Ralph,

Thanks! And certainly feel free to send a note anytime...

Chris

Ralph,

Great essay. You have a wonderful smooth writing style that I envy as it's a pleasure to read. I also found the essay original, relevant and interesting. I certainly think you deserve to be higher up the list and I'll oblige.

I totally agree you and Wheeler's basic premise, though I feel, and have found, that a rather more 'reality based' simple solution may be available to explain the current mysteries, an underlying mechanism unifying physics. That's the foundation of my essay, actually laid here 2 years ago and developed last year. I do hope you'll read (and score!) my essay this year that constructs an ontology to show the power of the model.

But well done for yours, an exceptional piece from a non professional, a camp in which I have a bit more than one foot. Congratulations and best of luck.

Peter

    Peter,

    Thank you so much for your kind comments. I really do appreciate you having taken the time to read and rate it. I look forward to reading and rating your essay immediately.

    Again, thank you for the encouragement; I know there are many of us who are non-specialists in the area of physics or closely related sciences, but are nevertheless deeply interested in the nature of reality.

    Best to you in the future, and perhaps we can keep in touch if you are so inclined.

    Ralph

    Hello, Ralph,

    Your essay is excellent, in the spirit of Descartes.

    You cite above are good words of John Wheeler: "Instead, attempt to build everything on the foundation of some 'grand unified field theory'. . . Hope to derive that theory by way of one or another plausible line of reasoning. "

    Next, a great depth of thought and the eternal questions: «John Wheeler believed we live in a participatory universe. He wondered if one day we might discover that the universe is a self-synthesized information system.2 If he was right, then the discovery of how the universe is assembled and operates would reveal our role within the system. We could finally answer the greatest questions of all time - Who are we? Why are we here? What is our purpose? »

    And further: «What if the key to understanding the universe was to see it as a whole rather than in parts?»

    You're absolutely right: «If we wish to understand the central idea of the universe, then we must be willing to transform our thinking. In order to do this, we must think 'outside the box' - not just talk about it. We need to imagine as if we're outside of the universe looking in; not on the inside of the universe looking out. This perspective of the universe as a whole is what will provide us the opportunity we need in order to transform our thinking about what we see. If we're willing to keep our minds open to new possibilities, and have the intellectual courage to think in new and different ways, then an entirely new picture of the cosmos will emerge. »...

    «An enlightenment experience can be described as an individual's 'oneness' experience with the universe as a whole.».

    At the end of the essay you are doing a wonderful conclusion which I fully support: «The central idea of it all is simple, beautiful, and compelling. The universe is simple when seen as a whole, beautiful in its design, and compelling when understood. To discover the central idea of the universe is to also discover the purpose of human existence, and to be compelled by it. To know that each and every one of us matters to the universe should matter to each and every one of us. We should honor the role the universe has reserved for us by fully stepping into it. When we do, we will truly make ourselves, the world, and the universe as a whole, a better place. ».

    Brilliant! Yes, the "Paradigm of the Part" and "Paradigm of Whole a" need to work on science together, helping each other. Picture of the world should be one - and physicists and lyrics. This requires information age/

    See my essay, we are close to you in spirit and purpose of the research, but we have just a little bit different, but similar roads - to the vision of the world as a whole.

    I'll bet you did not "five", which I love (I and a daughter were born 5 numbers), I put you "happy nine".

    I wish you every success, with respect,

    Vladimir

    Hi Ralph,

    At last a contribution that is not stuck in the general thinking.

    We are both non-professionals but what does it mean to be a pro, only that you earn you money with science ? Or does it mean that pro's have to follow the rules that are set out by the majority ?

    When reading how you let consciousness "surround" reality, Plato's "UNMOVED MOVER" came in my mind, and as a matter of fact my own "non-causal consciousness" is playing that kind of role.

    You are adding two senses : happiness and pain, but I think that these two are "feelings" and not senses, because the 5 senses are the instrumentation of the human being to become aware and conscious.

    It is a nice idea that you propose about dark matter, a new approach that needs attention and encouragement, so I rated your essay high.

    I hope that you will take some time to read another non-conformist essay [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1810] "THE QUEST FOOR THE PRIMAL SEQUENCE" and if you like give me a rating, but I am sure that you will be intrigued.

    We are 100 essays away from each other (yours 1910, mine 1810) but our thinking is very close.

    Best of luck and

    respectfully

    Wilhelmus

      Sorry I made an error in the link text but it works , so I await your valued comment and rating.

      Wilhelmus

      Dear Ralph,

      I found the idea of classifying the existing world (the material world as well as the knowledge) interesting and potentially helpful. Sometimes good analogies have far reaching consequences.

      But I don't understand all your points

      "Our universe requires two separate theories to describe its behavior. The Theory of Relativity describes the hardware; Quantum Theory describes the software."

      I would say that the hardware of the universe has more to do with the qubits (atoms, theis spins, polarization states of light...) and we need quantum theory here. May be you have in mind observer participancy when you think qubits as software?

      Then

      "The answer is surprisingly simple. The universe uses three classes of objects as its Information Transformers: stars, living things, and human beings. Stars transform Information from Matter into Light and Energy, living things transform it into Intelligence, and human beings transform it into Consciousness."

      To me this distinction is very artificial, living things have much to do with human beings in managing the material world.

      On the other hand, I perfectly agree that

      "Hardware is needed for parts; software for instructions. But a self-synthesized information system has additional requirements. Its software must be able to operate the hardware as well as instruct the system on how to create itself."

      I find it a good translation of 'observer participancy' coined by Wheeler.

      In my essay, I treat 'observer participancy' in a different way

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

      Best regards,

      Michel

      Dear Sir,

      The fundamental assumption in your essay is that the whole is a sum of its parts. In a self-synthesized information system, there are additional requirements, but the same basic principle holds. But does nature operate in that way? A mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is not water. All parts of a human body hold as long as we breathe. Once that stops, the parts of the body decompose and disintegrate. Reproduction is not the same as "creates its own software". The offspring is another hardware with software embedded in it. Communication requires a sender and a receiver. Hence it cannot be a self-synthesized information system. Hardware, software and energy are not enough to run a system. Who does the programming? Can we program it to create ourselves? Even if it is possible to create a replica, will it not be limited by our knowledge, making us omniscient, which we certainly are not? After all, computers are GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. There must be an operator to not only to run the system, but also feed data and use the information to achieve tasks outside the system. "If a system's parts are physically separated", where does it leave humans? All our body parts are physically joined. We are not like solar system.

      How can "Almost everything about our universe indicates that it is indeed an information system?" Information must be about something. The universe is that something. How can anything be made out of information? Is it physics or fantasy?

      Reards,

      basudeba

        Ralph,

        Your summary:

        "Furthermore, if I understand your position correctly, there is also a similarity between your findings regarding selection/non-selection events and the Information Field of Intelligence and that is this: the Information Field of Intelligence includes all possibilities of selection. Collapse of the wave function occurs when a selection is made, but the un-selected choices are, in essence, all else."

        I find to be very much in keeping with the findings obtained in the Tempt Destiny experiment. Could you please provide me with your email address for further inquiry? My email address is msm@physicsofdestiny.com

        Thanks,

        Manuel

        Dear All,

        It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

        iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

        One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

        Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

        the second sub series is always defined by the equation

        Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

        Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

        Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

        Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

        Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

        Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

        Examples

        starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

        where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

        -27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

        Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

        0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

        Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

        0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

        Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

        0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

        The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.

        As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

        d-super.pdf"> The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory](https://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin

        d-super.pdf)

        Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

        I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.

        I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.

        All this started with a simple question, who am I?

        I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.

        I super positioned my self or I to be me.

        I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

        I am phi, zero = I = infinity

        I am human and I is GOD.

        Love,

        Sridattadev.

        Hi Wilhelmus,

        Thank you so much for taking the time to read this essay and I appreciate the fact that you don't mind considering other people's ideas that are different. I'll be reading and rating your essay in just a few minutes.

        I also wanted to clarify something that you mentioned, and I really appreciate that you pointed it out, because I can see where the word(s) I chose could be interpreted to mean something other than the meaning I'm actually trying to convey.

        You mentioned that I am, "adding two senses : happiness and pain, but I think that these two are 'feelings' and not senses, because the 5 senses are the instrumentation of the human being to become aware and conscious."

        I agree with you that happiness and pain (at least emotional pain) are 'feelings' and not senses, and I also agree that the 5 senses are the instrumentation of the human being to become aware and conscious. What I mean to say is that the instrumentation we use to physically perceive the environment include the physical perception of pleasure and pain in addition to that sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. These two additional 'senses' are coupled with the other 5 senses in order to support our survival, i.e. indicate to us what we need to seek versus avoid. Without, for example, the ability to perceive pain, our sense of touch wouldn't indicate to us whether something was too hot or sharp, etc. Without the distinction of pleasure/pain perception, we would still be able to smell and taste things, but would not be able to determine what to seek or avoid in terms of what we ate - fresh versus spoiled foods, etc.

        So thank you for your comments and in particular, your interpretation. I can see how you interpreted what I wrote in the manner you did; I need to find a way to try and make the point I wish to convey more clear.

        I have already read your essay and will be rating and commenting on it right now. I found it very interesting and thought you made several excellent points and observations.

        As an aside, I was married to a lady named Corinne for 30 years. We married in 1979 - in France. (She was a French foreign exchange student when we met). We have 3 wonderful grown sons and a grown daughter. Small world.

        Best to you,

        Ralph

        Ralph,

        Your summary, "...if I understand your position correctly, there is also a similarity between your findings regarding selection/non-selection events and the Information Field of Intelligence and that is this: the Information Field of Intelligence includes all possibilities of selection. Collapse of the wave function occurs when a selection is made, but the un-selected choices are, in essence, all else." is pretty much dead-on.

        BTW - I have some other questions to run by you via email if I may. You can contact me at msm@physicsofdestiny.com

        Regards,

        Manuel

        Dear Ralph,

        Thank you for your appreciation, you are totally right that in quantum theory scientists neglected the plan and that much more can be gained by looking at the problem as a whole. Your idea of harware/software somehow fits my approach. the dessins are the plans. More to come soon.

        I will also rate your essay so that it becomes more visible.

        Best regards,

        Michel

        Dear Ralph

        Compliments for your successful essay, which is full of enthusiasm and positive thinking.

        With my best regards and compliments

        Mauro

        Dear Ralph,

        Thanks for your kind compliments on my essay and I have down loaded your essay and going to post my comments in your thread shortly. I will rate it too accordingly.

        Sincerely,

        Sreenath

          Basudeba,

          Thanks for your comment that has been ignored by the author. I will not read his essay. Enthusiasm and positive thinking are perhaps not a sufficient basis for science.

          Eckard

          Dear Ralph,

          I am, too, sorry to have missed reading your logically consistent essay for so long. Yours is one of the few essays that are consistent in their approach from the first sentence to the last one. You have clear vision of what you want to say when you start your essay with the quotation of Wheeler, "...attempt to build everything on the foundation of some 'grand unified field theory' . . . Hope to derive that theory by way of one or another plausible line of reasoning". Accordingly you have devised the concept of "self-synthesized information system" consisting of 'hardware' and 'software'; in which both influence each other and are inter dependent. Where hardware represents the 'physics' of the world in the form of matter and energy, and software represents biological part of the world in the form of mind and its intellect. So you have derived your theory based on the concept of 'self-synthesized information system' there by trying to bridge the gap between physics and biology, and by fulfilling the dream of Wheeler by realizing the sort of relationship that exists between It and Bit. Then you have defined 'information' as 'everything' and also with 'universal substance' from which everything 'else' is made; there by giving primary importance to Bit over It. Here I want to tell you that, when you have defined information as universal substance, it is not necessary to define it as everything and also delete the word 'else' from the sentence; so now you define information as 'universal substance from which everything is made'.

          Next, coming to your treatment of Life, you have defined a living thing as "A living thing has a unique internal decision-maker and an internal sense of separation from its environment; an inanimate object does not". In this definition the latter part of the sentence, that is, 'an inanimate object does not' is not necessary as it is not included in the definition of a living thing; so define a living thing as "A living thing has a unique internal decision-maker and an internal sense of separation from its environment". But to the question does this definition cover up all aspects of a living thing? You have, I think, given an elaborate explanation and it appears to be a fantastic conception. I was amazed to see your concept of "Mental Network" resembling my concept of "Biological Network". We both together can work on this aspect to elaborate more regarding their implication. It is here that we both have many points in common.

          Thank you very much for producing such an innovative essay with full of insightful themes. Accordingly I will rate it with maximum possible score. Keep in touch with me in future too.

          Best of luck,

          Sreenath

          Dear Sreenath,

          I am grateful you took the opportunity to read my essay and saw the remarkable parallels between your "Biological Network" and the "Mental Network." I was so impressed with your logic, and was excited to find someone else who was thinking along the same lines.

          Also, thank you for pointing out that the extraneous words I used in my definitions, particularly the 'else' with regard to 'universal substance.' I can see that using 'else' alters the meaning I intended to convey. (And, my mother was an English teacher!)

          I sincerely appreciate your kind remarks, Sreenath. As a non-scientist, it means a lot to me that someone of your educational background, interests, and intelligence would take the time to really read what I wrote and offer such positive, constructive feedback. I'm so glad I came across your essay. (I'm even more impressed with how articulate and well-written your essay is, if English is a 2nd language for you . . .)

          Thank you, Sreenath. I look forward to corresponding with you in the future. I've already found you on 'Research Gate' and will look into joining right away and connecting with you there.

          Best,

          Ralph

          Dear Ralp,

          Brilliant essay! I rated it the highest possible rating. I enjoyed very much reading it. Succinct but comprehensive! Remarkable piece of work. Please comment and rate my essay Child of Qbit in time. In this essay, i believe KQID realized Wheeler's dream using different language than yours that the origin of Existence is so shockingly simple that it is under our nose all along. KQID: To rephrase Pythagoras: All things are one Qbit. This bit is Planck's matrix of all matter and Maxwell 's nfinite being with infinite memory storage. In short, Qbit is Existence and Existence is Qbit. This Qbits A S = E = ψI(CTE) projects its computed Einstein coordinates(numbers) onto the 2D screen Minkowski Null Geodesics in the zeroth dimension that instantaneously project these coordinates into the bulk υτ(iLx,y,x, Lm). Then Existence exist as we perceive it to be as is. You wrote: "...all human beings are meant to understand, awaken to, and embrace the purpose of our existence." Similarly, in KQID, Existence is our Ancestor Qbit's way to experience, to walk, talk and make love.

          Live long and prosper,

          Leo KoGuan

          Dear Walker,

          You are correct,

          I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. FQXi should have issued a notification that you have replied....

          It was my proposition, it was not an inference to your essay. What I mean is that we should be more close experimental results for our propositions.

          I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.

          Now in this context, can we create material from information...?

          You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.

          Best

          =snp

          snp.gupta@gmail.com