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

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

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.

Marina

Amongst other things on my essay blog you pointed me to your comments on SR.

Now, had Einstein done what he said he was going to do, then it would be a 'theory of the relativity of information' (as you phrase it). But he didn't, so it isn't. It is just wrong.

There are two phases to explaining this:

1 What actually is SR.

As defined by Einstein, SR involves:

-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary

-only fixed shape bodies

-only light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed

In other words a state of stillness where nothing, relatively, is happening. It is special because there is no gravitational force (or more precisely, no differential in the gravitational forces incurred). It is not 1905, but his attempt to resolve the 'apparent irreconcilability' of the two postulates. Had the light in Einstein's second postulate been observational light, ie light which enables sight, which is what it was meant to be, then this state is the only circumstance in which the two postulates reconcile. But there is no observation in Einstein, because there is nothing to observe with. There is always some form of light, but it is just being used as a constant against which to calibrate distance and duration. Nobody sees with it. So the second postulate was not deployed as defined, and the attempts to reconcile rate of change and constancy of light speed are pointless, because the issue is non existent.

2 So the question becomes, what is relativity. The closest Einstein got to admitting what he had, in effect said, is:

Einstein para 4 section 9 1916

"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, ie that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in section 7) disappears".

What has happened here is that since he conflated reality and the light based representation thereof, because he has no observational light, he has confused the time of occurrence of reality, with the time of receipt of a light based repreentation of it. So, in effect, his relativity amounts to existence occurring at different times. Which it obviously does not. In other words, he has shifted the time delay which does occur in the receipt of light, depending on spatial position, to the other end of the process, ie existence. He creates the ability to do this by failing to understand how time works. That is, he equates time with what timing devices tell it to be. Whereas the reference for timing is a conceptual constant rate of change to which all devices are synchronised, within the realms of practicality. So his concept of simultaneity in effect creates an xtra layer of time wich does not exist (he called it "common time").

Reality, which is a discrete definitive physically existent sate of whatever comprises it, occurs at a time. In doing so a light based representation of that occurrence is generated. This is received at a later time.

Paul

Dear Marina,

I just read your essay and would like to provide my feedback.

First, the title: It strikes me as perhaps the most lyrical of all the entries, but that by itself is not a big deal; (most) anyone can come up with lyrical expressions of some sort or another. To make it lyrical and to have it precisely sum up the body of the essay is to me a form of art, and you did it.

Second, the body: The approach followed in your essay is consistent with the informal tone you set at the beginning. But informal does not mean that there are not some important insights to be shared. I gleaned three major ones:

1) "...each kind of creature perceives the world through its own set of narrow bands on various spectra of available information..." How true! I have sometimes tried to imagine what the world would be like if I could perceive it as some of the animals you mentioned (and others) do. Surely it would be very different. You can see just from astronomical pictures that the world looks quite different at different wavelengths. If the temperature of the sun were a just a bit different, we would have probably evolved sight within a visible spectrum that is different from our actual one. Perhaps, instead of using Magnesium to make chlorophyll, plants would have used iron to make hemoglobin-like compounds to perform photosynthesis (This is actually a research subject). Then plants would be red instead of green. I'm sure your friend wouldn't mind, though.

But seriously, the fact that this is so often forgotten is just another reflection of the the anthropocentric aspect that is imperceptibly interwoven in our worldview, which brings me to the second insight

2) "It [i.e. Wheeler's purported scheme whereby everything is reducible to the apparatus-elicited answer of a yes or no question] is limiting because it presupposes an a priori knowledge about both the universe at large and every specific thing in it..." I have now read many entries to this contest, and a fair number of them mentioned Wheeler's scheme, but none pointed out this implication, it did not even occur to me. But you are absolutely right, one can't ask yes or no questions about things about which one has no inkling and I agree that this is a serious limitation of his scheme. I think you have uncovered an anthropocentric facet that goes beyond the talk about measurement devices and questions because it makes plain that his scheme depends in an unmitigable manner on the observer's prior knowledge.

3) "From here it is natural to infer that it [i.e. participation] must also hold true for each and every thing in existence." I think this is a profound thought. Consider how many philosophers have tried to (unsuccessfully) define "existence". For example, if you look at the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, you will find a lengthy article which fails to come to a conclusion. I have myself pondered the question for a long time (in fact, I have an essay in preparation which is tentatively titled "Quantum Mechanics and Existence"). If your approach works, then it can be used as a working definition for physical existence. The main question I would have is in what ways you would differentiate between 'participation' and a physical interaction. You have presented a cyclic schema, but it seems to me that one could label the steps also as components of interactions, though your discussion of the applicability of this schema in quantum mechanics suggests an approach for differentiating between them.

In any event, thinking of participation in this generalized sense seems to me immensely more sensible and fruitful than thinking of it in terms of the anthropic principle (you can probably tell that I am not a fan of it).

Here are some other short comments:

-the phrase "Grappling in the dark..." sounds vaguely familiar, where did I encounter this before?

-I also like the humor in your essay. I'm curious about the Russian expression, because I thought hamburgers were an American invention

-I think I got the general idea behind the fractal waves, but I think as you stated it, it may easily give one the impression that you are raising the possibility of superluminal signal transmission or information transfer. I would probably have been better to flesh out the idea some more. It may well be that there are locally causal chains of which we are not aware at a conscious level, but which we recognize subconsciously , and which would therefore, upon encounter with the effects of the first few members of the chain, trigger the kind of reaction that you mentioned.

I enjoyed your insightful and fun essay very much and wish you all the best,

Armin

Hello Marina,

I think yours is an interesting essay, well written and easy to read (apart from a few spelling glitches).

I think it's appropriate that you discuss the rich variety of information captured by nature's plants, animals and other organisms - it's easy to forget that other organisms routinely acquire information about the world that is different to the information we acquire - whether it is sensitivity to different frequencies of sound waves or different wavelengths of light, or more acute sight or sensitivity to minute electric currents.

I liked the bit where you question Wheeler's "apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions" idea as "both limiting and impractical". I found your discussion relating to Wheeler's "participatory universe" interesting, though I think that the "participatory universe" idea should perhaps also be questioned because, as you described it, it might seem that there is no essential difference between the participation of a sausage and the participation of a person! I personally think his "participatory universe" idea is of value, but of limited value.

In your final discussion where you talk about "each participating event, or a process", are you talking about subjects? If not, if reality is just "a process of active information exchange", what is it that differentiates anything so that it can be described as an event or a process?

Cheers,

Lorraine

Thanks Marina for your reply to my comments/question.

Your English expression and fluency is excellent, in many ways better than mine. But as you have requested it, and at the risk of my being seen as a nitpicker, here are the spelling glitches I noticed:

"the living lings and their environment" page 1

"In his thesis Wheel conjectured" page 3

"maybe his main intension was to provoke" page 3

"until the observer takes a peak" page 7

"a subset of what is to be head out there" page 7

"in terns of another process" page 8

Cheers,

Lorraine

Dear Madam,

Your essay is very interesting and different from most essays, though have many similarities with our essay. Hence kindly bear with our lengthy comment.

The last paragraph of your first part is interesting reading, but you left out the conclusions. We perceive the result of measurement by our sense organs. Where the instrument is faulty, the readings will also be faulty. Reality must be invariant under similar conditions at all times. The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality. In a mirage, what one sees is a visual misrepresentation caused by the differential air density due to temperature gradient. All invariant information consistent with physical laws, i.e. effect of distance, angle, temperature, etc, is real. Since the perception of mirage is not invariant from different distances, it is not real. Similarly, a jaundiced person sees everything yellow. Since it is known to be caused by a disease (as is color blindness), the vision is not real.

You begin the second chapter by discussing reductionism, which is one of the causes of the present maladies of physics. There is an anecdote of six blind men who went to 'see' an elephant. They touched one part of it and described the elephant by that perception. All of them are right in their description. But, even if you combine all their versions, you cannot make any meaning out of it unless you have seen an elephant earlier to put these in the right sequence - or like a jigsaw puzzle you put the right pieces in the right place accidentally. The incremental branching out of physics must stop and all theories should be rewritten by compiling all known facts in the right order.

A priori knowledge is a necessary condition for perception. In the perception "this (object - bit) is like that (the concept - it)", one can describe "that" only if one has perceived it earlier. Perception requires prior measurement of multiple aspects or fields and storing the result of measurement in a centralized system (memory) to be retrieved when needed. To understand a certain aspect, we just refer to the data bank and see whether it matches with any of the previous readings or not. We cannot even imagine something that we have either not perceived earlier or inferred from such perception. The problem arises when we try to imagine something not conforming to physical rules. We have seen rabbits and we have seen horns. But horns of rabbits are possible only in dreams and not in physics. This implies limited knowledge or knowledge boundary.

Participatory universe in the right context is not a bad idea. Everything in the universe is interconnected and interdependent. You cannot take out or isolate anything. The state of knowledge varies in each case. The plants have only one sense organ - tactile perception, which is the fundamental perception that covers other perceptions. The virus, bacteria, etc have two sense organs - tactile and olfactory. The insects have these two and in addition have ocular perception. The animals and birds have deficiency in one of the sense organs. Only humans have well developed five sense organs.

In the mechanism of perception, each sense organ perceives different kind of impulses related to the fundamental forces of Nature. Eyes see by 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 when the object dissolves in the mouth, which is macro equivalent of the weak nuclear interaction. Nose perceives 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 when there is motion that is macro equivalent of the gravitational interaction. Individually the perception has no meaning. They become information and acquire meaning only when they are pooled 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.

In page 6, you have said that "There are no things in Quantum and no boundaries separating any two different environments. Instead the spacetime is infused with various fields that tend to taper off gradually making Quantum It appear rather fuzzy". A medium or a field is a substance or material which carries the wave. It is a region of space characterized by a physical property having a determinable value at every point in the region. This means that if we put something appropriate in a field, we can then notice "something else" out of that field, which makes the body interact with other objects put in that field in some specific ways, that can be measured or calculated. This "something else" is a type of force. Depending upon the nature of that force, scientists categorize the field as gravity field, electric field, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, etc. The laws of modern physics suggest that fields represent more than the possibility of the forces being observed. They can also transmit energy and momentum. Light wave is a phenomenon that is completely defined by fields. Thus, if the field theory is correct, the quantum world is not fuzzy. But our description is fuzzy. We can precisely describe the quantum particles. But we err in the interpretation of the mass energy equivalence equation.

The left hand side of any equation or inequality is characterized by free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The right hand side is characterized by determinism, as the results are deterministic - otherwise there would be no theory. The equality sign characterizes special conditions to be observed in each case. Unless these conditions are met (like a certain temperature threshold in chemical reactions), no interaction takes place. Alternatively, it shows the variation parameters like those in the mass energy equivalence equation. When we say e = mc^2, it does not show convertibility of mass into energy and vice versa, because energy and mass have opposite characteristics and the other term is a constant of proportionality. Both mass and energy are inseparable complements. There is nothing like bare mass or bare charge. The equation actually says: a certain amount of energy in an isolated system can spread out mass over a field with area equal to c^2 and no more. When we mix up mass and energy by factoring in the ratio of c^2, we land in problem. Thus, "let us try and keep flies separate from hamburgers".

You can visit our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published on May 31 for further details.

Regards,

basudeba