Existence is Difference and is expressed by Information by ioannis hadjidakis and theodor vidalis

Ioannis,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

Ioannis,

As of 7-6-13, 7:48 am EST, the rating function for your essay is not available. Sorry I can't help you out right now by rating your essay. NOTE: I have logged in using a PC and a MAC and different browsers but it appears to be a site function issue.

Manuel

Ioannis,

I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.

My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online competition which assures me that the competition will be back up and running soon. Ironically, the inability of not being able to rate the essays correlates with the TD experimental findings, as presented in my essay, which show how the acts of selection are fundamental to our physical existence.

Anyway, I hope that all entrants will be allocated the same opportunity to have their essay rated when they are posted, and if not possible due to technical difficulties, will have their opportunity adjusted accordingly. Best wishes to you with your entry.

Manuel

PS I will be reviewing and rating your entry after this function has been turned back on.

Dear all,

Any existent appears in dual form: Real (IT) - What it is, and Virtual (BIT) - How it works.

IT is caused by "past" and causes "future" while BIT is caused by "future" and causes "past" ("past" and "future" are in accordance to real world).

Hence, future and past are included in existent' s present.

Dear Ioannis,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

.....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

===============

Please try Dynamic Universe Model with some numerical values, give initial values of velocities, take gravitation into consideration( because you can not experiment in ISOLATION). complete your numerical experiment.

later try changing values of masses and initial values of velocities....

Calculate with different setups and compare your results, if you have done a physical experiment.

I sincerely feel it is better to do experiment physically, or numerically instead of breaking your head on just logic. This way you will solve your problem faster.....

Best

=snp

Dear Ioannis hadjidakis,

Thank you very much for your interest in my essay and for your time spent on this essay. These are good questions. I will be putting - - - - - before your words. Next will be my answers.

- - - - -A nice essay full of experimental data. However, the resemblance to the theme of this contest seems to me rather obscure. - - - - -

Thank you very much once again for good comments.

- - - - -Let me simplify the whole thing with the following simple experiment (Did I misunderstood something?):

Let us have a box full of water. Each set of molecules within it has its own temperature according to its molecules' kinetic energy. Hence, they emit the appropriate radiation. If we set a Vakradiation detector somewhere in this box - obviously - we will detect the VAKR... radiation that appears to be uniform and emitted from any set of molecules we like. However, the cause of molecules' kinetic energy is not explained in any way by these observations. - - - - -

This is NOT an micro sensor( smaller) but is an all radiation detection sensor ( Like a Microwave dish antenna used in satellites). Kinetic energy of the molecules is not a point measuring criteria. This case is not applicable.

You may have a look into these two points asked others in the ABOVE posts, which are reproduced in the following

1. Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 05:16 GMT

And your another question""""" Concerning your present essay you obviously know what you are doing - I will only ask one technical detail: In your analysis of radiation from a disc or spherical source don't you need to account for the effects of diffraction? Your analysis treats geometrical rays but the results may be affected one way or another with diffraction included. (If the ratio between the radius and the wavelength is very small diffraction will be minimal.)"""""

Thank you once again for such good question. Dish size( Diameter) can be 0.2 to 50 Metres. I don't think your limitation will be applicable here. This diffraction will cause some more averaging effect on the measurement of radiation. What do you say.

2. Joachim J. Wlodarz wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 16:48 GMT

''''''' Another thing, which is problematic for me, is the use of Boltzmann-Stefan law in combination with "radiation in all frequencies" in your discussion. Isn't it prone to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" problem ? '''''''

Thank you for nice question once again. See Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Jean

s_law

In 1900 Max Planck empirically obtained an expression for black-body radiation expressed in terms of wavelength in Planck's law. The Planck law does not suffer from an ultraviolet catastrophe, and agrees well with the experimental data, but its full significance (which ultimately led to quantum theory) was only appreciated several years later. Since, then in the limit of very high temperatures or long wavelengths, the term in the exponential becomes small. . . .

Hence I feel for our ranges, there will not be any error!

- - - - -This is the meaning (among many others) of Big Bang (BB) theories that it tries to explain "background" energy by saying that it came from a "superhot" singularity. Nobody seriously supports the idea that CMB came straight from BB but it came to us (no mater how) as a consequence of the BB. The observed fluctuations of CMB are caused by certain stars' or galaxies' procedures but the overall CMB - by any evidence - was caused by BB. - - - - -

None of the experiments conducted till today detected any BB created radiation. Everybody measured only star / galaxy radiation. This is what I am showing here. There is no overall CMB except these radiation.

- - - - -During last contest I posed a major worry about our conception beyond our galaxy.

"... Milky way (our galaxy) is even more interesting as its Schwarzschild radius is approx. 3*10^25 m (mass = 2*10^42 kg) while its radius is about 5*10^20 m. ..."

I would like your opinion on this as it is substantially related to your essay. - - - - -

This is not directly or indirectly related to this essay. Because these are no Blackholes in the Dynamic Universe model, Blackholes are mathematical singularities. In this essay on CMB also, we don't use the concept of Blackholes.

Any further questions are welcome...

Please post a reply in my essay, so that I will get an intimation...

Best

=snp

Thank you Ioannis,

thank you for the post.

I did not follow exactly what you mean by your words ''''''''''' According to my knowledge none experiment has ever shown the existence of matter. We only deduce its existence by the experiments just like BB.'''''''''''''

Probably you mean to say, matter is not produced in any experiment, is it not? Yes, you are correct!

and....

BB is a mathematical singularity it is not an experiment.

Best Regards

=snp

Ioannis,

I have reviewed your essay and found your belief in 'cause and effect' to be substantiated by the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. Your closing statement, "It is time to evolve a new way of thinking." is right on the mark!

I have a couple of questions I would like to run by you if I may. If it is not too much to ask, could you let me know what your email address is? My email address is msm@physicsofdestiny.com

Thanks,

Manuel

Hello Ioannis,

As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

"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.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Dear ioannis,

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

Hello Ioannis,

The 4 questions I asked were not meant to offend but to focus on the theme of the contest which is whether Bit is from It or It is from Bit. You failed the test, but I will be rating your essay high. Why? Because, when you read and rate my essay, you will find that both of us agree that-

1)"The space is the dots. A dot carries the elementary information and has two possible states, "on" and "off" and that 2) Existence is the difference".

Good line of thinking.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Dear Ioannis,

In your short but lucid essay you have rightly started your journey from the beginning of the universe itself and succeeded in explaining how all entities came in to existence except information and ideas as these two were present before the universe existed. It is good to see that you are giving priority to information and ideas over space, time and matter following the philosophy of great Plato and Hegel. It is true that we realize this through 'meditation' only as they are beyond space and time, and information and ideas serve as basics to our knowledge to form and evolve. That is why there can be no rational explanation to give a proof for their existence and priority.

You are saying that space consists of 'dots' and these dots carry information; do you have developed theory in this regard and what is the size/ length/ width of each dot?

When you say that "We do believe that rational beings have the ability to understand all that take place in the cosmos, because they are part of the world of the Ideas which created the universe", you remind me of what I have said in this regard in my 'biology' section of my essay. You have ended your essay with the aphorism "It is time to evolve a new way of thinking". I quite agree with this considering the current plight of physics.

Any way, you have written a brief essay with full of bright points which need to be elaborated.

Please go through my essay also (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and post your valuable comments in my thread. After posting your comments, I would like to rate your insightful essay with a very high rating.

All the best in the essay contest,

Sreenath

Dear ioannis,

Thanks for your comments on my essay and also for the right analysis of the theme of my essay. I will rate your essay highly.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Hello Ioannis

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