Where is the Wisdom we have lost in Information? Returning Wheeler’s Honor and Philo-Sophy—the Love of Wisdom—to Physics. by Dr. Elliot McGucken

Dr. McGucken,

I, too, remember Prof. Wheeler from my time as an undergrad at Princeton 40 years ago. I also agree with you that much of modern theoretical physics has been misdirected. You might be interested in reading my essay ( "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotations and Relative Time" ). I present a simple realistic picture of quantum waves based on special relativity, and show how this leads naturally to a form of general relativity, with no additional assumptions. The famous paradoxes of indeterminism and entanglement disappear.

Alan Kadin

Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken:

I am an old physician, and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, but after the common people physic discipline is the one that uses more the so called "time" than any other. After I read what you think of today physics, I think my essay can land real physics down to earth.

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

Dear Dr. Elliot. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken,

I am a decrepit old realist and I do hope that you will not think me impertinent. You wrote about FQXi "...the only thing with consistent, novel foundational, physical testable model of the universe, complete with postulate and equation was ignored. I do hope FQXi does not ignore my theory.

The real Universe only deals in absolutes. All information is abstract and all and every abstract part of information is excruciatingly difficult to understand. Information is always selective, subjective and sequential. Reality is not and cannot ever be selective subjective and sequential.

One (1) real unique Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real "speed" of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history. Life is the absolute of understanding.

Had Wheeler only asked?

Is the real Universe simple? Yes

Is the abstract universe simple? No

Is unique, once simple Yes.

Is 0 1 simple? No.

Good luck in the contest,

Joe

Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken,

Firstly, let me tell you I am delighted by your essay. Secondly, I am happy to count one more dependable ally in the mission to restore glory to our physics. There is nothing to criticize in your essay as all lovers of truth must read it thoroughly. As we all know, history will surely vindicate the just. Even if you would not be commenting on or rating my essay, as one close to Wheeler, I would like you to guess answers he would have given to some of my questions below (following Wheeler's own quote and use of words). I had earlier sought answers by circulating to a few but some found this disrespectful so I stopped.

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there...

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Looking forward to more correspondence with an ally.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Then on the foundational issues raised in my essay, is the basic unit of geometry, that 'having no part', a zero dimensional or an extended object? That is 'point' or 'monad'?

"To begin with, let us examine a simple, irrefutable proof of moving dimensions theory, that anyone who has witnessed the double-slit experiment, cannot deny. The proof comes from my earlier paper:

Time as an Emergent Phenomenon & Deriving Einstein's Relativity from Moving Dimensions Theory's dx4/dt=ic: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics"

Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken,

I found your above comments to be well grounded in the current paradigm of how observed or measured effects cause effects, i.e., effectual causality and could not help but wonder if you had considered/addressed what caused the effects observed in the double-slit experiments in the first place?

I am more than pleased to give you a high rating. However, before I do, I would like to run some other questions by you if I may via email. My email address is: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

I look forward to hearing from you and supporting your efforts before the conclusion of this competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Dear d-r Elliot,

I have read your nice essay that arise many controversial associations to me. Particularly I see your big honor to our teachers/classics of physics that I fully share with you. I think however that they must be perceived as normally fair persons in first. Thus, they have right also to have mistakes as anyone from us. You know well the drama that become the share of Einstein, as well as of Schroedinger, de Broglie, Pauly and for many others. So, we must ask himself - what happened with physics and physicists in that time? Whay they become so unhappy on the end of their career and of lives? I have touch to this questions also in my essay within other aspects. I hope you will find time to open it Es text. For me will be very valuable any your comment in my forum - as from of one professional.

I see very unfair such small attention on your work that I am going to rate as ,,high,, - as one of interesting work presented in the contest.

I wish you good health and all the best!

George

Dear Dr McGucken

I just read your response to Anton Vrba. I so agree; especially about the lipstick!

Now, to read your paper...

Stephen Anastasi

I have read your paper. I cannot see how an expanding dimension would not lead to Zeno's paradoxes. It would need to assume a smooth continuum I feel, as with a lot of other physical theories, as well slamming into my 'Problem for Geometry' carried into your fourth dimensional schema (see attached).

Just a thought.

Best wishes

Stephen AnastasiAttachment #1: 2_A_problem_for_geometry_1.pdf

Dear Professor McGucken,

Thank you for your epic post above. I agree we certainly have similar views on some things. Are we now to old to be heroes?

I'd be most grateful if you have a moment to check over and agree the equations in my previous essay and end notes. They're not extensive.

I noted I hadn't rated your essay and it was languishing, we should dos so, have now done so to very good effect I hope. Some essays such as yours do seem rather out of position.

Very best wishes

Peter

Dear De McGucken,

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. Your thread was one affected by this.

I can't remember the full extent of what I said, but I have notes so know that I rated it very highly.

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

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear Dr McGucken,

What a fantastic essay - sorry I have only just read it! I rate it highly as it deserves to be much higher in the rankings. Regardless of this, I think you've presented the right arguments in a clear, concise and relevant way. It is very, very interesting with the history involved and the passion you've shown sucks the reader in - in a good way! :)

I'm an advocate of bottom up approaches.

Anyway best wishes for the contest and congratulations on an engaging essay.

Antony

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

Dear Dr. Elliot McGucken,

I find your interest in the arts most endearing and relative to the findings of a recently completed experiment that may indeed confirm your Moving Dimensions Theory and your statement, "And if I want to turn history around to try to get a new way of looking at it, it doesn't make any difference; the only real test in physics is experiment, and history is fundamentally irrelevant." Although you have a different approach to the topic than I do, I found your essay to be insightful and intuitive and most worthy of merit.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Dear Elliot,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Dr Elliot

Are you like my essay?

Yuri

Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Dear Elliot,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Dear Elliot McGucken,

Yes you are a hero in many ways. You have the ancient Plato's soul that is searching for the truth no matter what. I share your searching for truth no matter what. Simultaneously, I welcome and desire diversity of opinions and I am against uniformity of opinion because this means the death of humanity. We can learn this from history of many civilizations from Asia, to Africa, to America and to Europe, wherever, they closed their doors from outside influences and from exchange of ideas and goods, these civilizations are in the "dark ages".

Yes, we need more heroes. Fortunately I have met many brave heroes like you.

We have similarities but also many differences. I do think differences are good and blessing. I don't like uniformity.

Rather than four dimensions x1, x2, x3, x4, in the fourth dimension x4 that is moving to the x1,2,3; whereas KQID has ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) Multiverse in the zero dimension of singularity A+S=E=ψI(CTE) meme as the bits-waves function of consciousness (C), time(T) and energy(E). This meme ψI(CTE) is an atom, you and me, earth, our universe, our God/s and our Multiverse as well as Karl Popper's scientific method. The iLx,y,z are within the Lm or zeroth dimension. In other words, LM is pregnant with iLx,y,z. the mother Lm is carrying around the child ilx,y,z. The i before Lx,y,z showing that it is a secondary entity and it is an emergent products of Lm and iLx,y,z are the child of Lm and Lm is the mother of iLx,y,z. KQID treats i as a real number just like 123 but it is still √-1. Thus, everything is going on is going on inside that one singularity Qbit Multiverse meme that calculates Einstein complex coordinates and simultaneously project those numbers onto 2D screen everywhere space in time.

Yours MDT: dx4/dt= ic , whereas KQID dLm/dt = c where Lm is our Multiverse timeline in the zeroth dimension, c is the KQID flexible c-timerod or c is the movement of time. Thus, c is time; c is KQID flexible c-timerod, rather than Einstein's rigid meterrod. Einstein and MDT are measuring spacetime but KQID is measuring space in time. the time c-timerod is measuring time!!! Time contracts; thus length contracts and energy and mass increase. Time is the mother of space and space is the child of time. Time is primary and space is secondary. Time is pregnant with space in its bosom. Whereas, your MDT like Einstein assumes space is real and time is a persistent illusion. This is legitimate worldview but KQID prescribes contrary worldview that time is real as primary, and space in time is also real as secondary.

I agree with Karl Popper's statements below that you quoted that I do also like and agree with Karl Popper's meme ψI(CTE) and I subscribe his scientific method and falsification.

You stated:

"Karl Popper: Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again.

Karl Popper: Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.

Karl Popper: In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality."

Yes, we have many in common as a rebel among other things and we both respect heroes like Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Max Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Wheeler, Feynman, Landauer, and i do also like Chinese heroes like Fu Xi, Nüwa, Shennong, Xuan Yuan, Kongzi, Wang Yaming and many others like Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Krishna, etc, and we do still need more heroes everywhere who stand for the truth and are willing to risk their jobs, positions, fame and fortune and if necessary even lives.

Salute!

Live long and prosper,

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan