Dear Brian

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 Hoang,

    Thanks for your comments. As you implied, the role circuit design is similar to free thinking, although the circuit itself has to be built in physical world.

    Best wishes,

    Brian

    Hello Akinbo,

    Thank you for your comments. Let me have a clarification. I think Wheeler's thesis "it from bit" is about a possibility in the future since observers will collectively play an ever-increasing role. My professional interest is actually on "bit from it", i.e., how to make bit more efficiently from it. The two directions are kind of orthogonal, not totally opposite. I can see Wheeler's point in the recent trend in computer industry. The industry has become more service-science oriented and the best computers in the future may be designed by "participants".

    I'm looking forward to reading your essay. It seems to be a very interesting.

    Best wishes,

    Brian

    Hi SNP,

    Thank you for your comments. I think Wheeler's "it from bit" is a fundamental thesis about an evolutional path in the future as observers collectively will play an ever-increasing role in our world. My professional focus is about "bit from it", i.e., how to make information processing more efficient from its physical representations. The two directions are kind of orthogonal, not totally opposite. However, I am surprised to see Wheeler's impact appearing in the latest trends in computer industry. The industry is getting to be more service-science oriented (for example, cloud computing) and perhaps the best computers in the not far distant future will be mostly designed by end users as "participants".

    Best wishes,

    Brian

    Hi Jim,

    Thank you for the kind words. Like the second law of thermodynamics, I would imagine that the universe circuit structure allows the maximum freedom for all participants, including the possibility to change the circuit structure, yet it still follows the principle of equality and fairness. I am looking forward to reading and providing feedbacks to your essay.

    Best wishes,

    Brian

    Dear KoGuan,

    Thanks for your comments. The computer industry is getting more service-science oriented (cloud computing as an example). Someday in the not far distant future, the finest and highly inter-connected network of machines may indeed have its laws designed by the end users or "participants".

    I have made comment on your essay with great interest and ranked it. Your essay is a classic with a style almost like John Wheeler that I used to be enlightened. Congratulations and I hope more people will have a chance to read your essay.

    Best wishes,

    Brian

    Hi Brian,

    I enjoyed your article and appreciate your remark that a hierarchical architecture has design advantages. I have suggested such an architecture (which I term "fractal") in my essay Software Cosmos.

    My focus has been on the software level rather than the hardware, but I think once we have a plausible software design for the cosmos we would be able to suggest the hardware requirements and have something a circuit designer might love to create!

    Hugh

      Hi Hugh,

      I have downloaded your essay and will read it carefully. I am very interested to find out the viewpoints from thinkers like you on the software side. I believe there are a lot of opportunities to collaborate. IT and BIT are treated currently by theorists at a rather primitive level. I think there are a lot of missing meanings and representative middle structures between the low levels and the real complex world.

      Best wishes,

      Brian

      Hi Brian,

      You wrote:

      > I think there are a lot of missing meanings and representative middle structures between the low levels and the real complex world.

      I absolutely agree with you on that. As you will see in the essay, geometric algebra provides a common language to link the theoretical side to a computational approach. Software libraries are available, but having an efficient way to perform those calculations would be very useful. There was an attempt made by Christian Perwass about a decade ago to do an FPGA implementation, but the results were mostly disappointing. I think we could do a lot better today.

      Failing that, probably the most useful low level primitives would involve handling quaternion algebra. The unit quaternions are isomorphic to the three dimensional hypersphere which has uses as an index structure, so a discrete approximation would also be very handy.

      Hugh

      Brian,

      In the context of your interesting essay on Circuit and Computer Design and the fundamentals of information, you and your readers might be interested in some of the recent developments in superconducting circuits (my own area of research) for quantum computing, see, e.g., the Wikipedia entry on Superconducting Quantum Computing. A lossless superconducting circuit is a macroscopic quantum system which can be interfaced using conventional I/O lines.

      In terms of your recollections of Prof. Wheeler, I knew Prof. Wheeler when I was an undergraduate at Princeton 40 years ago, and he was a superb lecturer. But I disagree with his assertion that information is more fundamental than matter. See my essay ( "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotations and Relative Time" ), where I present a simple realistic picture of the microscopic world that avoids most of the conventional paradoxes, and also leads naturally to a form of general relativity.

      Alan

        • [deleted]

        • Post #22

        Hi Brian,

        Unfortunately it looks like the direct link I gave to Google Books for the FPGA Implementation paper does not work. You will have to google for "Christian Perwass" and his article "Implementation of a Clifford algebra co-processor design on a field programmable gate array" and then click on the PDF link in the results to get to it.

        Hugh

        Alan,

        I looked for your research at Google Scholar and got a big surprise. Wow, I found an older brother! I followed your path to study superconductivity with Prof. Tinkham at Harvard. I also did a postdoc to Stony Brook.

        I read your essay once and it is very interesting. I will rank and leave feedback on your board. Your New Quantum Paradigm is a brave attempt for achieving physical intuition and consistency for all of modern physics. I have to read it a few more times to have a better understanding of what seems to be a major effort on your part.

        Making theories simple used to be a trademark of Prof. Tinkham's teaching. Your essay is surely consistent with his teaching, although the scope of your study cannot be broader.

        It's my great pleasure to see you here.

        Best wishes,

        Brian

        Brian,

        I'm sorry I did not recognize your name. I am familiar with some of your earlier work, and we probably met many years ago. Thank you for your comments, including those about Prof. Tinkham and simplicity. I realize that what I am proposing is viewed as heretical, but thus far no one has been willing to point out where it is incorrect. I am hopeful that my essay will cross the threshold to be reviewed by the panel of judges, but it needs a few more good ratings before the end of July for that to be the case. Let's continue this discussion via regular email - my email address is on my essay.

        Alan

        Hello Brian,

        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 I have not rated already..

        "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 Akinbo,

          1) Yes. You get a copy of information by doing a measurement.

          2) Yes. You can get the information by the measurement performed by the other participant.

          3) No, in most cases.

          4) Yes. However, ternary mode is also widely used in artificial intelligence for computational efficiency.

          Best wishes,

          Brian

          Hi Brian,

          This is a reply to your two comments above. Thanks for replying those 4 questions.

          Yes, Wheeler's dream can play a big role in the future. Your professional interest that "bit from it" would certainly give you a part to play in this. To maximize that role most efficiently you have to find out: what is 'it'? is there a smallest possible 'it'? What kind of 'bit' can we get from that 'it' and how can this be manipulated?

          Have you read and rated my essay?

          Best regards,

          Akinbo

          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.

          Dear Brian,

          I read your essay with great interest, It is written in the spirit of Rene Descartes: "loud and clear" very good language with illustrations. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions: «New breakthroughs are likely to happen at the boundaries between universality in information processing and its physical representation in the universe and life.»

          «Today, there appears to be greater opportunities for physicists and designers to work together to explore the complex world.». «I think these laws will be discovered when we try to build prototype machines behaving like Wheeler's "participatory universe". »

          Such a universe philosopher and mathematician Basil Nalimov called "self-aware Universe."

          And a very good question in conclusion: My question is: what will be the role of circuit design in foundational physics?

          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 second 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?

          I put the rating of your essay "nine". Please look at my essay and fair vote.

          Best regards,

          Vladimir

            Dear Brian,

            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

            Brian

            Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

            (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

            said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

            I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

            The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

            Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

            Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

            I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

            Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

            Good luck and good cheers!

            Than Tin