Dear Stanislaw,

I thought your essay was ingenious. There were only two minor points I would care to comment on, and I hope you do not mind my mentioning them. In my essay BITTERS, I have emphasized the importance of unique, once, in the real Universe.

You wrote: " Moon is a unique object that is physically one, yet it combines two visible geometric states - circle of the full moon and new moon semicircle." Of course the only reason objects at a distance appear to be round is because we have round eyeballs. Each real snowflake is unique, once. Each real star is unique, once. Everything in the real Universe including the real Universe itself is unique, once.

Unfortunately, you also made mention of "unique constancy." There is no such physical state. Unique can only be unique, once.

The problem with all information is that it is not unique. Fortunately, the information processes you ably described in your engrossing essay have so far caused little harm.

Good luck in the contest,

Joe

    Dear Joe!

    Thanks a lot for your comments.

    Please note that "unique constancy" is meant that moon is the only object in our surrounding that has two visible constant states - circle and semicircle.

    It is not physical state, but visual state. The states that our round balls can easy identify :)

    And of course the information is in unique, but in current contest we try to understand the source of information in our world/mind, so we have to dig deeper to the early beginning, to find first simple reasons that caused information to appear.

    In my investigation I have described my version of the emerging of binary logic in our world.

    From my point of view the information as we know it is completely binary and in order to understand what is the information we have to understand why it is binary.

    I gave my hypothesis.

    Do you think that there is any collision?

    With kind regards, Stanislav

    Dear Stanislav,

    "From my point of view the information as we know it is completely binary and in order to understand what is the information we have to understand why it is binary."

    You are quite correct in asserting that abstract information can be binary, and your analysis of how this came about appears to me to be quite accurate. Our ideas collide because I refuse to believe that abstract information has anything to do with reality.

    Each real snowflake is unique, once. Each real molecule of each real snowflake is unique, once. Obviously, that means that each unit of temperature can only be unique, once. That means that each unit of energy can only be unique, once. That means each motion of a particle or a wave can only be unique, once. All of the so-called physical laws and physical measurements are incorrect. The abstract information about these laws and measurements may be perfectly accurate, but the reality is quite the opposite.

    When we Wheeler our conflicting ideas, we get?

    Is the real Universe simple? Yes

    Is the abstract universe simple? No

    Is unique, once, simple Yes?

    Is 0 1 simple? No.

    Joe

    Dear Stanislav -

    It was interesting for me to see someone link our perception of reality to the evolutionary process. I interpret your paper this way, and to me it means that It and Bit are 'correlated' by evolution.

    Ultimately, even 'matter' is simply very ancient information, supported by appropriate biological configurations. And because evolution involves constant change, the field of our reality is continually shifting. This has very significant implications which I explore in my essay.

    Your presentation is very original and stimulating; my own approach to describing the observer's participation in the field of observation involves a paradigm I'm sure you will find useful (at least, I hope!). This being said, I've rated your work - and hope you'll soon find time to read mine, and to give me your impressions.

    I wish you the best of luck in the competition,

    John.

    Hello Stanislav,

    Very nice diagrams you have in your essay. You really have artistic talent. Have you seen my essay? It also discuss ancient arguments on geometry.

    Try and have a look and rate if you enjoy it.

    Best regards,

    Akinbo

    Dear Stanislas,

    This is quite interesting and relevant. I wonder if your drawings can be understood as living on a disk or on a sphere. This is because I am also interested by drawings on surfaces such as the (Riemann) sphere, or the torus or other surfaces.

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

    There are some simlarities between both approaches at the level of their information content. For example, I could encode the alpha/omega pictures in terms of "dessins d'enfants" and the related permutation groups.

    This is good work and I will rate it accordingly.

    All the best,

    Michel

    Dear Stanislav,

    Your essay looks stunning. Well done! It is a pleasant read, interesting and very informative. What jumped out at me, and I found particularly relevant was the full and crescent moon representation of 0 and 1. Humans have taken thousands of years to get to these modern day questions, yet we still utilise symbols that made sense at the very beginning. I like geometry of every kind, and formulated a theory that partly unifies the four forces of nature. In my essay, however, I utilise the Fibonacci sequence to explore information transfer and entropy.

    Please take a look if you get chance.

    Best wishes and well done on a refreshingly delightful approach,

    Antony

    Stanislav

    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 each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

    Good luck and good cheers!

    Than Tin

    Dear Stanislav - I am hoping you'll soon be able to read my essay, and give me your feedback. There's always something to be gained by a bit of dialogue!

    Best Regards,

    John

    Dear Stanislav,

    Would you, please, contact me soon at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in

    Best wishes,

    sreenath

    Dear Stanislav,

    Thanks for a very good presentation.

    Regards

    Dipak

    http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855

    Dear Smirnov,

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

    You are correct about the reverse engineering...

    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

    Dear Stanislav Sergeevich Smirnov:

    Your essay enlighten us with word etymology and the origin of many concepts. I had the hope when I was reading it, to find the origin of the word "time" or "tiempo", the origin of a concept which probably was that of a system to measure "motion" with which comparatively men measure distances, like five suns away , i.e. we have to wait two full moons etc. I like your essay a lot and I will rate it accordingly.

    Maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

    I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

    I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

    Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

    I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

    With my best whishes

    Héctor

      • [deleted]

      Dear Hector!

      Thank you for your kind attention to my work.

      I did not explain the etymology of word "time" and I can try to do it now:

      According to etymology dictionary the word "time" comes from PIE root *dī-mon. Where *di- means "cut up, divide".

      The word "temp" is of unknown origin. But very close to the word "temp" we can find the word "temple" which comes from PIE root *tema- "to cut"

      As it was mentioned in my essay, all human religions grow from giving respect to worldwide "time machine" - the moon. That is why "temple" which is religious structure has so close etymology with time which is tempo.

      You can see that first mission of all religious structures in the world is providing a signal of correct time.

      All churches have either clocks or bells to inform society about time state.

      Muslim mosques have minarets where special person muezzin informs people about correct time.

      Interesting that PIE root *tem- has a meaning: sacred place, temple, round place.

      All religious structures are built in a form of a stick and round area around. This form comes from ancient mechanism of time control - sun/moon clock - a stick in a circle, which gives a shadow moving around.

      The word "temple" has one more meaning as a part of skull. It could be accidentally, but it is not.

      In a Greek, word "mosque" is translated as "temenos". First, you can see root "teme" which is very close to "time" and conforms that the mosque is also a time controlling structure. Second, there is a word in Russian "temya" which means crown, vertex, sincupit - the same part of a skull as a temple...

      Now you can see beautiful correlation between words "crown" and "chrono" which again backs to time.

      Also there is an interesting correlation of time to objects reminded in the essay: hare and moon.

      Word "hour" phonetically corresponds with word "hare" and word "month" corresponds with word "minute".

      Etymology of the word "hour" corresponds with given hypothesis as this word has same roots with word "year" which comes from PIE *yer- with meaning "year, season, spring". And as mentioned in my essay, ancient New Year was celebrated in spring in a form of Easter.

      The word "minute" comes from meaning "small" and shows same logic as "month". The minute is the smallest part of the hour, same as the month is the smallest part of the year.

      So as you can see all words connected to "time semantic core" point to astronomic events or to religious terms.

      Hope now you have better understanding about development of time issue in our language.

      Wish you to have good rate in this contest.

      Regards, Stanislav

      Dear Smirnov,

      I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many other threads I have commented on over the last few days. This has been a lot of work and I feel like it has been a waste of time and energy. Seems to have happened to others too - if not all.

      I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something.

      Hopefully the posts will be able to be retrieved by FQXi.

      I'm going to rate you highly now, just in case the system freezes up again before the end.

      Best wishes,

      Antony

        Dear Stanislav Sergeevich Smirnov:

        Your essay enlighten us with word etymology and the origin of many concepts. I had the hope when I was reading it, to find the origin of the word "time" or "tiempo", the origin of a concept which probably was that of a system to measure "motion" with which comparatively men measure distances, like five suns away , i.e. we have to wait two full moons etc. I like your essay a lot and I will rate it accordingly.

        Maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

        I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

        I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

        Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

        I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

        With my best whishes

        Héctor

        Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

        If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

        I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

        There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

        Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

        This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

        Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

        This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

        However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

        Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

        Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

        The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

        Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

        This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

        Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

        You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

        With many thanks and best wishes,

        John

        jselye@gmail.com

        Stanislav,

        You did say you'd read my essay, but I gather many have been put off by the dense extract. Georgina said the essay is very readable, and I hope you'll go by the positive blog comments which include;

        "groundbreaking", "clearly significant", "astonishing", "fantastic job", "wonderful", "remarkable!", "deeply impressed", etc.聽

        Final few rating days and I see yours is well outside the cut, I hope my score helps. Mine has been passed over from 7th two years running so I need all the points I can get. but do rate it fairly, I'm sure you'll be shocked and amazed!

        Well done for yours. Very best wishes.

        Peter