Participatory Universe, Austerity and Circuit Design by Brian L Ji

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

Hi Brian,

I found your essay intriguing and insightful in your approach to the topic. Your analogy and comparisons of computer circuitry and quantum information, I found to be original. Although you have a different approach to the topic than I do, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit.

Best of luck to you in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Hello Brian,

Flat and hierarchical architecture was a very logical idea to present - well done. I like that you looked at the Universe/computer from the point of view that participants may play an increasing role collectively in the future.

Indeed it made me think more about the fact that there are many observers but seemingly one Universe. The slightest of difference I can see for each observer is that they have their own unique observable universe where they are at the "centre". But really great thoughts here. I rate your essay very highly. Please take a look at my essay if you get time. It's based around observation and the Fibonacci sequence.

Well done & best wishes,

Antony

Brian,

Thank you for your very interesting and informative essay which deserves a higher score, it's one of the very few I was entirely fascinated with and disappointed at reaching the end.

But really I write as I would like your view on my own proposal of a fundamental way to 'decode' background noise using additional dimensions.

In terms of your mapping it may use the hierarchical architecture of modal logic, but with hierarchically scaled 'spaces within spaces within spaces', "thought of as bounded" to use and extend Einstein's 1952 conception (my previous two essays are background and precursors). We then have the same hierarchical structure as propositions in truth function logic, which also applies to matter based inertial systems with (stochastic average) assignable rest frames.

That may sound like gobledygook until you read the descriptions and follow the ontological constriction. But be prepared to think outside the bigger box which the boxes came in!

Well done and thank you for yours. Hold tight for a bit of a hike up^

Best wishes,

Peter

Dear All

Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman.

In the Character of Physical Law, he talked about the two-slit experiment like this "I will summarize, then, by saying that electrons arrive in lumps, like particles, but the probability of arrival of these lumps is determined as the intensity of waves would be. It is this sense that the electron behaves sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave. It behaves in two different ways at the same time.

Further on, he advises the readers "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it. 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

Did he says anything about Wheeler's "It from Bit" other than what he said above?

Than Tin

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

Brian - you might enjoy the paper by Lucien Hardy [1] on circuit design in quantum theory.

[1] Hardy, Lucien. "Reformulating and Reconstructing Quantum Theory." 1104.2066 (April 11, 2011). http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2066.

Brian,

Thanks for the link over on my thread - I look forward to further discussion!

Best wishes and well done,

Antony

Dear Brian,

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, votes are vanishing again.

Dear Brian,

I enjoyed very much your essay. It contains a very lucid exposition of some of Wheeler's ideas heared directly from his lectures delivered in China. Most important, it contains interesting insights from the viewpoint of a circuit designer. I liked the analysis of the problem of participant's freedom, the parallel with economy. Nice and optimistic closure!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Dear Brian,

The realm of Participatory Universe in particle scenario is limited with the observational universe, whereas in string-matter continuum scenario of CSU paradigm, it is limited with the holarchy, the observer belongs.

This implies that the discrete sub-time differs on both scenarios. In particle scenario the reference time for the synchronisation of real-time observations is not finite as it is from linear time flow that is infinite; whereas in string-matter continuum the referential time is finite as it is from cyclic-times in holarchy, in that each cycle is finite. Thus the precision of synchronisation is plausible with this scenario.

With best wishes,

Jayakar