Robots, Supply and Demand by Jeffrey Michael Schmitz

Dear Jeff,

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 Jeff,

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

Jeff,

Thank you for the ruminations in which you cast pearls of wisdom.

"Evolution 
can
 give 
us 
no insight 
as 
to why 
something 
works,


but 
it 
can 
give 
working
 examples
 that 
might 
not
 be
 imaged
 by 
the
 human
mind."

Not sure where you are on the issue. The above and many other statements make me think you are a foe of the anthropic principle, but I gather you are still dubious.

I attribute the anthropic principle to humankind's anthropocentric tendencies.

Jim

Hello Jeff,

I am yet to read your essay, but it surely sounds interesting considering that from your comments above squirrels can also be considered scientists! However...

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


"Some 
distant
 life
 form
 could 
be
 observing
 dinosaurs 
on
 Earth
 through
 their
 telescope.
Since
 the
 universe 
contains 
so
 much
 information,
one 
might
 ask 
if
 one
 could
 ask
 the
 universe
 about
 itself.
The
 universe
 itself 
is 
not 
intelligent,
even
 with 
the
 very
 low
 bar 
I 
place
 on
 intelligence,
 because
 there 
is 
no 
broad
 goal
 for
 the
 universe.
"

No supernatural or human (Anthropic Principle) plan for the universe?

The perspective of others observing us some 80 million years ago is fetching. You could put together these pearls/these images into a "Jeff" view, perhaps aided by student perspectives on science -- which you touch upon.

Again thanks for your comments.We like to be Kings in our own minds.

Jim

Hello Geffry,

I am pleased to read your essay with deep philosophical thoughts and conclusions. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, which gives each researcher good line of research, as well as deep understanding of Universe, as well as the nature and place of the phenomenon of information in the physical world:"The universe itself might not have a purpose, but science, one of the ways we try to understand our universe, needs a purpose. The purpose of science affects this seemingly dispassionate pursuit.»

But it may be "self-aware Universe" (V.Nalimov) may have a purpose?

Perfect conclusion: «Exploration of physical relationships by complex interconnected computer network without connection to the physical world is the same as a single person thinking by candlelight hundreds of years ago. The results would be somplex, but in substance the same - a proof of self-consistency and existence. Through brain research we can start to understand how thoughts are formed and bring the inner world out. In a similar vain, science to be science, must continue to look out and relate to the physical universe. The information age gives us new possibilities of intelligence, but it cannot bypass the scientific method».

I put a rating of "nine". See also my essay, I think we're going to the same destination close roads.

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution 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

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

And I have for you a third 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? Otherwise we will all be robots? It's all my questions to you as a physicist and philosopher. There are very few physicists for some reason ...

Best regards,

Vladimir

Sorry, Jeffrey!

Dear Jeffrey -

As someone wrote on my page - 'The Universe doesn't explain itself, it presents itself to us.' If it could speak it would say: 'I am therefore I am.'

I think that the Mind does the same thing - only it says: 'I think therefore I am'. The Mind reflects the universe - and its mechanisms can all be traced back through a binary puzzle that has as its starting point an energy-field correlation with the binary structure of matter itself - the underlying proton-neutron structure.

I was thinking of this as I read your description of evolution. I too consider evolution to indeed fundamental to how we perceive the universe, and obviously to how we interact with it biologically.

I agree with your defense of the scientific method; I would add that evolution has led us to consider ultimate questions in a manner so detailed that we need to rigorously re-evaluate our fundamental assumptions if we wish to achieve answers. You'' be interested to see how I do this in my paper, and I hope that in the next little while you'll have some time to look it over ...

I've rated your work, and wish you the best in the competition.

John

Jeff,

As I stated in my email to you, I found your brief essay truly original, enlightening, and to the point. A most noteworthy effort. What caught my eye was your attention to the value of empirical evidence to deal with experimental and theoretical bias via the scientific method.

I am glad to see your rating has increased since then and I hope you find the time to reciprocate my support of your essay in kind.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Jeff,

Great little essay, and very much needed, though it shouldn't be! I recently found myself on a blog explaining the SciMeth and axiomatic theories to a Professor of maths and quantum physics, who genuinely didn't understand and taught just old doctrine. Very worrying!

I entirely agree; "We confuse intelligence with self-awareness and... processing."

But also even just skilled mathematical symbol manipulation. I identify and define an important 'Dirac line' discerning maths form nature, because as you rightly say;

"Mathematical systems like kinematics imperfectly intersect with the physical universe, Quantum mechanics embraces noise."

I entirely agree and have proposed that perhaps the 'shut up and calculate era should give way to to "stop and think".

I appear guilty myself in using an ironic play on words, calling a 'bit' with massively extended capacity an 'Intelligent' or IQbit, but show that only the power of thinking can discover this capacity, partly by better defining 'observation' in terms of it's components. I hope the power I show this model has may be taken as proving your point. I do make some apparently radical suggestions, but none yet falsified!

I do hope you'll manage to read (and mark and comment on) my essay. Don't let the dense abstract put you off, see the more flattering blog comments; i.e. "...Peter and others interested in his wonderful essay..", and; "Technically challenging and philosophically deep - very few papers meet both. This is one of them." etc.

Very well done for yours in any event.

Best wishes

Peter

Hello Jeffrey,

I agree that the universe probably doesn't have a purpose. I was interested that you consider that it might have a purpose, but we might be unable to see it, yet are open to the possibility that we might.

You've shown here a thorough examination of all possibilities.

Science and scientific method was also thoroughly and thoughtfully. Sounds like your students receive a lot of wisdom from you.

Please take a look at my essay if you get chance.

Best wishes & well done on an excellent essay. I rate it highly - hope it helps,

Antony

Dear Jeffrey,

You have given due importance to science and scientific method in your essay. You have rightly described first how a pattern is formed by mind and based on this how hypotheses are framed and then how theories are developed on these hypotheses. Sometimes adhoc hypotheses are framed to explain new scientific facts and theories are based on them. If they fail to explain other facts later discovered then such hypotheses and theories based on them will have to be replaced by some other better theories. This is, indeed, found in the history of science. You have also stated clearly why robots and computers cannot take over man as they are not intelligent systems like humans but are operated by him. The idea that the universe may not have purpose behind it makes it look like non- lively. But you are right when you say that there is purpose behind the evolution of Life, because Life has continued to exist even after its existence and evolution for billions of years under going enormous change in its complexity, intelligence and form. When you say that "In evolution we have another intelligent system to compare with human intelligence" reminds me of my hypotheses in biology that "Evolution of Life is analogous to the evolution of the knowledge of mind". It is based on this hypothesis I am going to build my theory of the existence and evolution of Life. Thus in this respect your idea is nearly similar to mine. Due to this similarity of thought I will rate this essay with maximum rating after seeing your response to my comments. I have answered your comments on my essay in my thread.

Thanks for writing an elegantly argued article.

Sreenath

Dear Jeffrey,

As promised I have rated your essay.

Best of luck,

Sreenath