Dear Michael,

I entirely agree with your basic position! The universe is that universe only FOR US and not even NOTHING otherwise.

But the search for the holy grail and the THING-IN-ITSELF has ever fascinated people...

best regards,

Heinz

Michael,

Thanks for your kind remarks re my essay. You provide some interesting, though-provoking concepts regarding anthropic selection bias. I agree that there are limits imposed by our perception, but they are limits that we must overcome with thinking out of the box, so to speak. We should always be aware of confirmation bias in all realms of living. Even your reference of brain neurons working in up to 11 dimensions uses algebraic topology to show how structures in the brain react when information is processed. Being human tools and methodology, we should always have a healthy skepticism of such findings as well.

Liked your essay. We seem to agree on several points.

Regards,

Jim

Thank you for reading my essay. You wrote very nice essay. I am giving you the best rating,Best wishes to your essay. I hope you will try to rate my essay too

Best

=snp.gupta

Dear Micheal Muteru,

You asked me today (04:44 GMT) to read your essay and give my opinion about the contents. Well, it is a meaningful essay, very interesting, and I agree with "the message". Nevertheless I have to think a bit longer about the subject because it is an intriguing point of view. Good luck with the contest!

With kind regards, Sydney

i could not follow all your arguments , only the first tree pages, ( i like that you have used diagrams :)

Dear Michael Muteru

I read your well conceptualized essay with interesting pictures. I do not know much about quantum physics but to try not to have bias regarding this attitude of yours:

"ThePauli Exclusion Principle of the Dogmatic Quantum Mechanical principle that states that two or more identical fermions cannot occupy the same Quantum state within a Quantum System simultaneously."

What do you think: it is because in fermion the loop is complete and in bosons it is not?

You deserve a good rate.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Michel Muteru,

i rated your essay a 10. It is perfect.

Personally, i expect to get more and more very negative ratings for my work, because my theory works like this:

There are 7.000.0000.000 scientist on the world

6.999.999.999 scientist claim that pi = 3,14............. and are looking for a solution

Then the try to step ahead and find that..

pi = ? (free of choice pi = 1 or 50 or 887,324234)

So best we agree that Pi = many worlds (we know that we were wrong, but now we know that we all were wrong and the solution could be

all together we are united if we agree that everyone can have its own pi.

No i come along and have to claim.. sorry to disturb you, but pi =1

There is no choice. (There is a special mathematical (geometry) proof for this)

pi / pi = pi pi =1

So i am right and 6.999.999.999 scientist are wrong. That makes most of all person very uncomfartable as i claim to be on top of all of you :-)

The covid-19 game (Matrix 4) is: Finding Patient Zero....

(Only one single person is able to do the job to be Patient Zero)

Best regards and all the best for the contest.

Manfred

You wrote: "Bias is also a principle along which a choice is made instinctively out of an array of options. It's thus a Best fit model of reality that suits the Observer's preferences. The observer's brain by default may thus impose this model of Reality on virtually any new observation encountered, as a template to map out new landscapes."

I certainly agree with your fundamental premise, which is that what we perceive as reality (our Weltanschauung, if you will) is skewed by our biases about reality. However, this raises the same question that Immanuel Kant raised, which is how do we know the thing in itself?

You present an interesting perspective on this. I wish you well in the contest.

Dear Michael,

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. As to your system, it looks like one more way to look at QM in general. Thanks again.

    Dear Professor Michael Muteru,

    I had read your essay, and found your emphasis on the role of human cognition, and the resulting anthropic bias thought provoking!

    Godspeed on this contest, and again thanks for having read my work.

    Kind Regards,

    Raiyan Reza

    • [deleted]

    • Post #21

    Dear Michale Muteru

    I do appreciate that you liked my paper. Your response did confuse me as you primarily referenced the Shepard Society. It would have been more useful if you had discussed the issues that I had provided.

    I guess you back off because of the limit of what we can understand about the universe.

    Paul Scyhroeder

    Michael,

    Thanks for your post and kind comments on mine on 30th. I've got to yours at last. Yes, I agree most all Except; at one point your wording is poor stating 'space IS expanding' wearas that's just one of the flawed interpretations you correctly identify. Indeed selection bias is rife.

    Of course it's also becoming clear the Planck length indeed ISN'T the shortest length in the universe, as you suggest. Wolframs latest paper elegantly now derives that at 10-93, in agreement with my own work.

    And 'BIAS AS CAMOUFLAGE'? Yes I do like that. Nice essay. I have it down for a good score.

    Very best

    Peter

    Dear Michael,

    I liked your essay, there are several interesting ideas that I appreciate. Particularly about bias and its impact on our representations of the world. Indeed, there are evolutionary factors for this, in particular for anthropic reasoning. Perhaps it is almost impossible to avoid being biased, since our neural networks work based on it. Good luck with the contest!

    Cheers,

    Cristi

      Dear Michael Muteru,

      Passing the test posed in the first line of your text, I assert, I am alive. I like the metaphor, "Life arises from consciousness", for unless one is conscious, one does not know one is alive, even though consciousness arose from life (or in living systems).

      I do agree that scientific biases also fall within the zone of effect of anthropic reasoning. Even the specific empirical observations and experiments we choose are dictated by the same anthropic biases. For what we learn depends on what we observe, and what we observe depends on what the anthropic constraints dictate. The principles we discover or arrive at are biased by our anthropic reasoning; though we intend to design experiments specifically to discount all possible biases. I suppose, the reason one is stuck with the kind of quantum physics without a physical principle of interaction is the result of the kinds of observations we have made, and what lines of thoughts we have allowed to pursue.

      > "It's in that context and principle and within these unit "Brackets" I earlier defined as "Perceptual limits of thought" that our brains thus Impose Empirical parameters that we call measure to the infinite universe we encounter.

      A brain seems to develop natural measures of inter-object relations, and that too only in contexts where such relative measures are useful. Do these relative measures also fall under the 'limits of thoughts' you mentioned? If yes, then we note an information necessarily expresses relations, and the relations that we observe are limited by our senses, without which there can be no description, no expression, whatsoever. In fact, it is this reality that forms the basis of, or give rise to, our thoughts in the first place. At the same time, the artificial design of units allows us to measure / observe phenomena and relate objects in vast scales of such units beyond our sensory limits. While I do agree that biases limit us in our thoughts, as all learning is a bias that narrows our thoughts. There has to be certain definite relation between, or mutual dependence among h, G, c, and e, but we cannot see that due to artificial units.

      In fact, if we could design artificial brain that can observe and work on any scale we choose, it would be so interesting to observe phenomena the way a brain does at scales on pico, nano, micro, kilo, mega, giga meters and seconds etc. Please feel free to express your feels if you could descend down to atomic level and live among them yet have a brain like ours to observe all phenomena at that scale that are not observable in scientific plots.

      I am sorry I missed the fish-pond idea.

      Rajiv

      Dear Michael Muther, your excellent essay as a good popular science lecture on physics for schoolchildren not only simply and clearly sets out modern physics, but also explores the anthropological influence on the preference of certain views on physical phenomena. Anthropological choice determines the scatter in the views of researchers on the same phenomena. Sometimes they endlessly argue about the same thing, but in different languages ​​(concepts). Dialectical materialism in this case claims that the criterion of truth is practice. But the only question is - where can we get this practice? You only have to be an observer and strain your brains, giving rise to different fantasies, competing with each other in their originality. My originality is to use Descartes's identity of space and matter to generalize modern physics, according to which space is matter, and matter is space that moves, since it is matter. However, researchers resist the adoption of a new paradigm in physics, as they are used to living according to old concepts. I hope that you will include a neocartesian view of the world in your system of views. I give a high rating and wish you success in the competition.

         Sincerely, Boris Dzhechko.

      Hello Michael!

      I really love your point about bias being a filter that we see the world. Actually, my favorite thing about the invention of quantum mechanics is the idea of baking an observer right into the math. I think that is such a nice mathematical trick that was able to explain so many weird things they were observing at the time. I personally think that biology needs to do a similar thing if a mathematical framework were to be fit around it. Just for fun, do you think entropy and the arrow of time are a consequence of us (as observers) having a biased and limited view of the world? (I like to think this could be the case, for no other reason other than it would be very interesting, but I have absolutely no mathematical basis to support my claim!)

      Cheers!

      Alyssa

      Write a Reply...