Marina,

This fine essay meticulously complies with the intent of the essay contest in that it contains a very high degree of relevance; it is also an absorbingly interesting work to read from start to finish. It unerringly points to the untold tragedy of physics.

You wrote: "What constitutes information for each creature, be it bacterium, protozoan, plant, animal or insect, depends entirely on what its sensors or senses can deliver.

Scientific man has ended that. All life forms on the planet can now only smell scientifically adulterated scents for all of the air is now polluted. All life forms on the planet can now only see scientifically altered scenery. All life forms on the planet can now only hear scientifically enhanced sounds. All life forms on the planet can only be touched by scientifically altered textures. As all life can only continue to exists providing it consumes and regurgitates differing parts of itself, all life forms are now adulterated and life will soon turn toxic.

Man will be well informed about it though.

Joe

Dear Marina,

World contests FQXi - it contests new fundamental ideas, new deep meanings and new concepts. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions.

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.» http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

I have only one question: why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

I wish you success,

Vladimir

    Dear Marina

    Just to let you know that I have read your insightful essay. As before I found it well written and structured. You did a great job analyzing the back and forth of information. I'd like to make a couple of brief comments about your work.

    You: it presupposes an a priori knowledge about both the universe at large and every specific

    thing in it

    Indeed, it seems that the "it" cannot be separated from the "bit" or viceversa, so, perhaps it's just a matter of convention.

    You: The only way to know It is through bits captured by our sensors...

    This discussion of whether "it from bit" or "bit from it" appears to me as a modern version of the old problems between "reason" or "experience" and "subject" or "object". I think we are discussing a similar situation: Is reason that generates the knowledge of the outside world or experience? How can we know the object without a subject? What would the subject know if there were no object to be known? Objective reality is always SUBJECTED to the appreciation of the subject... This looks like a vicious circle.

    I wish you good luck in the contest!

    Best Regards

    Israel

      Marina - I enjoyed your essay, and I like your approach very much. As I did also in my essay, you're starting from the question of how information-processes actually work in the physical world, rather than from an abstract notion of information in itself. We know a tremendous amount about how information gets observed and communicated, physically - but the inherent complexity of all such processes is daunting. Despite the evidence of quantum theory, it's hard for many to believe this kind of process could be in any way fundamental.

      In contrast, you make a very serious attempt to analyze what's going on in observing and communicating physical information. This idea in particular is just what I think we need to focus on - that "Every single thing in existence participates, i.e. it receives information, processes it and outputs in turn." As you also put it - "reality is a local phenomenon, perpetually generated anew, emerging as the result of exchange of information between all participants."

      Your 8-point breakdown of the process is very good. The one thing missing is the interactive context in which any particular piece of information gets defined, whether as input or output. I can hardly blame you for that, though, since the point of my essay is just how difficult it is to conceptualize "context" adequately. The notion is foreign to our intellectual tradition, which tends to jump back and forth between the individual viewpoint and the universal, leaving out everything between. Only in biology does local context get much attention - and I suspect it may only be in the framework of an evolutionary theory that we can really grapple with this concept.

      Thanks for a very interesting piece of work - it's very encouraging to me that there are other explorers in this particular wilderness.

        Thank you Conrad for your encouraging comments :)

        Regarding the context, in which "any particular piece of information gets defined", in my scheme, it is the milieu. It got lost in the middle of my 8-point breakdown, but actually the milieu is present throughout the process. I could have started with it, and thus emphasized it more, but it was the loop that I stressed.

        And regarding the 'definition' of a "particular piece of information", I don't even go into this. I examine 'participation' on a simple example; and imho it does not matter what sort of information that is; the underlying loop is the same.

        I used 'milieu' for the context instead of 'background' or 'environment', for the reason best shown in the following: Suppose there is a field of some sort within many other fields in the same environment, and there is a group of 'participants' that can 'trap' the bits of this field. And suppose there is a group of participants in the same environment who remain oblivious of this field. This field is the milieu for the members of the first group but not for the second. Unless there is another filed/milieu shared by both groups, the two will remain oblivious of each other, despite existing side by side. In other words, one knows of existence of only those processes with which one interacts within the same shared milieu. I did not go into these details because I saw this as self-evident ;)

        Thanks again for you feedback and please do check the essay by Prof. McHarris, if you have not done it already. You will love it.

        -Marina

        Thank you Israel for your perfunctory comments on my essay :) I read yours as soon as I saw it and was disappointed too. As I understand your position, you consider the topic of this year contest largely superfluous. This must be because you believe that our knowledge of.. 'things' amounts to 'things themselves' (here 'things' also include 'events' etc). Or, as you say above, '"it" cannot be separated from the "bit".

        I beg to differ and I find your position particularly surprising in the context of your on-going debate with 'realists' about the relevance of the absolute reference frame. This is because imho _information_ about things, and not things themselves, lies at the crux of this debate. I will return to this later in a separate post. In the meantime I want to address the end of your post, where you bring up '"reason" or "experience" and "subject" or "object"'. These are concepts pertaining awareness, consciousness and philosophy, which I too consider superfluous in physics today.

        I am not fond of Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle and I am not alone: out of all the essays I managed to read thus far (50), only one took it seriously. I make it very clear in my essay that every 'thing' in existence 'traps' and generates information and so participates equality in making a snapshot of reality. I also stress that information exists regardless of whether there are 'subjects' privy to it. Because of this I think you read my essay 2 weeks ago and by now forgot what it was about lol. Hey, I understand :)

        IMHO, 'objects' and 'subjects' is not a right way of approaching 'information'. I very much liked the indisputable truth pointed out by Conrad Johnson in his essay and that is "There's no such thing as information without a context that actually defines it." IMHO the best way of appreciating information in physics is in relativity. I will address this in the following post.

        Dear All,

        It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

        iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

        One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

        Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

        the second sub series is always defined by the equation

        Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

        Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

        Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

        Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

        Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

        Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

        Examples

        starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

        where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

        -27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

        Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

        0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

        Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

        0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

        Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

        0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

        The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.

        As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

        d-super.pdf"> The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory](https://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin

        d-super.pdf)

        Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

        I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.

        I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.

        All this started with a simple question, who am I?

        I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.

        I super positioned my self or I to be me.

        I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

        I am Fibonacci series in iSeries

        I am phi in zero = I = infinity

        I am 3Sphere in iSphere

        I am pi in zero = I = infinity

        I am human and I is GOD (Generator Organizer Destroyer).

        Love,

        Sridattadev.

        Hey Marina,

        Nice loop occurrence idea! The use of both the macro and micro in your examples really brought the whole issue into perspective. I'm personally in the boat that before one goes to the math of an item to be described, one should understand it conceptually, and hence borrow from mathematicians after some thinking about physical significance is done. Still, without the math basis, perhaps the ideas about which a physicist pursues would not be out there in the first place! So the use of animals and plants gave concrete images to get the idea of interchange of it and bit into play. It had a flow and structure in language used.

        Another point I thought significant was your mention that information and its reactions with other means of measuring or storing info constitutes the only evidence we have for matter. That this is the same type of thinking that went along with individuals interested in showing the atom to be a real piece of matter is reassuring to the future role of information in science.

        Also, I agree that the bottom up view is the most appropriate way when confronting new phenomenon or areas of thought in physics. This is where philosophy helps out the physicist, and the now present and governing philosophy must not be taken as is without question. This same type of questioning fuels debate and curiosity, both essential for the simply said grinding out of problems in current ways of thinking.

        So over all your essay is pragmatic in outlook, and offers a splendid merger of artistic vocab and searching for form in science. This is what's important to me in an essay. You mentioned light as the old medium, is curved spacetime now what must be worked with? I must ask why you stress a boundary condition though in that fractal wave-front visual. It arises without much grounds and shortly put feels different then that of the vein of writing that encompassed the rest of the piece.

        Cheers,

        Amos.

        A very nice essay you got here Marina! I should have read it long ago.

        Like you I believe information lies at the core of `reality' studied by physics. And as you said towards the end, "...reality is generated in the interplay of information with space. We know what Bit is. This suggests that IT IS SPACE". This is a conclusion with far-reaching consequences. Since It is countable, is space countable also in someway?

        You describe many beautiful and natural ways of obtaining information. But the issue is, must It give out the information or can absence of It not also be information? Take bats and dolphins use of echolocation for example. They emit sound and reflection by an 'it' make them obtain information that there is an obstacle. However, in the absence of an 'it', the bat and dolphin equally capture information that they can move in that direction without collision with an object. Therefore while, "... we know of It only through bits our senses can deliver ", absence of It does not mean absence of information.

        So when you also say,"... source of information (i.e. something that emits energy or reflects it)", from the example above source of information may not emit or reflect energy.

        You may get alternative ideas from my essay that may help us find answer to: Can a yes-or-no question get us the coveted answer?

        Best Regards,

        Akinbo

          • [deleted]

          • Post #44

          Akinbo

          thank you for your kind remarks on my essay :) I'm planning to read yours as soon as I get other projects out of the way (I had the ambitious goal of 're-writing' relativity in terms of information in two paragraphs or less lol ever since Paul Reed's post way above, and just recently brought up again by Israel Perez -- I keep getting distracted).

          You ask: "Since It is countable, is space countable also in someway?"

          IMHO, that's not a right formulation of the question. Rather, it is evident that, if ToE is ever to be found, such a theory would not only have to be truly 'background-independent', but have the 'background', such as spacetime, emerge from its framework (and, by extension, everything else emerge from it in turn). Thus in my last year essay I introduced the concept of the dynamic structure of space. Here dynamics = energy and structure = information.

          As to how exactly the structure emerges, there are 2 themes in this year contest. One is discussed in Dr. Carolyn Devereux essay, where she shows how harmonic oscillations within the vibrating primordial substrate can lead to emergence of 'matter' in it. The other one is cellular automata (CA) quantum processes, governed by a few simple rules, that, despite their inherent simplicity, give rise to great complexity. You can read about CA in essays by Prof. D'Ariano and Maria Carrillo-Ruiz (hers is a beautiful and very short, almost like a theorem, essay that has not received thus far the appreciation it deserves).

          My personal view is more aligned with Carolyn's vibrating space-time-energy continuum, even though CA may be just one of the ways of implementing the Bit part of it. The point is that, ultimately, space is all there is and 'things' are revealed in the dynamic structure of space interacting essentially with itself according to just a few basic principles (such as energy conservation). I tried to introduce this idea in my last year essay, but, as a Russian proverb goes, 'the first pancake comes out scrambled'. I will try again next year. In this regard, this year theme was instrumental in revealing a much crispier view of what is reality in our heads, won't you agree?

          You say "from the example above source of information may not emit or reflect energy."

          Yes, sure. In the context of the structure of space, a perfectly even and regular structure is equivalent to space being 'empty', while any irregularity in its perfection tells us that there is 'something' in it. Empty or containing something are two opposites, 0 and 1, from which 'information' is derived. I am looking forward to reading your essay!

          -Marina

          Hi Marina

          I'm aware that you like to discuss these topics and perhaps you were expecting to have a far-reaching discussion. May be you got me wrong in some aspects. As I said, I found your work interesting and I think you did a nice job analyzing the topic. I agree with most of what you typed. Because of this, I think I have nothing much to comment, as some people say, "it is boring agreement". You didn't disappoint me.

          In this contest we were asked whether Wheeler's dream is worthy of consideration as scientific proposal. I studied the topic and found that whether information is the main ingredient of the universe or not turns out to be irrelevant, I see this topic a matter of semantics. What matters is what you can do with that idea to explain observations. I've seen here some great jobs that exploit this view and I believe they have a lot of potential to get something valuable. But we all physicists know that regardless of the road taken, we have to come up with consistent ideas that agree with data. As mention at the end of my essay, I believe that I have found a way to get out of the present conundrum in physics assuming that the "it" is more fundamental than the "bit" and if this approach works I'll continue working on it. The key is to consider space as a material medium (or field). And this is what I expressed in my essay. I thank you for your feedback, I also felt that people would expect something different from my work but that's what I found. I'm sorry to disappoint you. I felt that the topic is more a semantical problem than a PHYSICS problem.

          You: I make it very clear in my essay that every 'thing' in existence 'traps' and generates information and so participates equality in making a snapshot of reality. I also stress that information exists regardless of whether there are 'subjects' privy to it.

          I agree but this view is the view that there is an external world that whether there is an observer or not the universe exists. This view has been discussed by philosophers for many years and yet there is no consensus. For the moment most people concur that there is an external world independent of observers. This means that information is also there independent of the observer as you remark.

          You: Because of this I think you read my essay 2 weeks ago and by now forgot what it was about lol. Hey, I understand :)

          I don't see the connection, how could you figure it out lol?

          Ok, I'll be expecting your next posts.

          Regards

          Israel

          Dear Vasilyeva

          Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

          said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

          I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

          The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

          Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

          Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

          I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

          Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

          Best regards,

          Than Tin

          Israel,

          sorry if my post annoyed you. I was just poking fun at you :) And sorry for taking so long to reply. There is a lot of going on in the woods, shroomies and berries, water and sun. Hope your summer is fun too.

          So, the information and relativity.

          ..Well, this seems so obvious to me now that I had a hard time finding the best way of stating it. It's basically comes down to how things _appear_ from each observer's POV as opposed to how they _are_ 'in reality'. It's like Cristinel Stoica says in his essay, in a different context, "Just because we don't have access to reality, but only to the bits, it doesn't mean that there is no reality." In the context of relativity, 'reality' exists in the hypothetical 'absolute' frame, the information of which is not accessible to us directly. However, some of it can be inferred, and that's what makes it relevant.

          Information is what all the arguments about relativity come down to, perhaps without participants fully realizing it. Even on this forum there are several camps from Pentcho Valev to Paul Reed and John Merryman, to Eckard Blumschein and others, and also you and Daryl Jansen vs Ken Wharton, etc. Even though each camp has a somewhat different objections and their own take on things, all the arguments can be reconciled when 'information' is brought into the picture.

          It all this boils down to what sort of information is available in various frames and whether it is empirically accessible. So, 'realists' essentially deny the relevance of the absolute frame on the grounds that its info is not available, while those who advocate for it say in effect that only because it is not directly available does not mean that we should pretend that it does not exist all.

          Presented in terms of information, all disagreements vanish. Pentcho Valev's view makes a good example. He insists that the speed of light is variable and he is probably right, from the absolute frame POV, the info in which is however directly accessible only to an equally absolute observer, not restricted by the limitations of the medium that delivers information to us. Such an observer is able to grasp everything instantaneously, in one sweeping glance, as if, clock in hand, he is present simultaneously at the source of each and every bit just starting its journey through space toward the sensors of less privileged observers.

          This is what I understood when writing the essay. That's why your position that information is irrelevant in physics I find so surprising. Your position also indicates that perhaps you actually believe that the info we get is it. Throughout my essay I allude that there is more to It than the bits at our disposal. So how can you say that you basically [yawn] agree with what I typed?

          Hi Marina

          Unfortunately, I'm not skyping with you, so I cannot see your face to tell whether you are serious or joking. All I have is your typed words and from them I have to figure out in what sense or mood you're expressing your thoughts. At first sight it seems that you're are being sarcastic. Your comments didn't annoy me, instead they surprised me.

          You: the information of which is not accessible to us directly

          Many people concur that nature seems to be jealous. She doesn't allow us to know her in great detail and conspires against us. The impossibility of the measurement of the one-way speed of light, the detection of the absolute frame, the uncertainty principle along with the collapse of the wave equation are clear indicators that nature is not willing to reveal her deepest secrets.

          You: so "realists"...

          When you say "realists" do you mean to say "relativists"?

          You: while those who advocate for it say in effect that only because it is not directly available does not mean that we should pretend that it does not exist all

          Not only because of this, but because without it we would fall into paradoxes. Please consult the original article of Ives-Stilwell. There you'll see how paradoxical SR is.

          You: He insists that the speed of light is variable and he is probably right

          I agree that the speed of light is not constant, and here again nature comes into play. Based on certain principles we can infer that the speed of light is not constant but the problem is how we measure it. The methods used to measure the speed of light are limited to two-way speed measurements and therefore we are blind about its one-way value. Pencho is right in claiming that the speed of light is not constant, but his arguments with which he arrives to such conclusion are ill-posed.

          You: he is present simultaneously at the source of each and every bit just starting its journey through space toward the sensors of less privileged observers

          Well, I would emphasize that the observer receives the information simultaneously from different sources around him, but the information was not emitted simultaneously from the different sources. Furthermore, for observers in motion, the simultaneity of events will change. From your comments, I could notice that you realize that there should be an absolute medium, I wish relativists acknowledge this just as you did.

          You: That's why your position that information is irrelevant in physics I find so surprising.

          I think you misinterpreted my words. I didn't say that information is irrelevant in physics, I said that whether information (or matter) is considered in physics as the fundamental ingredient of the world is irrelevant. Can you see the difference? That the "bit" is more important than the "it" or viceversa is, from my view, just a matter of convention or taste. They are both important, they cannot be separated. The bit can be the it and viceversa. We can say that our senses deal with matter only, and information is the result of processing the data in our brains. But we can also turn the argument over and say that our senses only receive information and from that information our brain feels that it lives in a material world. And again we are back to the problems of the external or internal world, object and subject and, experience and reason. That's why I prefer to talk about matter as the fundamental substance of the universe, because if we think that information is the fundamental substance of the universe, we would have to think that our reality is mere data and thus a computer simulation. That's what I discuss in my essay using "mundane" words.

          Regards

          Israel

          Hi Israel :)

          now your position is much clearer to me. Thank you. But when you talk about the 'fundamental substance', ain't that space? Ultimately? Or, when you speak of 'absolute medium', I am not certain what you mean. The medium I referred to in both my essay and the post above was plain [yawn] EMR.

          As for consulting the article of Ives-Stilwell in order to see how paradoxical SR is, I really would rather not. SR looks trivially simple to me: it's all plain geometry, there is one underlying reality which _appears_ differently to various observers due to the delay in information reaching them as they themselves also move about at various speeds. There is no paradoxes. Even GR has no paradoxes in my view, once I realize that all processes simply run slower in a faster moving frame (slower from the 'absolute frame' POV). I don't want to return to that skewed view in which relativity is often presented, as if the entertainment value of paradoxes can justify the confusion such convoluted thinking invariably brings. I do realize however that there is no 'absolute time' in reality and that 'the flow of time' is an entirely local phenomenon. This does not prevent me from having a clear picture in my head of what's going on, without paradoxes and in full awareness of the limitations a real observer faces in practice.

          Speaking of paradoxes' entertainment value, here is the lecture on youtube by Jim Al-Khalili Quantum Life: How Physics Can Revolutionize Biology. There he brings up 'quantum weirdness' on the example of the double slit experiment and gets plenty of delighted laughs from the audience as he describes how 'when we don't look' the atoms show their 'wavy behavior' and 'when we spy on them' they behave like 'particles'. This is very misleading, for he omits a crucial fact about what constitutes 'looking' in the quantum world.

          The lay audience naturally assumes that quantum 'looking' is the same as in our mundane world, where mere looking at things has no bearing on their behavior (and we rest assured that our seeing a plane in the sky will not divert it from its course). Why does not he stress the fact that 'looking' in this case implies direct interference with the observed phenomenon. This is equivalent to 'observing' a sprinter running to the finish line, but because we can't really see a quantum sprinter, we must put a hurdle on his way -- and having done so, declare with delight, see? he runs differently when we look from when we don't! As a typically pragmatic woman, I cannot justify this sort of 'explanation' to the lay public -- the truth here is sold out for the sake of few laughs.

          .

          Re: 'realists' vs 'relativists' I should have avoided using labels, especially since they did not add clarity. sorry

          And of course I meant to say "it does not mean that we should pretend that it does not exist _at_ all" that 'at' got lost somehow.

          Regards :)

          -Marina

          Hi Marina

          To me the fundamental substance of the universe is matter (it could information, energy or consciousness, the name is irrelevant, the important is the concept) and space is made of matter. When I say matter, I don't mean the ordinary matter of the standard model, simply matter in the sense of Aristotle. So, space is a material field or fluid and therefore is a medium not only for electromagnetic phenomena but also for particles (of the standard model), understanding particles not as hard spheres but as energy packets and excitations of space. Whereas electromagnetic fields are states of space.

          You: The medium I referred to in both my essay and the post above was plain [yawn] EMR.

          Ok, I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your words then. With respect to your second paragraph, I don't share your opinion that SR is not paradoxical, but I respect it.

          Unfortunately, I couldn't open the video but thanks for sharing, I'll look into the internet, it looks interesting.

          You: for he omits a crucial fact about what constitutes 'looking' in the quantum world...

          "looking" means the uncertainty principle and the measurement problem. Nature again is laughing at us.

          Regards

          Israel

          Hi Israel :)

          again it seems I ruffled your feathers. Okay so I will resign to tiptoeing ever so gently... Alright then. Let me try again.

          Dear Dr. Perez,

          when you say that space is the 'absolute medium', do you mean some other form of energy, besides EMR and gravity, it can carry? I find this line of reasoning fascinating.

          Regarding SR, what paradox(es) in particular do you refer to? I would love to consult the article of Ives-Stilwell just to see what exactly you have in mind.

          You: "looking" means the uncertainty principle and the measurement problem...

          I'm sorry but in this particular case, 'looking' means placing a detector in the path on an atom, which, in my sprinter analogy above represents a bonafide hurdle. To 'look' here means to interfere _physically_ both with the atom and its surrounding medium. To pretend that placing such a detector on the path is equivalent to mere 'looking' of mundane world is unrealistic (as in being out of touch with reality).

          You: space is a material field or fluid and therefore is a medium not only for electromagnetic phenomena but also for particles (of the standard model), understanding particles not as hard spheres but as energy packets and excitations of space. Whereas electromagnetic fields are states of space.

          Have you read the essay by Carolyn Devereux? She describes how harmonic oscillations within the primordial substrate can lead to emergence of 'matter'. I would very much like to hear your opinion on it.

          Thank you!

          Sincerely,

          -Marina

          Hi Marina

          You: again it seems I ruffled your feathers

          I don't know how you figure out this. Not at all!

          You: when you say that space is the 'absolute medium', do you mean some other form of energy, besides EMR and gravity, it can carry? I find this line of reasoning fascinating.

          My notion of space is as if space were an ocean of matter. EMR are transversal waves travelling in this ocean whose speed is defined by the properties of the medium.

          You: Regarding SR, what paradox(es) in particular do you refer to?

          Let's say the clock paradox.

          You: I'm sorry but in this particular case, 'looking' means placing a detector in the path on an atom, which, in my sprinter analogy above represents a bonafide hurdle. To 'look' here means to interfere _physically_ both with the atom and its surrounding medium.

          Again, the uncertainty principle and the measurement problem, mean either "interfere physically" or "place a detector". A detector is a measuring device that interferes with the system under study, in this case the atoms. When we perform a measurement, i.e., we look, we put in action the uncertainty principle and at the same time the measurement destroys the state of the system, i.e., the wave function collapses.

          You: Have you read the essay by Carolyn Devereux? She describes how harmonic oscillations within the primordial substrate can lead to emergence of 'matter'

          No I haven't, but that's not new. In QFT particles of the standard model are created from the quantum vacuum (the material space for me). In my view material particles are not created from space because space is already made up of matter. They only get shape from space when we excite space. Check this video, this is my idea of particle and space: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyjwZ39EDmw.

          Regards

          Israel

          Hi again Marina

          Thanks for recommending me Carolyn's essays. I just read it with expectation and I could notice also that she hasn't realized the deep implications of assuming particles as resonances of space, i.e. that space is a substance, a medium for the resonances and therefore a privilege frame of reference. Which obviously contradicts the mathematical formulation of relativity. As in the link of the video that I give you in my previous post, the resonances move absolutely relative to water, being water the absolute frame that is space itself. Do you get what a mean by medium?

          Israel

          Dear Madam,

          This is our letter to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

          Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic - "complex, even inexplicable behavior". Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of "the deer population in Northern Michigan", is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

          Infinities are like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others - every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

          Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use "a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers", you do just that through "comparison and exchange instructions". You develop these by "inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by 'mating' parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated" and repeat it "thousands upon thousands of time" till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought "evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible". After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

          Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area - the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

          The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

          However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally 'illuminates' the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

          Regards,

          mbasudeba@gmail.com