This is IT - Information Theory by Ralph Waldo Walker III

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 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

Dear Ralph,

Thanks for your comments on my blog. I had earlier rated your essay a 7. I didn't know from your bio that you were an attorney because I needed advice on use of words like *prima facie* and *res ipsa loquitur*, etc.

I recall attorneys can usually be the source of great things in physics and who knows what may eventually come out of your nice essay. Edwin Hubble was one.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Dear Ralph,

Nice essay and some great ideas around information. I like the participatory approach with regard to humans and the computer and Internet analogy. Also the quote that different individuals describe the same event in different ways. Please take a look at my essay, given the time to do so, as it deals with observation too.

Best wishes,

Antony

My pleasure Ralph! Cheers

Hi Ralph,

I've rated your essay now - thanks for reading mine, the kind comments and rating.

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear Ralph,

As I told you in my Essay page, I have read your beautiful Essay. Here are my comments/questions.

1) Your sentence "the discovery of how the universe is assembled and operates would reveal our role within the system" looks to be an elegant finalization of the Anthropic Principle.

2) If the central idea of existence is so simple also Einstein was correct: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is comprehensible"

3) Can you clarify your statement that claims "The hardware's wave aspect is evidence of its connection to software"?

4) Your statement that claims "The Theory of Relativity describes the hardware; Quantum Theory describes the software" is intriguing!

5) You claim that "The hardware systems of communications and fuel equal 24% of the total resources of the universe; they represent the "dark matter" of the universe. The software systems of Intelligence and Consciousness equal 72% of the total resources of the universe; they represent the "dark energy" of our universe"- How do you explain that dark energy is negative?

I appreciated your pretty Essay. Therefore, I am going to give you an high rate.

Cheers,

Ch.

I sign the above comment,

Christian Corda

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for your vision of an information-based universe. I had a question about it, though. You wrote:

> A universe containing only four dimensions is completely un-survivable

Why?

> This means that they must be composed of the smallest possible 'constituents' available to the universe, and can be linked together into three-dimensional 'sheet-like' screens upon which they can be displayed and perceived by the living thing.

This concept is discussed in detail in my essay Software Cosmos in which I describe a software architecture and physics of a cosmos based on the simulation paradigm. I also carry out a test to determine whether we currently live in such a universe. Like you, I think of intelligence animating the physical universe. I hope you get a chance to read it an compare my concept to your own.

Hugh

Dear Ralph Waldo Walker III:

I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Dear Ralph Waldo Walker III:

I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

With many thanks and best wishes,

John

jselye@gmail.com

Dear Ralph -

This is a very beautifully written and compelling narrative for which you should be congratulated.

You employ a broader definition of 'software' than is usually the case, but this is permissible: Because you so convincingly describe the cosmos as participatory, 'forces' truly can be described as software, and as fundamental to physical reality as life itself.

Elsewhere, you state - 'The Theory of Relativity describes the hardware; Quantum Theory describes the software.' This expresses the difference between the two very well, and clearly shows why they cannot be reconciled. They are fundamentally not the same thing.

Your treatment of c2 is also excellent - I too have considered the existence of such a speed, and have written about it in my book - 'The Nature of Particles in the Unified Field.' I see c2 as establishing certain borders and Zones in the cosmos, so that space-time occupies one Zone only, and its dimensional parameters un-ravel in the more peripheral Zones.

I also agree that stars, living things, and human beings are 'information transformers' - and I loved how you showed that these elements are very finely inter-dependent. Life is indeed fundamental to the universe.

Please see my second post to remind yourself about my essay - it's interesting to see how our two approaches correlate.

Thanks for reminding me to visit your page - this is an excellent and illuminating work for which I was happy to give high marks!

Best Regards,

John

jselye@gmail.com

Greetings Ralph,

I appreciate the kind remarks on my page. I'll make every effort to read and rate your essay. And of course we can keep in touch afterward. You can reach me at jonathan@jonathandickau.com, if you like.

All the Best,

Jonathan