Reality Is Analogue: It Exists in the Flow of Time and Space. by James Lee Hoover

Hello again Jim,

In our essays we have covered a lot of common ground.

I question whether your clock analog, which by implication extends backwards and forwards into the past and future, is in fact a good fit. My reading would be that the only reality that we have any clear perception of is "now", and "now" and "now"! As such it is at once a point in time, multiple simultaneous points in time, and (at any particular point in time) the prospect of future points in time.

When you acknowledge (on p.5) that "there are models to depict whatever hypothesis you want to pose", is this truly consistent with your essay title "Reality is Analog ...." when you have stated that such models are typically digital? Is a model of reality real? Can we get any closer to the truth?

Continuing, how should we distinguish string theory from the aether? In my book we suffer from an obdurate confusion between space as volume, dimensions that are means of describing it, and what space contains - which are merely contents.

Good luck in your quest. Remember that all the "real" riches are to be found in the process rather than at the end of the road. Cheers!

Hello James, I liked the flow of your essay and it's easy reading which made a lot of sense. I particularly liked this statement "Yet, humankind's assumption that nothing existed before the Big Bang is also static judgment". I heartily agree and think that a buildup of structure before the big bang is a much more fruitful path of enquiry. Best wishes, Alan

Forgive me Jim, but I've taken the liberty of copying a reply to a question of your's from my own essay forum. It poses an interesting question which I'd like to share with a wider audience:

"I recommend Luminet's book, although I only really enjoyed the first few chapters or so. He continues with his own take on reality which wasn't something that took my interest unfortunately. The basic principle of a wraparound universe and having a mental image of how it can simplify the 'infinity paradox' is of paramount importance imo. 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?"

Hi Jim, there's a playful mind game and question at the end of my last post, I think you may have missed it. Do you see the connection between spin, loops and mirror images? Best wishes, Alan

Jim,

I like how you touched on many topics, yet your essay still flowed nicely.

We (humans) are just on the edge of starting to understand. You showed how long the path is in front of us.

All the best,

Jeff

Jim

An enjoyable read, thank you, and worth a higher position. Rather than discuss black holes etc. here I give you a link, for a short paper I think you'll enjoy, derived from the basic theory I give here and a paper currently in Peer review. our views need updating.

And a test, (try it before you link to the above can you spot the black hole in the piccies in my essay. It's only visible via lensing. The solution is in the paper.

Enjoy, and do tell me if you can follow the logic in my essay (you must read it slowly and absorb it), and views on the paper.

Best wishes

Peter

OK, Jim, this absolutely non-scientific brain followed maybe one-forth of the topic and reasoning presented. I didn't read others, so I can't compare to them, but you definitely caught my interest and attention with several of the topics with which I am familiar. I can say that you tweaked my interest enough that I'll at least scan (and maybe read) articles I run across that cover this topic. What I also can say is that I don't expect to read Hawkins anytime soon. You know what that says at my age. :-) Thank you for including me. I do enjoy your writing. Hugs Noreen :-)

Jim,

I really enjoyed your essay, which offers an intriguing depiction of the flowing nature of reality. I like your metaphor of the Phoenix, and your emphasis of renewal. It is interesting that many ancient cultures depicted the cosmos as an endless cycle.

Best wishes,

Paul

Dear James,

I wanted to say hello and let you know I enjoyed your essay. I like how it touches on the limits of what we can know about reality. Your discussions of black holes and quatum mechanics are interesting, and I wanted to ask a bit more about your thoughts on the quantum mechanics side. Do you think physics will get to a clearly defined point where it says this is as far is we can figure and nothing can be explored deeper? Does it seem like we will always be able to find ways to explain existing theories with deeper models?

Thanks for your interesting essay!

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Dear Jim,

I have just finished your essay and must say it was enjoyable. Your essay has a poetic quality missing in most of the entries. One of my favorite lines:

"The long waves of cosmic truth appear to wash upon our shores like an almost 14 billion year old ejection of a super-volcano, the ultimate eruption models calls the Big Bang, this being our way of explaining the phantom forces that still echo in our observatories of earth and near-space. But even the microwave image of the cosmic background reveals a curtain covering the Big Bang"s origin."

This one paragraph carries considerable weight. I hope you enjoyed my essay as much, as I would agree we have similar interests.

Best Regards,

Dan

Jim your essay posed an interesting argument in support of reality being Analogue in nature.

It was easy to read. You did not over burden the reader with excessive speculations regarding symmetries, string theory, etc. There seemed to be enough discussion of digital events to support your argument.

It is of course difficult to describe Analogue reality since, it is by nature complicated and can not be easily modeled.

The essence of what I derived from your essay follows, is simplistically stated and may be off base:

"Can Analogue reality be thought of as Time? As Time smoothly flows, it encompasses a multidimensional digital reality composed of all digital occurrences occurring within the Analogue reality at any given point in time. These occurrences involve all digital processes and properties of space, matter and energy."

I think your essay presents rational arguments that are at the very least on par with other essays I have read.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your kind comments in my forum.

You're in good company. As Einstein said, "I'd like to think that the moon still exists even when no one is looking at it."

Nice read. I like the historical breadth of your essay, which adds much interest. Good luck in the contest.

All best,

Tom