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

      Jim,

      Thank you for reading my essay. I have to acknowledge that it does contain some heady stuff. I may have packed too much into 9 pages when perhaps an overview might have been more comprehensible.

      When I speak of entropy, I mean the minimal amount of information needed to describe a state or system. In a cosmological sense, this would be how many bits can be encoded into the universe, which is maximally homogeneous for position/time space.

      Later on, when I discuss the knowledge generation mechanism, I relate cosmological entropy to quantum information theory. Essentially, you have a universe full of possible paths of which only one is experienced by the observer, with a corresponding loss of quantum entanglement information.

      The universe expands as knowledge is generated (i.e., paths selected) from an underlying quantum wholeness. Black holes are compactifications of position/time space with reciprocal increase in entanglement entropy. At minimum scale and at maximum entanglement entropy, all paths are equally probable and each corresponds to a parallel universe.

      You might say that the universe we know has grown from the pruning and discarding of alternate branches (paths).

      I look forward to reading and reviewing your essay.

      Best wishes,

      Richard

      Dear Richard,

      I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

      Regards and good luck in the contest,

      Sreenath BN.

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

      Dear Richard,

      As promised, below are my comments.

      I like the wide range of your essay, the arguments are not in the academic style but I don't worry. I think we have similar views about the meaning of knowledge and the pertinent mathematical tools.

      "Information is contextual" as I also justify in my essay

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

      As I already coined, Klein anticipates Grothendieck and creates/uses the stereographic projection for deriving the invariants of platonic solids.

      In Sec.6, you feature three-qubit entanglement. We (I an coauthors) spent a lot of energy for understanding these structures (a hint is in Sec. 3.3 of my essay).

      Congratulations and good luck dor the contest,

      Michel

      Hi Richard

      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.

      Good Luck,

      Than Tin

        Dear Richard,

        I appreciate your kind comments and I am going to post my comments on your essay shortly in your thread.

        Best wishes,

        Sreenath

        Dear Richard,

        You have nicely summed up the whole of physics from micro (quantum) to macro (classical) in a concise and elegant manner. The figures clarify what you want to say in a clear way. Your coverage of micro physics is highly convincing and you have made general relativity look simple and its cosmological implications easy to grasp. Your viewing of a black hole and a micro particle from its size look fantastic. The role played by brain in acquiring knowledge by cognizing the processes taking place in both quantum world and the classical world is exemplary. Information plays primary role in the world, siding with Wheeler, compared to matter; i.e. Bit is prior to It. You have clearly defined both information and consciousness and also the connections between them. Your knowledge of mathematical and geometrical skills in deducing all important equations in both micro macro worlds is commendable. Your final views as you have given in your abstract can be summarized as "We are perceptually contained in a virtual world projected by our brain and the It and Bit are actually reciprocal entities that together generate the phenomenal universe", thus agreeing with my conclusion reached by me in my essay.

        I am really glad for your appreciation of my idea of comparing a mathematician to a sculptor and would have been still gladder had you included the photograph of that statue carved by Michelangelo.

        Thank you very much for producing such a nice article and I would like to rate it very high (above 8) after hearing your response to my comments in my thread.

        Best wishes,

        Sreenath

          Dear Richard,

          As said I have rated your nicely written essay with high a score.

          Best wishes,

          Sreenath

          Than,

          I enjoyed reading your essay. We are certainly in agreement on the dual nature of quantum reasoning and classical reasoning, with the Planck constant as the Mother of All Dualities. It is easy then to extend the schema from the Planck constant to a generalized action principle incorporating both freedom and determinism.

          Best wishes,

          Richard

          Richard - some excellent summaries in here, and (mostly) well connected with coherent insights. Nice job.

          I did read all the way down the rabbit hole ...

          Your comment that "To a hypothetical massless passenger, a photon is instantaneously everywhere" is not quite correct. The proper time depends on Lorentz frame of reference. For example, if our hypothetical massless passenger happens to be in the atom, the proper time of a photon is zero. If she happens to be traveling with the photon, then the proper time for whatever is going on in the atom appears to be zero. Lorentz Transformations are symmetric. [See Peres & Terno "Quantum Information and Relativity Theory" http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212023v2 for an excellent description].

          My favorite paragraph in your paper ... Well I have two:

          "Wheeler and Feynman, in their time symmetric theory [22], theorized that no particle is emitted unless it is absorbed somewhere later in the universe. All electromagnetic field equations are invariant under time-reversal symmetry. Consequently, a wave can be considered going both forward in time from the point of emission (retarded wave) and backward in time from the point of absorption (its conjugate advanced wave)."

          This [22] is (I think) where I got my original idea for subtime many years ago.

          My second favorite paragraph:

          2. "The process that selects the xt information encoded in pe waves is measurement. A recent experiment [29] showed that the measured spin state of an atom is correlated with the direction of the path of an emitted photon. Conversely, adjusting the orientation of the observed photon's polarization at the stop point alters the spin states of the atom at the start point, supposedly "after' the photon was emitted."

          Thank you for finding this reference, this is terrific, and ties in well with how I conceptualize entanglement. However, note that in a reversible subtime scenario, the ordering of individual events (before, after) has no meaning.

          This is discussed further in my paper: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1897