Dear Margriet,

Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical idea. "The trouble with physics" push ... You have a new radical idea. In your essay deep original analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, new concepts, eidoses and conclusions.

I fully agree with the method of your research. It is based on the conceptual and figurative synthesis of Kant's ideas of Plato and the "Platonic Solids". Very euricability method and ideas! I totally agree with your conclusion.

Just one 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

Rating - "Nine happy." Read and vote, please, my ideas.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Dear Margriet,

Thank you for your detailed comments on my blog. I will comment more on your message this night. Now you still have one day to learn the FQXI dance of rates. Your appreciation is welcome.

Kind regards,

Michel

Dear Margriet,

What a very clever way to explain us! I like that you've utilised the Universe's natural geometry in such a clever way. The number could literally be applied right up into the thousands could it not, with perhaps evolution finding more pathways?

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear Margriet,

Thank you for commenting on my post. First, I want to commend you on your uplifting spirit and gracious comments! It is so refreshing to have such a genuine, enthusiastic person like you as part of this process of discovery.

I was also very glad that you offered your additional comments to your post, because it helped me better understand your views. I, too, had never before submitted any sort of writing or entered an essay contest in my life, and the angst I felt in doing so was great, so I want to congratulate you on having the courage to enter your essay and put forth your intriguing ideas.

I wish you the very best Margriet, and you are one of the entrants I will remember fondly, and always strive to emulate in terms of your kind attitude toward others, and your positive, uplifting spirit. I am very happy to give you a positive rating.

Sincerely,

Ralph

Dear Margriet Anne,

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.

Hi Edwin !! Thank you so much for your help & coaching !!

In the closing moments of this most auspicious event I feel driven to add the following remarks :-

Some of the positive-rate-worthy features of my essay are the following:

(1) I provide a clear & easily understood definition of information, which is that it is the full set of real, not abstract nor hypothetical, geometrical objects present here in our universe;

(2) These (real) geometrical objects are properly observable - that is to say, easily observed, measured, quantified & verified - phenomena, therefore my hypothesis is a readily testable one. Even a well informed (sic) 8 year old child could verify it.

I demonstrate how these entities can be observed - measured, quantified, verified.

(3) As David Deutsch puts it, 'information' is 'something' that can be transferred from medium, to medium, to medium & yet remain unchanged - see quote in my essay. One of many proofs of my hypothesis - that information is geometrical objects - I provide is that these entities are not only 'something' that can be transferred from medium to medium in this fashion, but are the only things which can be so transferred.

(4) Underneath its meaning each of our own human-made units of information - all of our own signs, codes, symbols, words, letters & languages - is a geometrical object plain & simple, or an assembly thereof. Which fact proves that geometrical objects are capable of carrying units of information on their backs. Literally.

(5) Each of the many & various left-over scratches, scars, dents, bump-marks, vibrations & residues still remaining on previously impacted solid bodies present here in our universe, is one naturally-occurring geometrical object. It is useful to designate all of these left-over bump-marks as belonging to the class of 'secondary geometrical objects'. (I itemize some of the other classes in my essay.)

Examples of this class of secondary geometrical objects are : craters on the Moon, ripples in a pond, heat in a sun-warmed rock, vibrations in the air emanating from a bumped hollow log. And the biggest - & longest-lasting - bump-mark of all has to be the Big Bang ripples still remaining in the MWBR.

No great difficulty attends the task of recognising that each & every one of these simple geometrical objects (all of these shapes), 'carries' some information on its back - each literally 'tells' 'a story' - a 'tale' not only concerning the identity of the solid object which created it, but where, when & from which direction the creating solid object approached the impacted one & how fast etc.

Which set of easily observed facts proves that - & just as do all of our own human-made signs & symbols carry information on their backs, so also do all of the naturally-occurring geometrical objects out there in the wild too.

To sum : every unit of (recognised) information 'sits' on top of some one or another or ensemble of, geometrical object/s; & on each & every geometrical object here in our universe - human-made or naturally occurring - there 'rides' some one or another particular meaning - some one or another item of information.

Thus do geometrical objects reveal themselves to be 'dual-purpose' entities.

(6) Observation of the manner in which geometrical objects are USED within our cosmos quickly apprises one of the fact that they are not only used to guide & direct the active responses solid objects mount towards each other during contact events with one another, but are so used in this fashion by every solid object every time it interacts with another solid body.

This conclusion obtains due to the fact that attendant on any impact/contact event occurring here in our cosmos, the bodily SHAPES (the geometricities) of the participants involved always play a critically-determining albeit not sufficient, role in the outcome of that impact/contact event.

This observation regarding the universality of the manner in which geometrical objects are USED within our cosmos - as guides for action - provides a definition of 'thinking' which is 'using information to guide & direct action'; or in its long form - 'thinking' is 'using information (which always exists as some one, another or assembly of geometrical objects) to guide & direct action, such action as taken by some properly thinking/acting agent specifically in regard to whatever object/s &/or event/s the information being so used, concerns'.

(7) It is imperative as to any good & proper understanding of all of these information-related phenomena that it be recognised that it - information - is NEVER the active agent of any of the actions occurring in regard to any of it; that the active, powerful - & even thoughtfully intelligent (see below) - agent of all action here in our universe is matter - 'hard, solid matter'.

Although we ourselves use a very great deal more information (more geometrical objects) to guide & direct our actions - that is 'think' - & although we ourselves use a very much more varied kind or grades thereof - all as gathered by our senses, then massively processed & collated by our brains, nevertheless we are 'only' doing exactly what the rocks & stones beneath our feet & the atoms & molecules in the air accomplish at all times & under all circumstances - that is to say, each uses information to guide & direct its every interactive encounter with whatever other solid body it encounters during its existential history here in our cosmos.

(8) So then, this observation regarding the universality of the manner in which geometrical objects are USED within our cosmos - to guide & direct action - apprises us of the fact that 'thought' - as the use of information-as-geometrical-objects to guide action - is an innate capacity of solid matter & occurs ubiquitously here & on the most routine of bases, no less than each time any two solid objects interact with one another.

As such 'thought' is no longer a mysterious phenomenon, indeed, can be readily seen to be a 'perfectly natural' one - one which in no way requires either magic or miracles to execute it - it massively narrows 'the gap' - aka as 'the God gap'.

And although knowing all this about information & all information-related phenomena unveils (elucidates) any number of presently highly mysterious phenomena, this knowledge does not illuminate any of the so-called first & final causes - including why matter was made in such a manner making 'thought' an innate capacity thereof. And this lack of knowledge as to all & any first & final causes in spite of the fact that coming to this understanding that everything thinks - some just at a 'higher' level than others - does verily indeed narrow the so-called 'God Gap' as it pertains to all inside phenomenon.

(9) The fact that geometrical objects are observable entities allows their involvement with, or their passage through the thinking-machinery of, any properly thinking entity to be ascertained.

(10) Performing this particular 'tracing' exercise as to our own thinking process, with no great difficulty not only allows us to identify & define all thinking related phenomena such as thought, mind & consciousness, it also apprises us of the exact location of where our own most valued cognitive self-conscious awareness resides.

As there exists at this location 'only' a little bit of water - more usually designated 'interstitial fluid' - this discovery strongly compels the conclusion that we live in a panpsychic universe, that is to say, one in which 'knowingness' exists at the pen-ultimate quintessence of matter (at the quantum level ?), for, nothing other than its location marks out this small amount of interstitial fluid as being special in any way.

Moreover & due entirely to its location, it is the only thing here in our universe privy to each & every one of our own conscious thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions & imaginings.

(11) Observation of our own thinking process quickly alerts one to the fact that it - our own thinking process - is NOT digital, but wholly analogue; the thinking machinery of all higher (animal) thinkers - which thinking machinery includes all sensory equipment as well as all motor machinery & not just the assembly lines central processor - handles all of the information it does so handle in analogue format - specifically in individual geometrical objects or ensembles thereof .

I provide several more proofs that geometrical objects are information in my essay & again I here point out that these proofs - unlike any leveled at such difficult if not impossible to observe quantum phenomena - are easily recognised to be what they are - confirmations of my principle claims on information's behalf.

(12) These determinations rather unproblematically allow an understanding of, by any sufficiently careful (& objective) investigator, any number of information-related phenomena, one of which is the fact that 'thinking' is a completely different phenomenon from 'computing'. Digits are quite suitable entities with which to compute - to count, calculate & compute, but are not at all suitable for real thinking - for the latter, information in the form of geometrical objects alone suffices. The particular devices which perform each of these different tasks are also very different.

As surprising as it may seem, thinking machines (even our own), which phenomena being thinking machines obligately operate analogue-ly with geometrical objects as their 'fodder', are not, in & of themselves in any sense intelligent. Only the user/owner/operator of any such device can possess this particular quality.

'Intelligence' is 'using the available information in existentially efficacious ways; intelligence increases as the kind & amount of available information increases & also as to the efficacy to which that information it utilised'.

(13) Although thinking machines (& straight-thinking rocks & stones, which do not need specially-built add-on machines to enable them to think) are different from computing devices, nevertheless some 'overlaps' exist. 'Specially-built thinking machines such as our own, do verily indeed 'process' the information being 'shunted' through them. But 'processing' only means 'sorting'; it does not mean 'executing algorithmic contortions on whatever is being processed/sorted - which latter is something computing devices do very well.

That being said probably all specially built thinking machines also count, calculate & compute as to some but only some, of the operations they perform on whatever is passing through them - digits &/or geometrical (analogue) entities.

As false modesty has never been a vice of mine, I un-ashamedly hope that my essay receives high ratings all round. But with apologies . ... .. & the very best regards to all

Margriet O'Regan.

Dear Margriet,

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

Dear Madam,

Your essay touches upon many unexplored areas, which can be further developed. Here is our feedback that you may use in a constructive way.

We view geometrical properties as description of dimensional relationship of fixed form solids. Dimension is the perception of form that differentiates between the inner structural space and external relational space of any object. Since form is ocular perception through electromagnetic radiation where the electric field and magnetic field move perpendicular to each other, and both move perpendicular to the direction of motion, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. These determine the state of matter according to whether they are fixed (solid), confined but flexible (fluid and gas) or disjointed (plasma). Thus, while talking about dimensionality, one must be careful. Particles cannot be zero dimensional, as they have mass, which is three dimensional. Extra dimension is fiction. Hence your view could be more inclusive.

Thought is the inertia of mind. Like particle inertia, it starts after the memory is activated by some impulse (involving energy transmission). Particle inertia continues getting modified by the related forces, such as air friction, gravity, etc. Thought continues getting modified by the related memories. Particle inertia acts in four steps: initial application of energy, disturbance of the particle, dissociation of the particle from its previous position, and moving to other positions. Thought also acts in four steps: initial impulse received by sensory organs, disturbance in the memory due to searching for comparables, dissociation of the context due to other related memory, and the train of thought moving with continuous change of the topic. Unless it is properly directed, it can be not only waste (fantasy), but also dangerous.

Nature of communication language appears continuum though actually it is a set of discrete functions. Any perception that is communicated as information has three distinct components:

1) It is about or concerning a physical object (matter), that is perceived as form.

2) It is expressed through a language (signal) that is perceived as sound.

3) The language conveys a universal or common concept (perception) about the object so that the receiver gets the same message as the sender.

These three are different because the object (matter) is perceived through electromagnetic radiation by our eyes that cannot hear. The language (sound, signal) is perceived (through sound waves or electromagnetic signals converted to sound waves) in our ears that cannot see. The concept signifying the object is perceived through our memory, which is in the cerebral cortex. The sounds of the alphabets are uttered in a discrete sequence. Subtle changes in the form are also discrete (the emitted radiation changes continuously). Yet, they get into a state of superposition in our memory, which 'mixes' and compares them. The resultant impression is the perception, which is commonly referred to as knowledge. The content of this perception is information.

Here also the sense organs and mind function in binary style. The sense organs always reach out to the incoming impulse, whether sound, electromagnetic radiation, or smell, taste, touch. Over the years, views on the mechanism of perception of sound - how the ear perceives the tonality of sound and the frequency range of auditory perception - have changed. There is a reason why the human pinna is not asymmetrical and folded. Experiments by Hero Wit (Spectra of cochlear acoustic emissions - Kemp echos - Journal of Acoust. Soc. Am. 1981) showed the emission of a continual sound from healthy human ears in the range of 1 to 2 kHz. This implies that the ear sends out a reference wave and interacts with the incoming wave to produce an acoustic hologram. This is facilitated by the unique structure of the human pinna (Hugo Zuccarelli, New Scientist, 10th November 1983 p-438). Similarly, our eyes send out a reference wave to electromagnetic radiation emanating out of the object (and not the object which emits these radiation). The form we see is not the same as the object we touch and vice versa. Because when we touch, we cut down the radiation and touch the mass that emits it. The same goes for taste and smell.

As we have explained, at any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel at any instant to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one discrete frame at every instant, but due to the high speed of their reception, mix it up so that it appears as continuous. This happens due to an active transport system against concentration gradient with input of energy like the sodium-potassium pump, which moves the two ions in opposite directions across the plasma membrane through break down of Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). The concentrations of the two ions on both sides of the cell membrane are interdependent, suggesting that the same carrier transports both ions. Similarly, the same carrier transports the external stimuli in the opposite direction to the cerebral cortex. This carrier is the mind.

Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, the transport system in the opposite direction within the body happens for all types of sensory impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel of active transport is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work and we cease to sense any external impulse. While mind facilitates the passage of impulse, the interpretation of the state of superposition in memory is done by the intellect, which is responsible for cognition. Hence even after the breath stops, the person may not be brain dead. The difference between perception and cognition is that during perception mediated by mind, we search the memory for alternatives for matching. During cognition mediated by intellect, we zero in on one content.

Line is the locus of a point. Where the locus does not close in on itself, it is called line. If the distance between the starting point and the end point at any instant is the shortest among all possible routes, it is called a straight line. Where the locus closes in on itself, it is called generic circle. The common circle is a special case of this generic circle, where the distance between the starting point and the end point at any instant is equal from an arbitrarily determined point called center. If this distance - called radius - is scaled up or down, the relation between the locus of the point with the center remains same.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Margriet,

I enjoyed reading your very unique essay! In the interest of time and given my penchant for being substantive in posted analysis, I'll need to reserve comments for later, but I wanted to let you know that I did read and rate your essay and much appreciated your commentary regarding mine. I hope to read more of your interesting ideas and perspectives in the future!

Chris

Dear Margriet Anne O\'Regan,

And if the eUniverse was a work of art ?

The eUniverse conceiving the woman and the man, the flowers and the smiley faces, is a recognized Artist.

The evidence is there and will remain forever. The motion was obvious for Aristotle, also for Galileo, Newton and Einstein. What has changed is the understanding and interpretation.

For the eDuality the same thing : wave-particle, space-time, matter-antimatter, and so on ..

Everybody recognize that duality is everywhere. But without generalization, some do not agree that our eReality is binary. They refuse to believe, to recognize in the eReality of the eDuality, and that eDuality is our eReality.

The question is how to see, to understand and to interpret this eDuality, this blatant evidence, this shrill obvious fact.

Our eReality is made of evidence that we must know how to read.

The eUniverse is such as It is. We cannot fundamentally change It. It is our approach, our conception that must change.

Here comes a One Theory of eDuality, which is the most modern, and which concerns the whole eUniverse in its entirety, and in its smallest details, and that applies to all domains of human knowledge.

The Theory that is going to revolutionize the world of ideas. A new Science, quantitative and qualitative is going to emerge.

Such a statement has something shocking for the one who discovers or who hears for the first time about it. For me it is a eReality that I live since I discovered it, for years now, and I will publish soon.

The contest ends and I did not come to occupy the top rank. In all cases not with three pages of poetry as you say. In addition there was inside only remarks and not scientific declarations.

But what I assert results from my current work concerning this famous Theory of Everything.

But I took the opportunity for testing the ground and seeing of what the scientific community thinks on this subject.

Now that it's done I have yet to publish and prove.

So good luck to the rest of the program.

And sorry if something is badly translated by Google.

Good luck and best wishes,

Amazigh H.

Dear Margriet,

I am posting this on your essay also, so that you can get mail. I posted replies to your postings in my essay, please have a look.

Thank you for nice explanation.

Please tell me if there any difference in data in a computer and data (same)in a human mind or you can say in our thinking?

Can matter be created from that data?

Best

=snp

Write a Reply...