Mr. Anastasi,

You wrote somewhat confusingly in the abstract: "It is argued that under the principle, all possible universes are degenerate to a minimally simple entity as a unique origin of the universe." I did not understand any of your essay.

As I have gone to great pains to politely point out and to clearly write in my essay BITTERS, one real unique Universe is eternally occurring, once.

    Dear Stephen,

    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 Stephen,

      No I am not selfish, I asked you specifically about the Klein - Gordon equation because the latter is the equation of motion of a relativistic particle from which pops out the relation of dispersion (energy of the latter) as a solution of the equation using the derivatives of the plane - wave equations. Your explanation about not clear but now its fine, I just interested to see how your theory would apply in this case as I was not able to picture it and was not sure whether I was doing it the right way, so I asked.

      Thanks for your interesting reply!

      Best

      Salvish

      Hi Stephen,

      Your essay contains good ingredients for dialectic.

      As a dialectical possibility, i.e. can you rule out that the geometric point is not an extended object using Descartes' Method of Doubt?

      I say this seeing you mention Leibniz and monads, which I discussed also in a different context.

      We can engage in more dialectic...

      All the best,

      Akinbo

        Hello Akinbo

        I will read your essay when I have a moment, to see the context of your question. I hope it deals with foundations, which I find is sadly missing from most essays, even those (especially those) that scored well. Everyone seems to stay in safe, but impossible to properly argue concepts derived from empiricism.

        To your question. Unfortunately these seemingly well formed questions require complex answers. Apologies for that, but it can't be helped - our empiricist perceptions, for example the idea of a point, are so primitive compared to the abstractions of rationalism. As I discuss in my nearly complete book, The Armchair Universe (working title) Descartes Method of Doubt rules out all items about which one may doubt. This means that the idea or nature of geometric points can neither be confirmed NOR DENIED until we have reason to believe such exists as a matter of certainty, meaning indubitable. So the geometric point initially sits within the possible ontology, meaning the dialectical world of possible omnets.

        Now we are in a position to begin to consider the geometric point, and the first bother is that space and time is dubious to the endpoint skeptic (which also follows from Kant's arguments, at least at a foundational level) hence so are things such as geometric points! And certainly Euclidean n-space is dubious. To see this, consider the attached PDF, which shows that the idea of a smooth mathematical continuum is suspect (in that it contains infinities of infinite classes of inconsistencies).

        I would point out that a geometric point lacks extension (within contemporary mathematics) as a matter of definition, so if you need extension, you need a new name and reason to believe in such a thing, and to reinvent mathematics, beginning with the GPE (which was my choice, but not shown in the essay). If you have done this, I will see something about it in you essay. My guess is you are asking whether the minimally simple omnet has or does not have extension. It cannot, within the Harmony set.

        Lastly, Leibniz's monads were used just to help with the abstraction, and because I had only nine pages to explain universal origins and the nature of information.

        Anyway, thanks for the question. If I haven't answered your question, let me know, and sorry for the length.

        Best wishes

        StephenAttachment #1: A_problem_for_geometry.pdf

        Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

        In your statement, 'I failed...' I think you must go down as the bravest person ever to inhabit this site. I hope you love my essay, and feel free to give me an enormous rating if you see my argument.

        I look forward to reading your essay soon, but I have a dinner party to attend; so later.

        Best wishes

        Stephen.

        Salvish!

        My greatest heartfelt apologies! I sent the reply from my phone (as I was away from my computer) and it auto corrected you name! I am deeply, deeply embarrassed by this. I have appreciated our correspondence, and hope to have more.

        Again, pleases forgive this

        Stephen.

        Dear Stephen,

        You seem to have taken a lot of strain to format your innovative essay and you have developed it on purely original concepts like GPE, Omnet (resembling monad), Harmony Set and the like. You have tried to construct the whole universe mathematically along with space, time and matter. Ultimately you, like Wheeler, have come to the conclusion that the universe is 'informational' by its nature and thereby giving primary importance to information rather than to matter. I liked your original approach in solving the problem posed by the essay contest. By the way, please, go through my essay too and post your comments in my thread. After this I would like to rate your essay highly. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

        All the best in the essay contest.

        Sreenath

          Sorry Joe

          As a realist you are likely to find this essay hard to follow. I might put an explanation up on YouTube to help people engage, given time. Consider perhaps the ideas of Descartes.

          Best wishes

          Dear Stephen,

          I have too returned your favor with much more fervor by rating it with maximum score; that is 10/ 10. Have a nice day and thanks for your comments on my essay. I hope you continue your innovative work until it is accepted by the scientific community.

          All the best,

          Sreenath

          Not at all - I like what you have done. Thanks for the reply.

          Wishing you all the best in the contest.

          You certainly deserve to be a finalist!

          Antony

          Thank you Sreenath

          Finally someone is getting it! I think you will like my book when it is completed--The Armchair Universe--(nearly there) and released in a year or so. I am really hoping to attract other people to help me work on the higher dimensional solutions.

          Stephen,

          I just glanced at your essay and was floored by the similarity of our approach to the topic at hand. From my understanding of your postulate of GPE we are talking about the same thing, perhaps from a different perspective, yet governed by one fundamental foundation of absolute precision.

          Please review my essay to make sure we are on the same wavelength. I believe the findings obtained from the recently concluded 12 year experiment will be of interest to you. Meanwhile, I will be re-reading your fascinating essay...

          Best wishes,

          Manuel

          Stephen,

          Thank you for your essay.

          I wish the topic of this round of essays was a word like "'time" or a simple sentence. I am seeing two broad categories of essays: essays about knowing and essays about the structure of space at its must fundamental level and of course, combinations of the two these two themes. This essay is about knowing. I hope I have this right:

          There is a perfect structure to the universe which we have an imperfect knowledge. There is a simplest unit that can contain all the properties that can be known.

          All of these simplest units are connected to form our universe.

          The issue I have is with time. In this model, all of time is going with the same lockstep. A single constant universal time would not fit relativity. We, of course, could be experiencing time (as well as everything else) in the wrong way. The larger issue I have is no pathway is given for us see this underlying structure of the universe. It might be correct, but how can we use it?

          Jeff

            Hello Stephen,

            I am not yet fully satisfied but we can engage in more dialectic after reading my essay. Meanwhile...

            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

            Hello Jeff

            Thanks for your input. I am working, and will get back to you tonight.

            Stephen

            Hello Akinbo

            Thanks for you input. I am working and will get back to you tonight.

            Stephen

            Hello Akinbo

            You said:

            "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?"

            The Endpoint Rationalist holds no special distinction between something and nothing unless and until either comes into focus through endpoint rationalist means. That is, nothing has the same ontological status as something. It is as informative that I could not pay for my lunch, as it is that I could pay for my lunch (even if it was going to be a million dollar lunch!).

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

            The Endpoint Rationalist does not need to detect the universe to know its structure, plainly, as covered in my thesis. Indeed, the money in my pocket is not even money to the Endpoint Rationalist until a proper model has been developed. Such anthropocentric ideas! One is trying to talk about ultimate foundations, surely, and money is just so passe.

            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?

            None of these things is an immaterial source. The GPE is the immaterial source, and it is the foundation of everything. One can't really go about supposing things about notes ('Crisp'! Really! So human-centered!)

            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?"

            I don't understand this question. Doesn't existence (1) and non-existence (0) imply a binary choice? What what difference does that make beyond mere description. What everyone wants to know is, what brings this into existence.

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

            Where do these 0's and 1's come from? Contemporary mathematics degenerated to a null element at the first step of construction within my essay.

            Stephen Anastasi

              Hello Stephen,

              Yorguments are brilliant but I cannot agree that the simplest possible Omnet will not have the Asset (attribute) of position. And what has a definite position must at the very least be minimally extended. And if minimally extended, geometry cannot be escaped space being implied in 'extended'.

              The geometric point having no Asset whatsoever, not even extension cannot be an Omnet and cannot exist.

              As I said on my blog, that "a problem for geometry" is a masterpiece that I will be revisiting again and again. I envisage that without actually measuring it, it can prove the existence of a minimal length limit like the Planck length. This will have implications for the classical level contrary to the thinking that only slight changes, and this at quantum level can result. For example, you must know that Zeno's paradoxes of motion are resolved on the basis that no such limit exists. If now that limit exists, what next for motion. This is where 'digital motion' may come to the rescue, where dx will be the infinitesimal in the calculus of Newton and Leibniz and be equivalent to the Planck length.

              Please I only agree with the first 8 paragraphs of Leibniz monadology that seems to be where his monad and that of the Pythagoreans coincide. The monads I describe are like minimally simple omnets, the only asset being position. There is no perception like Leibniz's monads, but they have a lifetime, which is random and can also be induced so that we have uncertainty and determinism co-habiting in our world.

              Now, the if the fundamental IT is that monad or omnet, the fundamental "minimally simple event" is their annihilation and emergence from nothing. All other assets, e.g. mass, charge, etc and all other events are built from these building blocks. I dont know whether the you consider the ability to annihlate to nothing or emerge from nothing an Asset.

              This is getting long. I will stop here.

              Best regards,

              Akinbo

              *Rating your essay highly!