discourse on the recursive loops of information to closely parallel my own concept on the subject: The correlation I describe as existing between the Sensory-Cognitive realm and the physical world means that Information manifests in particulate form (culminating in nerve and brain tissue), and that - like the Cosmos itself - it forms into a vortex, thus manifesting repetition and an orbital nature. This ties in with your concept of bits reaching us in advance of the future.

I found your ideas very interesting, and hope you'll agree that they tie in with what I've written.

Thanks!

Spacibo Vasilyeva for a nice essay presented here.

Your words''''' Despite the central role information plays in shaping reality, It is more fundamental than Bit, the latter being just the reflection of the former. Once reflected though, bits are absorbed into It and become the integral part of the emerging reality which in turn is reflected again, and again, in a recursive loop''''' are very correct and practical to make a machine to build some equipment.

Still one thing is no clear. You mean that bits are sufficient to create matter from nothing, is that not?

And......

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

.....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

M. V. Vasilyeva,

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 Marina Vasilyeva,

I am really enjoyed (surprised) reading your essay where you show seriously analytical approach to how need to put correct questions. However, if you will continue in such spirit maybe you will get a lot of problems in your life. I think already that most of people just do not want look the reality but they want to see something beauty-mystery round of which is possible talk long empty! I am intendant rate your work as one of best. But I ask you try read my work also (where you will find more poison!) and response pishite mne from there.

Best wishes,

George

ESSAY

Sorry,

In above post some error

Please open from here:

George Kirakosyan

ESSAY

Dear Marina,

Congratulations for a very nicely written essay.

Yes "Quantum milieu must differ somehow from both space and spacetime".

We have found that projective geometry, including Flatland, still play an immense role in the quantum observations. If you have time you may have a look, and some insights, about the 'dessins d'enfants' that I introduce in my essay.

Good luck,

Michel

Dear Marina,

You have give me good lesson! Maybe I am actually more pessimist than necessary. It is maybe because I am not so young and you can be right on this point. Now new generation is grooving up who already do not want the false! It gave some hope on future. Your work is nice by its trust, and I appreciate it by 8 point with clean heart.

I am very hopeful you will not outsider!

With best wishes,

George

Dear Marina.

What is "the same information"?

The question goes back to Plato.

All the best.

Yuri

Dear Dr Vasilyeva,

I like your idea that information is repeatedly re-absorbed by reality. It's a very logical argument and immediately made me think of fractals. So glad to see these mentioned.

Original and one of my favourite essays so far!

My essay based partly around the Fibonacci sequence will hopefully be of interest to you.

Excellent work - well done!

Antony

Dear Vasilyeva:

I congratulated you because with your essay seemed to me that help people to come down to earth. I appreciate that your view of my essay as unique, refer to that nobody know, or ever had my view including the greatest minds of mankind. This make me feel as a stupid, just because I can see that I was unable to take the mysterious time down to earth as my whish was. I don't pretend, or even try to pretend to compare myself with those great thinkers. In fact was a luck strike (like cigarettes) it happen in around two hours, when I was young, just several synapses that close this unique circuit, what I really consider myself a merit, was to immediately realize that what I find out was the most transcendental thing I was going to do in my whole intelectual life, the next day I realize that it was good for nothing, so I living rest for more than 35 years, when suddenly I find that theoretical physics was in a serious need of what I find out . "Time" not definition but what experimentally mean "motion", like I said is just a remnant word but people just borne with the word "time" stuck in their heads and it is like that, at least for the last 25 hundred years , as you said "the arrow of time", "the flow" "direction" and bla, bla. I try ten or fifteen different approaches to make clear that what people measure is "motion" and no the mysterious "time", but none of the people that look at the essay understood what I said. You know things happen once for the first time. When you said : "your answer to the question of the ever-elusive 'now'. I also find your apparent aversion to . in the end of a sentence intriguing, as if you never want it to end or perhaps to be so crudely extracted and separated from the continuous flow of the context it is in. This makes a vivid illustration to the main theme of your essay." You are becoming a better psychiatrist that I am . Of what you are right is that "I did not want to end" but I have to, because I did reach the 25 hundreds characters allowed. I don't care about physics, just I don't like to throw away those two hours, these are not common ones What I am afraid is that I am going to leave and take with me this find, and I hope it will not take another 25 hundred years to find it again.

Best whishes

Héctor

Dear Vasilyeva:

Thank you

Héctor

Dear Marina,

This years essay did not disappoint. I believe your perceptions are excellent, including 'recursive loops', sensor dependency, limbic system processing, that "output, or new information, is always generated at the boundary that separates two different environments", and that "participatory scheme... implies that reality is a local phenomenon, perpetually generated anew, emerging as the result of exchange of information", and also that; "It' is space'.

May I suggest those puzzle pieces may be even more powerful than you realise if coherently combined with the minimum new understanding. So where "The situation appears hopeless" the solution is literally right before our eyes.

'Right before our eyes' is a change of medium, a "boundary that separates two different environments", where light refracts and "generates anew" the information, the new wavelength (if the lens is 'in motion') to send to the brain to process, by applying 'time'.

If, to a 3rd party observer, the speed of light is changed to the new local c at the boundary of the lens by interaction or waves with with quanta ("many small" atomic scattering events), then Special Relativity logically emerges direct from the Quantum Mechanism. The question is resolved.

You may recall I discussed this in last years essay, pointing out that space itself contains many such particle 'shock' boundaries. I elucidate on that this year, showing the power of that model of 'discrete fields' (DFM) just an assembly of the concepts you so well describe, viewed from a fresh angle. I hope you'll be able to read mine and comment.

Very well done on yours, a pleasure to read, incisive, relevant, very nicely written and argued, and for me very harmonic. Would you accept perhaps one suggested change, to add 'refraction' to 'reflection' as a boundary process.?

I hope it does very well in the contest.

Very best wishes

Peter

Marina,

I was intrigued by your essay especially the sentence : Reality is continuesly emerging anew....

There you really are touching my preception.

About the various creatures , of course there are various forms of consciousness, forms that are not acessible to our five senses feeded consciousness, our awareness is only one aspect of the whole spectrum of information that is "available". In an earlier paper (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/913) "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" I introduced the so called "Subjective Simultaneity Sphere" with in its center a singularity called "consciousness" that is the origin of the reality awareness of an individual, of course this counts for every form of creature.

The what you call "participation" (page 3) is an effect of decoherence in my view.

I hope that you can read, comment and also rate (I am not a professional !) my essay : "THE QUEST FOR THE PRIMAL SEQUENCE"

Wilhelmus

Sorry marina, I forgot to log in, anonymus is Wilhelmus. (the rating succeeded when not logged in...)

Marina,

Thank you for your kind comments on my thread. I reread your entry and it is a very clear, insightful and sensible analysis of the field of physics. I find myself somewhat outside the fold though. I don't think we can understand information only in terms of other information. I think its properties and limitations are largely determined by the nature of energy as medium. If it were up to information alone, it would propagate endlessly and only be limited by informational conflicts. In order for new information to be created, old is erased, which goes against the idea information is never lost. This goes to my argument about time, that it is not a vector from past to future, but change causing future to become past. Duration is only a measure of the dynamic process and is the state of what is present, not a vector on which present moves. I think the relationship between energy and information is not only similar to, but part of the relation between radiation and mass. In fact, it is the tendency to apply the structural confines of mass/information, to energy/radiation, which biases our understanding of this side of the cycle. For instance, I suspect we will come to understand how redshift is a natural effect of radiation expanding out on release and received as samplings, rather than traveling as point particles over intergalactic distances.

On a personal level, I don't have the time or talent to pursue these debates to the degree they need, so I try to stick to very basic debating points and not expose my limitations too much.