Reality by Michael Christian

Michael

I couldn't find a single thing I disagreed with, and the point does need thinking about. That must be worth some marks. I took much longer to say the same, but do let me know if you agree with mine if you have time.

Best wishes

Peter

The thing is, if you believe science is worth doing you need to accept some ground rules. Maybe Nils Bohr put it best: "Physics concerns what we can say about Nature."

Hi Michael,

It really is important for physics that we decide what we collectively mean by reality.I think that although your "essay" is humorous because of its succinct brevity, it is also very foundational. I actually think it says something more profound and important than some of the highly technical essays that are dealing with complex theoretical ideas and mathematics, rather than the foundation stones upon which the whole of that theory rests.

I have also addressed this question in my own essay as I think that before we can decide if reality is digital or analogue we must clarify what we mean by reality. Is it what exists even though we do not observe it? Or is it only that which is observed, the appearance and experience of reality? Or is it both?

I doubt that your "essay" is a winner because of its brevity but you have said something that badly needs saying...Think about it! I hope lots of people do.

Best wishes, Georgina.

Thanks for your post )!( And thanks for the comment that "I couldn't find a single thing I disagreed with" ... I could take that as 'faint praise,' but instead, I will look deeper and see that sometimes "Less is More ..."

I like the comment of one of your posts that said: "I agree with you Peter; space is not nothing."

We _are_ on the same page )!(

Mike

To quote an un-named President. "That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Is it simply being, or is it both being and doing?

As Frank Sinatra so eloquently put it, Dobedobedo...

Possibly the being is digital and the doing is analog?

Knowledge is information. Wisdom is editing. You get an A for the second. Not enough information to grade the first.

Generally, I disagree with all the comments above. I think the essay question IS a good one. Anyone who simply says "Reality is real; Digital and Analog are concepts (tools).." is someone who hasn't been absorbed in the subject of MODELLING reality imo. It sounds like this someone is a fake to me..but hey, that's just one opinion, so it doesn't really matter..

I think that this manuscript is not acceptable for this contest.

Michael,

as I have said before I think your "essay" does say something profound. When solving a puzzle the empty board has more potential that one filled with incorrect solutions.Your reply to Alan was a good one.I have often heard it said that "The map is not the territory". We all need to be reminded from time to time.

As far as complexity of writing style it is at the other end of the spectrum to Adinkra and Gnomon: The Necessary Bipartite Graph by Michael Jeub ,which is a very complex. In my latest post on that thread I have mentioned your work.

Your manuscript obviously is acceptable or it would not have been accepted. It is thought provoking. However we do need to do more than just think or we would all starve.

Yes, I tend to agree with what you're saying now Mike. I agree about fractals being undervalued in their use to understand our observed reality. I have a question for you Mike: Why did no-one think about an Archimedes screw to explain Newton's force of gravity, a particle to explain his spooky action at a distance?? Science history would have been totally different imo. No Einstein inventing a spacetime continuum for one! All the best, Alan.

Yes Michael, I have a simple thought experiment for you to ponder:

"I'd just like to re-iterate my point about a spinning helix which travels around a hypersphere being analogous to an electric circuit. Imagine you are on the inside of a battery which is connected to a simple loop of wire which makes an electric circuit. Imagine a handle rotates clockwise from the positive terminal as seen from your internal perspective. Now trace this turning handle as it travels along the wire and arrives at the negative terminal of the battery. Which way is the handle now turning from the viewpoint of the battery's interior? Is it clockwise or is it anti-clockwise?"

Kind regards, Alan

The thought experiment illustrates the important relationship between chirality, loops and mirror images. Incidentally, I learnt from a repeat of QI on TV last night about oranges and lemons. The aroma of a lemon is the exact mirror image of an orange and vice versa. Our olfactory sense, the first one to develop via evolution I believe, is ultra sensitive to right and left handedness of airborne molecules, which I find quite interesting. How's the mental imagery of helices in loops getting along Michael?

Mike

Yes I agree we're on the same page, and that your essay shouldn't be so far down the community one here! Hold tight for a boost (which I hope you may reciprocate). There is far too much abstraction without repatriation to reality, and that's a central problem preventing progress in understanding nature and reality.

Best of luck.

Peter

Dear Michael,

Energy quanta are a think of the past! We need "A World Without Quanta"! And you can make that critical difference to help bring it about. Cast your approval for a world that makes sense and bring this essay out of the cusp of 'being or not being'! The results are deeply significant and totally iconoclastic. But we need to bring this essay to the 'church' on time! You among others will be better for it!

All the best,

Constantinos