First principle is eDuality ! by Amazigh M. Hannou

Amazigh,

Short remark about your statements.

'It is like the motion. Aristotle advanced things, but it was necessary to wait for Galilee, with the experimental science to know more about it'

Comm.Physicists can say that Galileo experiment with free fall bodies rejected Aristotle philosophical illusion on motion.Moreover, Galileo first formulated new fundamental principle ( principle of equivalence of inertia and gravitation ) used later by Newton and Einstein.Thus, this example can demonstrate an existence of opposition - wrong speculations vs scientific experiment.

'duality is the basis of symmetry'?

Comm.I think there is difference between physical and mathematical subcultures on notion duality based symmetry.It is complex definition.Dirac believed that physical symmetry could be connected with mathematical beauty. Schrodinger produced beautiful equation, but was not able to solve it ( mathematician Weyl brought it to perfection ).

Michael.

Not sure I follow it all, but I rated you a ten because it seems like the thing to do.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616

Dear Amazigh,

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 Amazigh,

I agree with your essay that dualism is certainly a major aspect of reality, although I don't necessarily agree that the world is binary. The existence of almost any feature or property of anything is typically defined in contrast to its opposite, hence duality. Thus it seems not unreasonable to view duality as a basic principle of the universe.

In fact, I discuss dualism in my essay and point out a little recognized duality associated with the gravitomagnetic field.

Thank you very much for reading my essay and commenting. Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Amasigh from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder

I enjoyed your essay but I felt it was a poem - a literary work of art rather than a scientific paper.

I also agree with Edwin Klingman's comments that daulism is certainly a major aspect of reality although I too do not believe that the world is binary.

Thank you for rating my essay. Here again is a synopsis of it :

In the closing moments of this most auspicious event I feel driven to add the following remarks.

Some of the positive-rate-worthy features of my essay are the following:

(1) I provide a clear & easily understood definition of information, which is that it is the full set of real, not abstract nor hypothetical, geometrical objects present here in our universe;

(2) These (real) geometrical objects are properly observable phenomena - that is to say, easily observed, measured, quantified & verified phenomena. Therefore as such my hypothesis is a readily testable one. Even a well informed (sic) 8 year old child could verify it.

I demonstrate how these entities can be observed - measured, quantified, verified - & contrast this ease of verification to that of the essentially impossible task of observing & verifying any of the quantum phenomena suggested by many to be units of information.

(3) As David Deutsch puts it, 'information' is 'something' that can be transferred from medium, to medium, to medium & yet remain unchanged - see quote in my essay. One of the many proofs of my hypothesis - that information is geometrical objects - that I have marshaled in it defense is that they are not only something that can be transferred from medium to medium in this fashion, but are the only things which can be so transferred.

(4) Underneath its meaning each of our own human-made units of information - all of our own signs, codes, symbols, words, letters & languages - is a geometrical object plain & simple, or an assembly thereof. Which fact proves that geometrical objects are capable of carrying units of information on their backs. Literally.

(5) Each of the many & various left-over scratches, scars, dents, bump-marks, vibrations & residues still remaining on previously impacted solid bodies present here in our universe, is, one, single naturally-occurring geometrical object.

Geometric-cum-informational objects exist throughout the universe in several different grades or orders. It is useful to designate all of these left-over bump-marks as belonging to the class of 'secondary geometrical objects'. (I itemize some of the other classes in my essay.)

Examples drawn from this secondary class of geometrical-cum-informational objects are : craters on the Moon, ripples in a pond, heat in a sun-warmed rock, vibrations in the air emanating from a bumped hollow log. And the biggest - & longest-lasting - bump-mark of all time has to be the Big Bang ripples still remaining in the MWBR.

No great difficulty attends the task of recognising that each & every one of these simple geometrical objects (all of these simple shapes), 'carries' some information on its back - each literally 'tells' 'a story' - a 'tale' not only concerning the identity of the solid object which created it, but where, when & from which direction the creating solid object approached the impacted one & how fast etc.

Which set of easily observed facts proves that, just as do all of our own human-made signs & symbols carry information on their backs, so also do all of the naturally-occurring geometrical objects 'out there in the wild' too.

To sum so far : Every unit of (known) information (as are our own signs & symbols) 'sits' on top of some one or another or ensemble of, geometrical object/s; & on each & every geometrical object here in our universe - human-made or naturally occurring - there 'rides' some one or another particular meaning - some one or another item of information.

In this manner do geometrical objects show themselves to be 'dual-purpose' phenomena.

(6) Observation of the manner in which geometrical objects are USED within our cosmos quickly apprises one of the fact that they are not only used by interacting solid bodies to guide & direct their responses to one another during those interactions, but are so used in this fashion by every solid object every time it interacts with another solid body - & this obtains regardless of the size, shape, composition, location, animate status of the interacting solids.

This conclusion obtains due to the fact that attendant on any impact/contact event the bodily SHAPES (the geometricities) of the participants involved always play a critically-determining albeit not sufficient, role in the outcome of that impact/contact event.

This observation regarding the universality of the manner in which geometrical objects are USED within our cosmos - as guides for action - provides a definition of 'thinking' which is 'using information to guide & direct action'; or in its long form - 'thinking' is 'using information (which always exists as some one, another or assembly of geometrical objects) to guide & direct action, such action as taken by some properly thinking/acting agent specifically in regard to whatever object/s &/or event/s the information being so used, concerns'.

Although we ourselves use a very great deal more information than the rocks & stones beneath our feet & the atoms & molecules in the air nevertheless we are only doing exactly what they are in kind which is using information to guide & direct our every interactive encounter with whatever other solid body any of us encounters during our existential history here in our cosmos.

So then, this observation regarding the universality of the manner in which geometrical objects are USED within our cosmos - to guide & direct action - apprises us of the fact that 'thought' - as the use of information-as-geometrical-objects to guide action - is an innate capacity of solid matter & occurs ubiquitously here & on the most routine of bases, no less than each time any two solid objects interact with one another.

As such 'thought' is no longer a mysterious phenomenon, indeed, can be readily seen to be a 'perfectly natural' one - that is to say one which in no way requires either magic or miracles to execute. This realisation massively narrows 'the God gap' within our understanding of everything 'inside' our universe - if not quite entirely banishes 'him'.

And although knowing all these (easily demonstrated) facts about information & as to all of these information-related phenomena, elucidates any number of presently highly mysterious phenomena including thought, mind & consciousness, this knowledge does not illuminate any of the so-called first & final causes - including why matter was made in such a manner so as to make 'thought' an innate capacity thereof. And this lack of knowledge as to all & any first & final causes exists in spite of the fact that coming to this understanding that everything thinks - some just at a 'higher' level than others - does verily indeed narrow the so-called 'God Gap' as it pertains to all inside phenomenon.

(7) The fact that geometrical objects are observable entities allows their involvement with, or their passage through the thinking-machinery of, any properly thinking entity to be ascertained.

Performing this particular 'tracing' exercise as to our own thinking process, with no great difficulty not only allows us to identify & define all thinking related phenomena such as thought, mind & consciousness, it also apprises us of the exact location of where our own most valued cognitive self-conscious awareness resides.

As there exists at this location 'only' a little bit of water - more usually designated 'interstitial fluid' - this discovery strongly compels the conclusion that we live in a panpsychic universe, that is to say, one in which 'knowingness' exists at the pen-ultimate quintessence of matter (at the quantum level ?), for, nothing other than its location marks out this small amount of interstitial fluid as being special in any way.

Moreover & due entirely to its location, it is the only thing here in our universe privy to each & every one of our own conscious thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions & imaginings.

(8) Observation of our own thinking process quickly alerts one to the fact that it - our own thinking process - is NOT digital, but wholly analogue; the thinking machinery of all higher (animal) thinkers - which thinking machinery includes all sensory equipment as well as all motor machinery & not just the assembly lines central processor - handles all of the information it does so handle in analogue format - specifically in individual geometrical objects or ensembles thereof .

I provide several more proofs that geometrical objects are information in my essay & again I here point out that these proofs - unlike any leveled at such difficult if not impossible to observe quantum phenomena - are easily recognised to be what they are - confirmations of my principle claims on information's behalf.

These determinations rather unproblematically allow an understanding of, by any sufficiently careful (& objective) investigator, any number of information-related phenomena, one of which is the fact that 'thinking' is a completely different phenomenon from 'computing'. Digits are quite suitable entities with which to compute - to count, calculate & compute, but are not at all suitable for real thinking - for the latter, information in the form of geometrical objects alone suffices. The particular devices which perform each of these different tasks are also very different.

As surprising as it may seem, thinking machines even our own, which phenomena being thinking machines obligately operate analogue-ly with geometrical objects as their 'fodder', are not, in & of themselves in any sense intelligent. Only the user/owner/operator can possess this particular quality.

'Intelligence' is 'using the available information in existentially efficacious ways; intelligence increases as the kind & amount of available information increases & also as to the efficacy to which that information it utilised'.

Although thinking machines (& straight-thinking rocks & stones, which do not need specially-built add-on machines to enable them to think) are different from computing devices, nevertheless some 'overlaps' exist. 'Specially-built thinking machines such as our own, do verily indeed 'process' the information being 'shunted' through them. But 'processing' only means 'sorting'; it does not mean 'executing algorithmic contortions on whatever is being processed/sorted - which latter is something computing devices do very well.

That being said probably all specially built thinking machines also count, calculate & compute as to some of the operations they perform on whatever is passing through them - digits &/or geometrical (analogue) entities.

As false modesty has never been a vice of mine, I un-ashamedly hope that my essay receives high ratings all round. But with apologies . ... ..

Margriet O'Regan.

Dear Amazigh,

It has taken some time for me to get a chance to honor your request to visit your essay, but things finally came together enough to allow me to do so now, so here I am. I read your paper and I found it to be overly general and vague in structure. Much is made of duality, but in fact many of the concepts that you give in your paper as examples of duality are not true duality structures.

In some cases you label the extremes of a continuum as duality when in fact they are just two points on a continuously variable structure. An example of this is "plain, mountain". You do not go directly from a plain to the top of the mountain. You must go up a distance that would of course vary according to the specific plain and mountain involved. In addition to that, the plain is actually the middle with valley at the bottom. Looked at this way, mountain, plain, valley is a trinity and not a duality. Also, "short, tall" and "short, long" are just the ends of a continuous range of size that would have medium at the middle of the range and "hot, cold" is similar with warm at the center of the range.

In some cases you used examples that actually are trinities as though they were dualities. When talking about time, "before, after" would have now as the center third member of the trinity and in, "past, future" present would be the center member of the trinity. In, "x-axis, y-axis", there would also be z-axis in a three dimensional world such as this one presents to us visually. Of course, if one considers that this world could have other unseen dimensions also, then there could be more than three. In, "lower ()", equal (=) is the center of a trinity of concept.

I know that many desire to justify the concept of duality as a basic and important part of the structure of the world because they desire to justify that concept to explain the supposed wave/particle duality of energy photons and matter particles, but in fact neither energy photons nor matter particles are truly waves or particles in the sense of the traditional concepts of water or sound waves and solid point or billiard ball type objects. Energy photons are motion structures that carry their own motion within themselves and can, therefore, travel through empty space where those other waves are merely motions propagating through the structural components of a medium and cannot travel outside of such a medium. Matter particles are composed of dynamic cyclical motion structures that can act in interactions with variable outcomes that can look somewhat like wave properties in some cases and also can act in ways that look like solid particles under other conditions of interaction. It just depends on the positions and interrelated phasing components, etc. of those dynamic cyclical motions at the point of interaction.

The world that we can see and perceive is composed of motions. Motions are very simple structures, so the structure of the world starts out simply. When you begin to combine various motions in various places in the dimensional system together to make energy photons and matter particles, etc. things get a little more complex, however. Wave functions work somewhat with energy photons and matter particles because traditional waves also possess cyclical motion components. This works pretty well for describing some aspects of energy photons, but matter particles also contain an additional cyclical motion component that acts simultaneously with the one that is also a part of it that it gets from the energy photon(s) trapped within it. Once this additional cyclical motion is taken into consideration the mystery of the multiple outcomes from interactions is solved and understood. Man in this world has just not mastered that concept yet, but all things must come in due time.

If you want the true duality of the visible structure of the universe it would be motion, no motion. This is synonymous with existence, non-existence, but from there everything branches out into multitudes of structures that increase at each higher level of motion structuring. I hope this will be of some help to you.

P.S.

In your comment on my page you mentioned eEnergy, eInfo, eUniverse, and eReality, but I did not see anything about them in your paper. Are they in some other paper of yours? I know that the answer may be somewhere in the comments on this page, but I have not yet had the time to read through them and I must now go to get other things done. If you give me the answer after my comment to you it will make it more likely that I will be able to get the time to look at those things also later.

Sincerely,

Paul B.