Dear Richard

To me, your work is very interesting.

In section 2 you are using without citing sources, values as I do in my work.

If crossed, your and my formulas and values would come to useful conclusions. At the end of section 2 You have calculated the lambda via the radius of the universe and Planck length (as it is a lapsus calami in the first exponent).

It would be good to have the same value for lambda, get through the first mentioned methods (Shannon's formula).

I wish you success in the contest.

Branko

    Vladimir, thank you for your kind comments. I have previously read your "Beautiful Universe Theory", which very elegantly explains how the action of discrete nodes and analog effects generate the dynamics of spacetime. Near the beginning of your essay, you mentioned the rotating gear-like elements featured in Maxwell's diagram of a dielectric ether. The imagery immediately brought to mind hidden variable theories, such as Bohm's implicate order, in which I picture sub-ensembles rotating, like clockwork gears within gears, to generate particle dynamics. Such product states are neither fully classical nor quantum and form the ontological basis for quantum wholeness.

    The thermodynamic position-time space we experience, however, is not ontic but epistemic - a creation of the brain. A complex conjugate theory reconciles this top-down approach with bottom up ontic information approaches, such as your qubit lattice theory. A purely ontic theory violates the Kochen-Specker theorem - that measured quantum states only acquire value after measurement. Also you have to allow for the duality of quantum states. In a recent interferometer experiments, a control photon is put into a quantum superposition of an ambiguous mixture of wave and particle. Particle and wave are not black and white but a varying shade of grey (Nature Photonics, vol 6, p 600; Science, vol 338). There is clearly a gradient between what constitutes epistemic and ontic information.

    For the figure of the hypersphere, I had a specific picture in my mind. I found partial image matches on the internet, which I redrew and combined. Now, upon reviewing a writeup of Penrose's twistor theory (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tweb/00006/index.shtml), I will say, yes - Penrose's depiction is the original inspiration. Penrose basically uses 6-dimensional complex projective space to represent light rays in Minkowski space as points projected onto a celestial Riemann sphere (touched upon in my essay). I use Eddington's complex phase space for an information based theory whereas Penrose's theory is geometric.

    Why the proton and not the electron? For simplicity, I wanted to remain consistent with Eddington's comparison particle, which was the proton. (Also, it is easier to conceptually connect quark-gluon soup at the UV cutoff within a proton with CFT on the event horizon of a black hole.)

    Thank you. I very much appreciate your support and very shortly will read your new essay.

    Satyavarapu,

    Thank you very much for reviewing my essay.

    When the brain thinks, it generates (1) a representation of the world (maya) out of its best guesses and (2) our self as the observer. In truth, we, our brains and the world are all part of a greater holistic process arising from quantum potential. However, we see ourselves as separate (ontic) beings, not as epistemic creations. The entire process of us generating the world and the world generating us works by least action - that which is, is that which is most efficient.

    To come to reality? First, I should say that I am not inventing any new physics. I just wanted to examine how a change in scale alters the nature of reality. Thus, my essay is not a new theory demanding new proofs or evidence, but a reconceptualization of how knowledge of the universe is generated. (You can check the references to see that my arguments are based on well-established theories and experiments.) I just put the pieces together in a different pattern. For me, the idea of a complex conjugate it and bit clarifies my whole understanding of physics. Plus, the idea resolves a number of knotty issues, such as the cosmological constant problem.

    I look forward to reading your essay, which appears very interesting.

    Best,

    Richard

    Hai,

    Xin Chào. Thank you for taking the time to review my essay. I enjoyed reading your essay.

    You point that my essay would more persuasive if applied to real phenomenon. However, what we traditionally call "real" phenomenon - the classical universe of galaxies, stars, the earth and everything we perceive - occurs within an illusory model created by the brain. In this virtual reality (position/time space), we are AI characters who think we are independently existing beings (ontic) due to our ignorance of the underlying processes that stitch us together.

    On the other hand, a hypothetical programmer (or algorithmic equivalent) has no knowledge about the outcome of the game until the program is run. And each time it is run, the game, the rules of the game and the outcome could be different. The universe thus is an interplay between the evolving characters and the quantum potential (momentum/energy space) that generates them.

    To phrase my idea in terms of your theory, then, the conditional epistemic knowledge we humans have is relative, while the ontic potential that generates us is absolute.

    Best wishes on your essay,

    Richard

    Richard,

    Excellent work. And thanks for the comment on my blog (I've replied on BKS, CJD, Haag etc). I can see now some fundamental commonality. Others such as Dr McHarris, Gordon Watson and Edwin K are also somewhat consistent.

    I struggled a little as my skills and approach are conceptual and fundamentally ontological, originally falsifying a wider coherent construction. But the very fact that such consistencies emerge from such different aspects bodes well for the veracity our thesese.

    I particularly liked; "Without context, and without a relative observer to provide such context, notions such as space and time collapse into incoherence." and; "Coordinates and momenta (x, p) can only be dfined consistently in a classical topological background."

    Now it seems all we need to do is find someone capable of hypnotising most of mankind and conducting a belief extraction operation and processor upgrade and all physics is sorted! Is there any other way? I recommend you stop languishing around down here and get noticed. Hold tight for a kick up the list..

    Well done. And best wishes for the results.

    Peter

      Richard,

      Thanks for commenting on my essay. Since you have read it, I'll relate some of our ideas. You have written a most complex essay, spanning much of physics and you tie it together well [as well as possible in nine pages].

      We agree that information is contextual, and that our perceptions yield an internal representation of reality. You ask how can we, based on illusory projections, comprehend the basic nature of reality. Illusion carries a connotation of distortion, and with some exceptions, I do not believe our brains distort reality. As Mark Feeley commented on my page: "If you assume there is only one real field the argument is even simpler: if there is only one field, then you (or anyone else) are a manifestation of that field, and combined with the apparent evidence that you are aware, you are quite logically led to a conclusion that the field is in some way aware." In other words, if the nature of reality is as I suggest, then we are part and parcel of (and Wheeler's 'participating in') reality and are self-aware of this fact. We are made of the hierarchically 'in-formed' local structures 'condensed' from the self-aware field. In which case we *can* comprehend the basic nature of reality. Much of the 'illusion' is based on an overlay of 'metric maps' or 'distance scales' that do not so much 'distort' as 'over-write' the basic awareness of scale-free connectedness. This is extremely utilitarian, but meta-physically misleading, to say the least.

      I like your treatment of phase dimension, scale, and "the screen", although I have strong reservations about the holographic principle. I have some ideas related to the complex plane and Riemann sphere and the mapping of the dynamic models our brains build. Your essay triggered several pages of 'brain model' ideas.

      I too find scale significant and your point that energy density is scale-free. My Master equation is scale-invariant and my key equations are energy-density-based. And, like Eddington, my electron model and cosmological model are toroidal. The electron has spin one-half, which makes sense in my model. Since I haven't really worked out the spin of the cosmological model, thanks for reminding me of this.

      Your 'ant analogy' was also fun and appropriate.

      I was at a small meeting last week where one of the participants presented the picture of entropy you develop with the coin states and the Venn-like diagrams. I still don't understand this completely, and I'm glad to have your essay to study this perspective.

      And I've also found much to agree with in your comments to others.

      So I got a lot out of your essay and I'm really pleased that mine gave you much to think about.

      Best wishes,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Hello Richard,

        I am pleased to read your essay. Great, deep work. Thank you for your kind comments on my forum. You dig down to the deepest meanings. It is very important that your analysis with drawings. In the words of Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics": "truth should be drawn and preyavlena unlimited number of viewers." We are close to you in the spirit of research. . Yes you are right, it is necessary to "dig" deeper into the ontology and epistemology, to get to the most remote sense of being. This is an extremely important task for physicists and poets. In the courtyard a new era - the information. And the physical picture of the world to be filled with new deep meanings.

        Good luck and regards,

        Vladimir

          Dear Richard,

          I had a superficial look at your essay and it is of much interest to me. It seems that we are pursuing similar goals with closely related concept. In particular, Felix Klein can be considered a father of Belyi maps obtained through the stereographic projection. You can see these topics used in my essay

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

          As I am away from my computer this week I will study your essay in more detail next week.

          All the best,

          Michel

          Branko,

          Thank you for your comments and support.

          I think it is very interesting that the value for the cosmological constant (lambda), an area measure in Plank-size bits using the Shannon formula, is within a percentage point of the ratio of the volume of the proton to the volume of the universe, a measure using Euclidean space.

          Best wishes,

          Richard

          Peter,

          Your support is very much appreciated. I think the extraction operation and processor upgrade is on the way. Read Accelerando by Charles Stross, if you have not already done so.

          Also thanks for the boost. My ratings have gone up.

          Best wishes,

          Richard

          Edwin,

          I am very pleased that you got a lot our of my essay. I certainly found your essay stimulating.

          The brain, due to its limited processing power, does not so much distort reality as provide an imperfect simulacrum of it. The result is our perceptual spacetime bubble, with all its qualia and signifiers. We experience just a facet of the whole.

          The "one real field", which I identify with quantum potential, becomes locally self-aware to the extent that global field information is erased. This corresponds to your idea that "we are made of the hierarchically 'in-formed' local structure 'condensed"" from the field. The scale-free connectedness kicks in when we tune out our "overlay of 'metric maps'" (our conditioned self) and reconnect with the possibilities inherent in quantum potential.

          I don't mean to sound mystical, but real knowledge should be transformational not just an abstract exercise. Consequently, I try as much as possible to connect ideas with real life experiences. An example is the ant analogy. I got the idea from watching ants marching across my sun deck while I was writing the essay.

          Best wishes,

          Richard

          Valdimir,

          Thank you for your very supportive review. I find it very gratifying when someone is able to connect with the ideas in my essay.

          The drawings were done the day before the deadline and the last section, "Down the Rabbit Hole", was added just a few hours before the deadline. Although I was very meticulous in developing my initial arguments, I didn't realize the implications until right near the end. So I left a warning for the reader, jammed in some radical concepts, and submitted my essay with just 1 1/2 hours to go.

          Having given the "Down the Rabbit Hole" more thought, I certainly could have developed the ideas more fully (i.e., explaining the high energy limit for entanglement entropy), with drawings of course. However, I am very pleased about the feedback I have received and the opportunity to communicate with others like yourself, who are similar explorers of the great unknown.

          A reconsideration of epistemological entropy vs ontological entropy clarifies how knowledge is generated and resolves issues such as the cosmological constant problem and the black hole firewall paradox without introducing new physics. Next year I will consider entering an essay that it a little less jam packed and more accessible to the general reader.

          Best wishes,

          Richard

          Richard,

          Pretty heavy stuff. I would imagine your have done a lot of research and a lot of thinking about this subject.

          "If there is an ontological component underlying being, how can we determine whether or not it exists? I propose that the entropies from contracting and expanding space have to be considering on different terms. The "it" and "bit" are actually reciprocal entities that together generate the phenomenal universe."

          When you speak of atrophy, do you mean in the cosmological sense (relating to attaining state of maximum homogeneity) and data transmission and information theory sense (loss of info) as well?

          The last sentence above -- speaking of information of physical reality being reciprocal? And are you seeing the mix of black holes and space expansion as your process, entering parallel universes in the mix?

          It's hard to grasp all parts of your concept without more study and more guidance.

          I'd be interested in seeing your views on my essay which is more basic.

          Jim

          ...................................................................................

            Hi Richard,

            Your essay is very nice and well illustrated. There are areas that appear speculative and so need to be verified in future. However, it is worth a rating of 6.

            You expressed the general desire to comprehend the basic nature of reality. But what fundamental 'it' are 'its' made of? We cannot fully discern the 'bit' from the 'it' without fully knowing this. In my essaymy essay I make a couple of suggestions in this direction. You may take a look.

            Best regards,

            Akinbo

              Mr Shand,

              I thought that your essay was exceptionally well written, unfortunately, the graphics ruined your whole abstract argument.

              I am a decrepit old realist and in my essay BITTERS, I have emphasized that one real Universe is uniquely occurring, once. Each real snowflake of the trillions that have fallen or that will ever fall anywhere in the future is unique, once. Uniqueness, once applies to everything real and imagined in the real Universe. Let us re-examine your computer enhanced graphics and let us take notice of the perfect circles and ovals and straight lines and arrows, with the implication that those perfect shapes will last forever. It is pretty to look at, but like all graphic illustration, it is unusual, unrealistic and unnecessary.

              Wheeler should have only asked one question to elicit correct information about the real Universe:

              Is the real Universe simple? Yes is the only answer.

              Subsequent theoretical physicists might then have asked:

              Is the abstract universe simple? No

              I would add:

              Is unique, once simple? Yes

              Is quantum theory simple? No.

              I hope you do well in the contest,

              Joe

              Joe,

              I am sorry that the graphics ruined the argument for you. It is possible that the graphics are unnecessary but (IMHO) they do a better job of conveying meaning than a dozen sentences. Think of the graphics as semantic shortcuts rather than Platonic idealizations.

              The graphics and the words of this essay represent a unique instance, like a snowflake, that will be perceived in the mind of the reader, then melt away.

              Best wishes,

              Richard

              Akinbo,

              Thank you for support. The basic argument, that epistemic entropy differs from and is reciprocal to ontic entropy, has (I believe) strong support in conventional, non speculative physics (i.e., unitary QM, Relativity theory and quantum information theory).

              I placed a warning about the last section of my essay becoming increasingly speculative. However, the idea that expanding scale can be equated to time and contracting scale to gravity, with equilibrium at the scale of an elementary particle, flows naturally from my initial argument.

              I look forward to reading your essay.

              Best wishes,

              Richard