Dear Akinbo,

First, I will be surprised of how a million dollars can be "detected" in my pocket. Second, What kind of multiple choice test is this? I certainly prefer not to bother reviewing our essay and certainly not misuse your right to rate it. However, I am not used to avoiding any challenge and so my answers are:

(1) NO; information was changed and not "elicited"' (2) NO; How information could be "elicited" by a different spacetime event? It is permanently attributed to a certain spacetime set of events. (3) NO; Do not confuse concepts by using them wrongly ("immaterial source" for a source based on materialistic evidence). (4) NO; "Non-existence is existence" of two (or 2n) entities that have a null sum of property amplitudes. Remember that you proposed to leave for the moment what the terms mean ... in other words, NO may mean YES in this case.

In case you rate our essay only by my response to this test, please let us know in order to rate yours on the same grounds.

Best wishes, I.H.

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

7 days later

Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for the positive words. In regard to the "dots business" you may have a look at http://vixra.org/pdf/1304.0116v1.pdf. These dots represent events or interactions (e.g. Knuth's current essay). Their size is of a Plank length's scale and they appear all the properties that a physical event may have ("mass", "spin","charge" and "time activity") (http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0226). It is the analog of "zero vacuum energy".

All are started and based on the Natural Coordination System (NCS) we introduced by our first FQXi essay contribution: http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/hadjidakis_Has_the_time_com.pdf

All the best out of the essay contest,

I.H.

    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

    Hello Ioannis,

    Nice essay. Particularly pleased to see a Greek entry as I have family in Athens. Also I was delighted you started with the mention of Plato. I have a theory that partly unifies the four forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony - based on the only self dual Platonic solid - the tetrahedron.

    I like that you ask so many sensible questions, and what you suggest about the Universe after time expires is logical too.

    My essay explores Fibonacci and Black Holes as well as entropy, and some of the main points do not contradict your work, so hopefully you can take a look.

    Thanks again for an interesting piece.

    Best wishes,

    Antony

    6 days later

    Dear Ioannis,

    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.

    Hello again Ioannis,

    Please take a look at my essay if you get chance. For now I will rate your essay highly with the hope you move up the rankings, as I think you deserve to for this great piece of work!

    Best wishes,

    Antony

    Dear Ioannis,

    Very original essay - it sends the right way of seeking truth. The very name of the essay is the key to understanding the nature of the information. Finally, you put the question: «Does there is a hope for us human beings to learn the truth about the lows governing the universe?» And gives the answer:

    "... For the conception of the future of the universe and the new status which will occur after the end of the time, we need apart of the of the physical sciences, other methods of thinking which do not use matte, to approach the truth. "

    Ratings «happy nine». I have three questions.

    Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counter-revolution in mathematics":

    «The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.»

    http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

    In the russian version of a article: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators.»

    Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

    And the second question: How should the physics go to physical picture of the world was as rich in meaning as the picture of the world lyricists?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

    Maybe matter physicists should see the soul and memory?

    One last question: How much value is the concept "Logos" - Λόγος in Greek?

    Please look also my essay and essay FQXi 2012 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1796

    http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362

    With best wishes and regards,

    Vladimir

      Dear Vladimir,

      I give you my brief replies to your questions:

      1 I agree completely with Alexander Zenkin. Truth can be - and should - be drawn to the wider possible audience. 2 Lyrics is a way of expression as valuable as any other (e.g. physical picture or even physical sciences). 3 I find the search of true logos "out of reach" for the present human community that is occupied in materialistic search and prosperity. This is the only reason that science seems more useful than philosophy in our days.

      Good luck, I.H.

      Dear Ioannis,

      Thank you very much for your answer! He was very pleased! I fully agree with you.

      I invite you to my blog.

      Best regards

      Vladimir

      Dear Ioannis and Theodor,

      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