Dear Alexander Ilyanok,

I thank you very much for reading my essay and for your kind comments on it. I share your point of view on metaphysics and the obstacles it has often created for scientific research. I also agree on the fact that no physical theory (including those more established, such as Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) can be considered ultimate explanation of the world.

I will try to learn something about Femtotechnology and your deterministic approach to quantum mechanics, although my knowledge of physics is limited.

My best regards,

Giovanni

Dear Lawrence,

Thank you very much for reading and appreciating my essay!

I was not aware of the results of the Fermi satellite and I'm happy to know that they can somehow support the point of view of the continuity of space-time.

On the other hand I do not think that space and time have a purely subjective nature. I think they have a physical reality (which I consider having a mathematically continuous dimension, except for special reference frames), but the limits of information and of our perceptual sphere do allow us to represent them only through discrete models.

Kind regards,

Giovanni

Dear Professor Prisinzano,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

You say,

"information and reality are inseparable. Not necessarily in the sense that they must co-exist, because information, being of mathematical nature, is eternal, or rather timeless, while reality changes, the things in the world are transitory; but in the sense that between information and reality there is a relationship similar to that between a system or a formal theory and its model. "

I have never read a convincing expository explanation of what information is. As I see it, the term functions as a conceptual tool which humans use to try to interpret the world, and that as such, does not actually exist 'out there' in the real world. Similarly, the concept of number only exists in the thinker because he accepts unquestioningly the premise that there are things with identity that match one another. From this premise he concludes 'there is more that one'... of this class of things, and therefore, that numbers are a sensible tool for modeling the world of identical things. However, if one denies this assumption, and instead entertains the premise that every instance is entirely unique, one denies the notion that mathematics exists also.

When it comes to consciousness and the application of maths, then, it is more that mathematics is a flawed tool for modelling objective reality itself (despite widespread faith in it as an accurate description of truths) than that it does not work well as a tool for understanding/describing/explaining consciousness.

I just thought I would throw that idea into the mix for you...

    Dear Mark,

    I thank you very much for reading my essay, and for your interesting comment, which gives me the opportunity to clarify an aspect that perhaps in the text I have not explained very well.

    You're absolutely right in saying that the term "information", which is used more and more often, is difficult to understand, not least because everyone tends to interpret it in the way that suits him best.

    Without any pretense of completeness, I consider that information is objective component of the universe, of numerical nature and computable, e. g. by computers, that are so far the best systems to process information at our disposal. Subjective, or rather conventional, are on the contrary the coding systems of information, that is, the different languages in which it can be expressed. This means that information is indestructible, as many physicists now believe (Hawking, contrary to its earlier opinions, now seems to argue that even blacks holes cannot completely "swallow" information and cancel it). So information exists independently of the human mind and there would still be in the universe, even if there were no intelligent beings capable of understanding it. The same applies to the natural and real numbers (nomen omen), while calculus and the various numeral systems are products of human reason. But why only the natural and the real numbers would be independent of us? Because the reality is multiple and potentially infinite, on the one hand, and occurs in a continuous dimension (that is, in an actual infinity), on the other. I believe that also space and time have a numerical nature, but I would need much more than a post to argue this point.

    About the relationship between information and the rest of reality, I think it can be explained, at least in part, by saying that information is a mathematical model of reality, and that their relationship meets the main concepts of model theory, and in particular what is asserted by the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem.

    Many thanks for your kind interest and best wishes for everything. I look forward to reading your essay.

    Giovanni

    Thank you Giovanni Prisinzano,

    Thank you for posting on my papers page,

    Thank you for your kind words, I am waiting for your esteemed opinion on this Dynamic Universe model and for your future discussion...

    Best Regards

    =snp

    8 days later

    I had forgotten that I had read your paper in the past. I reread it. I would agree largely that physical reality sits within the first order logic domain and that by the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem the cardinality of this set is countably infinite at most. This is largely because the fundamental unit of physical reality is quantum information, which consists of qubits as discrete elements. These do however have topological meaning, and just as homotopy depends upon diffeomorphisms on continuous manifolds so too physics requires this. The difference is that points and continuum sets that are transfinite in nature have no physical information content. We derive no information from them directly.

    Cheers LC

      Dear Lawrence,

      thank you very much for your further comments!

      I totally agree that we cannot have direct information on transfinite sets. Information is discrete and computable, while infinite sets contain mostly uncomputable elements. But I'm not sure that some transfinite sets cannot have a physical meaning. Of them it is possible to have discrete models, as is done for example for real numbers. Moreover we don't know what space and time are made of. I know that the prevailing view nowdays is that they have a discrete and quantum structure. But it is not necessarily so. They may be continuous and composed of uncountable set of points (space) and instants (time). Important authors (as Russell and Grünbaum) have argued that only by admitting the continuum and the actual infinity we can solve Zeno's paradoxes.

      http://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/

      Cheers, Giovanni

      Dear Giovanni,

      I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists and

      "> lyrics ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpBGPv6s2s4&list=FLTAAJTuBZSNWG96hdrzQ6bQ&index=8

      ) filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl). My high score. I believe that the modern crisis of understanding in fundamental knowledge is the crisis of ontology. I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas.

      Yours faithfully,

      Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir,

        I thank you so much for your kind interest in my essay and for the very high appreciation that you have given to it! I fully share your view that science and philosophy are inseparable (so was from the beginning until the Eighteenth century) and that their results may agree. But since I'm (at least partially) a Kantian, I have some doubts we will ever reach a final theory about the universe. I will read and comment with pleasure and as soon as possible your essay.

        Yours sincerely,

        Giovanni

        Dear Giovanni

        I enjoyed reading your essay, and agree with your conclusions. Of course the whole question of mathematizable information rests on measurement, and if something is not directly measurable, as in consciousness, then there is no information upon which to formulate mathematical models.

        You may find my essay "From nothingness to value ethics" of interest.

        Best regards

        Gavin

        Dear Gavin,

        thank you so much for reading my essay, and for your kind comment, on which I agree. I posted my comment on your essay on your page.

        Giovanni

        9 days later

        Hi dear Giovanni,

        I have read your amazing essay and just become a little bit shocked finding there a lot of my viewpoints, particularly, about on deeper interconnection of natural science and philosophy (or, with the art of logical thinking.) I am not philosopher but I seen this link is just inevitable to be get some serious shift in nowadays physics (as I see it are in the incredible crisis!)

        You says for example "to see the invisible!" My dear, this just are a base point for my approach. You have talking on the significance of math that now become one of confusing aspects in present physics (meanwhile, in other areas nobody not see any complications on this matter!) So, I can say you much of compliments but let me read and to complete my evaluation of your work. Meantime I am very hopeful you can find time to look my work that I believe maybe interesting for you to read. Then we can summarize ours opinions! (I will grateful if you write some words in my page.)

        In any case, I see mandatory my good support to you!

        My best wishes.

          Dear George,

          I thank you so much for your attention to my essay and the high appreciation that you gave to it! First of all, I am very pleased that you share the view of a deep connection between science and philosophy, which is at the basis of the history of thought, but has become increasingly difficult, for various reasons, in the last two centuries.

          In recent days it was impossible for me to read your essay (or any other in the contest), but I will do it as soon as possible and I'll post a comment about it.

          My best wishes for all,

          Giovanni

          Dear Giovanni,

          It is nice to see that you have come back in the "field of battle"! I wish you strong healthy (if you has been a little bit not well!)

          And now I can say only that I was not at all mistaken in my hurried evaluation on your work, because I come fully convinced that you have well understanding where are the roots of a main problem, therefore your remarks will be very significantly to my.

          So, Be well!

          Dear Giovanni

          Thank you very much for your favorable words and valuable remarks. These are good support to me, a morally only, but it is also the support. I see mainly we are like-minded people, and let me just tell some small remarks only:

          1. You says //the nature of fundamental particles (and QR) has not yet been clarified// - but you already know one crazy guy who says "I know this" and he points on the large works and on the concretely results (see Refs)

          2. Then you says //I am not a mathematician and nor the physicist ...etc.//

          My dear, the philosophy was a father of all sciences, then the philosophers must have more priority to instruct and evaluate of mathematicians and physicists (as their non-thankful sons!) than the opposite!

          However, I think everything is in the usual rule of things!

          Be well and many successes to you!

            Be well and all the best to you too, dear George!

            I'll look at your other papers.

            (However: no "lesson" from me. That is not the way I do)

            All my best whishes again,

            Giovanni

            7 days later

            Giovanni,

            I found that a very accomplished essay with a well developed and argued thesis. I also largely agree, but a few questions below, and you avoid the problems of logic. I suspect you'd like the 'Law of the Reducing Middle' I proposed in an earlier essay to replace the problematic 'excluded' middle. The 'reducing middle' is a Bayesian, 'Bell' or quantum mechanical curve. It suggests NO two things in the universe are identical, so 1=1 is never quite true! I think that was 'It from Bit'; 'The Intelligent Bit' 2014, but I think you'd also like last years (scored top).

            This year my essay shows how QM's orthogonal Cos2 curves CAN be produced by classical interactions! (Of course few scientist even dare look!). The model is simply founded on extension of Pythogorus theorem to 3D dynamics.

            Do we not need a certain degree of discretion in continuity? i.e. must the rotation defining a spherical 'body' not be considered as discrete from any other bodies rotation?

            Do you think that without such discrete 'motions' anything could 'exist' at all?

            Fundamentally we argue the same of mathematics limitations, but you invoke a new, interesting and well justified rationale. All in all an exceptional essay worth an exceptional score, which I hope help gets you into the finalists. I do hope you get to read min before the deadline and comment. There are other slightly more philosophical elements.

            Very best of luck in the contest.

            Peter

              Write a Reply...