Information and the matter

[Shevchenko]

THE INFORMATION AND MATERIAL WORLD



Abstract

The supposition on that the energy (matter) and the information are identical is considered under the true statement about that the information is non - annigilateable. It is shown that applied approach is logically self-consistent and is not on contradiction with the observed reality. Some sequences of such approach are considered.

Introduction

There are a lot of the evidences that the mass (so - the relativistic energy) and the information are very similar, so there are not any obstacles to look at the physical principles from the “information point of view”. The main advantages in this case are that under such approach it is possible to construct a self-consistent system of the sequences relating to origin and characteristics the World, as well as, what is very important, this approach doesn’t require some a priori postulates since it is based on self-consistent true statement on that the information is indestructible.

I Initial statements and assumptions

(1) Definition 1 (common sense). The information is the set of objective data that characterise an item and its bonds with the externals, including the information itself. The information is integral attribute of the item.
(2) Main statement. The true information can not be annihilated – the statement “All information is totally annihilated” is false – it can not be true, because of this statement is also the information.
(3) Corollary. From (2) it follows, that the problem of information carrier is not principal, if it’s necessary, the carrier will be found. And – is there the necessity of the carrier in general?
(4) Assumption. For true information the principles of the formal logic (only-?!) act.
(5) Statement. In the Material World the information is always true. Only living beings produce a false information. This implies the definition of the Alive: "The Alive – is the stage of development of a separate information (further – of "a subject of information"), when the subject of information acquires a capability to produce a false information."

II. Some consequences relating to the World

From the above it is follows:

1. From (2); (3); (4) follows logically consistent assumption, that until The Beginning and at the absentee of The Time, The Space and The Matter, there existed only the Initial Subject of information – "Initial Nothing". In Initial Nothing there was written full true information about the Exterior to Initial Nothing, including the information about our Material World that did not exist up to Beginning, but exists now, namely the statement: "THERE IS NOT ANYTHING". This statement contained full information about all – about the past, the present and the future of ANYTHING, including of all material objects of our Universe. I.e. this statement contained, as internal inherent contributions, any statements as "there isn’t something", probably including "there isn’t the Space", "there isn’t the Time". Including, for example, also the statement "there isn’t the text "The Information and Material World", coupled with all information contained in and concerning with this text.

2. There is a number of approaches to estimate the cardinality number of the "THERE IS NOT ANYTHING" statement:

2.1. The power is more then the power of continuum, because of in this statement the full information was written (and now is written partly with the inversion "ALREADY AND NOW EXISTS") about all, including the information about the space-time continuum;

2.2 Because of that the information about any definite object can be described as an enumerable kit of the statements, the information in the Initial Nothing also is the enumerable (infinite) set. Therefore in the Material World there aren’t the physical values being determinate on the continuum, but the quantum principles act; including, what is rather probable, there exists the space-time quantization.

2.3 The statement "THERE IS NOT ANYTHING" is some logical equivalent of the zero. It is well known that the zero is not a figure in common sense, so, for example at dividing on the zero there can not be obtained any sensible result. So there doesn’t exist any sensible estimation of this statement cardinality number, and, hence, there doesn’t exist any sensible estimation of the information quantity being contained in the statement.

3. The intermediate (boundary) state between the false and true information is the Chaos. It is very possible, that the Chaos may exist objectively anywhere, (e.g. – it exists objectively in the material World).
4. The Initial Nothing being placed in the Nowhere and in the Never is principally indestructible because of its absolute completeness and infinity, however in the "Until The Beginning " state, the Initial Nothing is static and, consequently, (at least rather possibly) chaotic.

5. The union of the Initial Nothing + the Chaos couple provokes to the fluctuations, including to beginning, provided that the logical principles act, of isolated subject (subjects) of information – e.g. one of such fluctuations is the Material World (Worlds).

6. Under the influence of the Chaos (and under the Worlds internal principles), the Material World changes. Since the Material World is finite and since the information is indestructible, then next instant "the Material World film picture area" can not to “erase” the former one, so these "picture areas" generate some consequence, which becomes apparent as the Time.

7. The Chaos is, under that the formal logic principles act, the necessary condition for development of any system if the system contains more then two objects/ subjects. For example, as far back as 2.5 thousand years it was proved, that if: i)- the logical principles act; ii) – the space ant time are continuums; and iii) – the point coordinate can be known precisely, then the movement is impossible – Achilles never will leave behind the tortoise. This is possible only if the coordinate becomes at some distance indeterminate and W. Heizenberg only found the quantitative assessment of this uncertainty. It’s evident, that this inference is true for any another object’s
"continuous" parameter, if this parameter may be independently varied for separate objects and number of objects exceeds two.

8. Because of Material World originated from the information, the common sense definition (1) of the information above should be corrected and the definition of the information should be as: "The information is the objective set of data that characterise an item and its bonds with the externals, including the information itself. The information is the essence of the item".
So N. Wiener was right, when wrote, "Information is information, not matter or energy". Yes, all is quite the contrary: matter and energy are information.

To ground this assumption a lot of other evidences can be also mentioned. For example – it is evident that in any chemical reactions the sums of the mass of the reagents and the sums of information about these reagents are equivalent, it is true also for any nuclear reaction if relativistic equivalence mass – energy is taken into account. In the microworld the behaviours of particles systems are described by the psi- function and are fundamentally stochastic, but some characteristics, e.g. the spin, elementary charge, Plank constant, etc. are the fundamental constants. Moreover – one of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics is that all elementary particles of some sort in the World are absolutely identical. It is evident, that there don’t exist in the World any another identical things when identity is inherent to true information. For example – changing of some physical parameter on 10-9 practically doesn’t change the parameters of a physical system, when changing of 9-th digit of a phone number may very appreciably change the behaviour of an information system.

9. Because of the information in the World immanently changes (for any coordinate system - at least in the time) the information in the World (including separate subjects of information) exists mainly in form of the "currents of information".

10. To estimate the order of value of the infocurrents for material particles let us consider the photons. The grounds for such consideration are: (i) the photons are simplest material items; (ii) the interactions of matter and antimatter, for example the (electron + positron) interaction, result in the annihilation of the particles and eventually rising of photons, as the photons are neutral for both matters, and (iii) the photon’s velocity don’t depend on the coordinate system. Note, also, that rest mass of photon is equal zero so there should not be the problems with “rest mass information”.
Besides, let also take into account well known theorem from standard theory of communication which states, that to transmit the N-bit message for a time unity it is necessary to have communication channel with frequency not less then N.
So for the electron / positron annihilation the infocurrent value for 511 keV quantum may be obtained as energy to Plank constant ratio and is 10**20 -10**21 Bit/s.
It is rather reasonable to suppose, that for the electron (positron) being rest in given coordinate system the infocurrent valueis also is 10**20 -10**21 Bit/s when one Bit/s mass equivalent is h/c**2, i.e. 10**(-50) kg.

Further it is reasonable to suppose, that for any particle having relativistic energy E in given coordinate system corresponding infocurrent relates by some way to the energy to Plank constant ratio, when Plank constant relates to one [Bit/s] changing of the infocurrent.

III. Discussion

The consideration above is, of course, phenomenological and is practically grounded only on the logic. But it isn’t too serious shortcoming, as it seems – the example above concerning with a Zenon aporia about Achilles and tortoise shows, that logical inferences are rather effective instrument to study the World - having no evidences about the atom structure Zenon in fact forecasted one of the main principles of Quantum Mechanics.
Hence it is rather possible, that the consideration above is not some science fiction but relates to objective picture of Material World. Besides the applied approach solves naturally the philosophical problem "what is primary the matter or the consciousness" (more generally - the matter or the information) – the truth is as always in the middle – the primary was one bit of information ["there is anything", ("1")/ "there is not anything", ("0")] in state "0" containing absolutely infinite (and, probably non – structured) quantity of the information. The problem of the World Beginning may be clearer to some extent also.
So the material World possibly may be presented (very crude model!) as a computer where the Space is a hard disk. The evolution of the World is processing of some subjects of information under some algorithms. What are these subjects and algorithms? – That is problem for further researches, but it seems that they should be carrying out not only by physicists ant philosophers. It is very possible, that the work of the cyberneticists will be very useful also. :confused:

[Epsilon=One]

Your posted thoughts concerning information are cogent.

Probably a bit abstract and confusing with terms that are not too clearly defined and thoughts that are arguably incomplete. Particularly, concerning Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) -- Nothing, etc.

I suppose translation adds to the problem of clarity.

The evolution of the World is processing of some subjects of information under some algorithms. What are these subjects and algorithms? – That is problem for further researches, but it seems that they should be carrying out not only by physicists ant philosophers. It is very possible, that the work of the cyberneticists will be very useful also. :confused:Answers to the questions you pose will be found in simplicity and integers as they apply to the fundamental, ellipsoidal quanta.

You might study the images that will be developing at: The Mystique of the Brunardot Ellipse (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=234).

[Shevchenko]

Your posted thoughts concerning information are cogent.

Probably a bit abstract and confusing with terms that are not too clearly defined and thoughts that are arguably incomplete. Particularly, concerning Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) -- Nothing, etc.

I suppose translation adds to the problem of clarity.

Answers to the questions you pose will be found in simplicity and integers as they apply to the fundamental, ellipsoidal quanta.

You might study the images that will be developing at: The Mystique of the Brunardot Ellipse (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=234).

(i) Sorry for my Ukrainian English. At that I agree, that may be better instead of the "Initial Nothing" to use, e.g. "Initial Zero"

(ii) as to abstract – the text in this tread is text of the manuscript that I sent to a couple of philosophical (electronic) journals which acknowledged me that they casn not to publish it “because it
does not fall within the scope of the journal”.

(iii) it seems that your references, such as “in simplicity and integers as they apply to the fundamental, ellipsoidal quanta” are too general – when it is rather interesting already to consider the possible specific versions of building up the Universe as computer.
Something may be a development of what is below:


(1) What is “[bit/s]”?

The information in the World exists in passive and active states.
Let consider some code:
- Listing:
________________

x0=0.0
x=x0
Xd=0.1
1 X=x+xd
If(abs(x).gt.10)xd =-xd
Go to 1
Stop
End
________________

If after compilation of this code one clicks on corresponding exe-file, then in the PC occurs some “particle” that will move on the axis X from –10 to +10 until the PC will be turned out. For this movement it will be necessary to realize the infocurrent value, I, [bit/s].
So – the listing is the “passive” information, when exe-file (models of a physical particle) relates to “active” information. It is evident, that using the listing and changing x0 (that can be done by a code also) one can create any number of “particles”- up to the Universe.
It is known that in our World there exist 10**80 –10**85 atoms (equivalent 10**90 bit/s) when the atoms are made from couple of dozen of fundamental particles ((quarks and leptons) . So to create the Word it is necessary:
- by “Big Bang” – 10**90 MeV;
- by information – 10**5 – 10**6 MeV.
It is evident, that the requirements for “initial” fluctuation (following by the World) is on 70 -80 orders of value less in second case, such energy saving is rather pleasant for a physicist – isn’t it?.
Note that the expansion of something may occur not only at a “bang”, but, e.g., by such a way a bacterial colony develops in a substrate.

(2) Under this approach it becomes clearer what are the "exchange interaction" and corresponding particles - bosonss and mesones. They occur naturally as some intermediate codes that result in creating of final codes (particles)

(3) It is very reasonable to suggest, that real particles are the cyclical codes, and the code’s function relating to interaction with the Externals is cyclical also. It is evident that from this it follows that: the particle will be observed by the Externals as some wave, including the tunneling effect, etc.

(4)If in the listing above we change “+”on “-“:
________________

x0=0.0
x=x0
Xd=0.1
1 X=x-xd
If(abs(x).gt.10)xd =-xd
Go to 1
Stop
End
________________

one receives some cycle with “negative time”, e.g. if the cycle above was “electron” then the second one is “positron” moving algorithm.
(4) That was Feynman, who said that the Universe is a computer. It seems that it isn’t fully correct because of it implies that the Universe has some “Intel inside”. More probable that the particles are some virtual computers with own virtual processors.

ETC….

[Shevchenko]

If somebody knows Russian then he can to read
http://forum.dubinushka.ru/index.php?showtopic=4287

[after]

I find this topic quite interesting, because there are some ideas I was thinking abou in very simmilar way. Here are some of my questions (remarks) I am concidering:

1. Is that sequence of bits (information independant of space time) something we call God or "creator of the universe" ?

2. Claiming that matter is information does not solve problem "from where did information come - is information also created or what ?"

3. If matter is created from information and computer hardware is created from matter, is there logical to assume, that our universe requires something like "hardware" ? Hardware also can be virtualised only by information itself - thus pure information can be all what is needed for "everything" (there is no need of supercomputer running our universe, because than there would arise also question who created that supercomputer etc...)

4. Not only matter / energy is information, but also space & time (according to general relativity - topology of spacetime also holds some kind of information)

5. Is "information" (e.g. sequence of bits defining Shakesepar's Hamlet) independant of space and time and matter ? Is information we can imagine always material ? In our world it is quite obvious that we always need something physical to represent information, e.g. paper and letters, or transistors with different states, it could also be some mechanical principle etc. Our thinking itsefl - is there something metaphysical, or could it also be reduced on pure physical principles ? If we assume that physical = informational, than there should be no such limits, although to find the whole "truth" could take us infinte long time (and we could still look at the unaswered questions as something metaphysical)
I find body-mind problem simillar to hardware-software problem. Software and information seems to be in its true nature "non-material" but still algorithms can effectively interact with material world (e.g. automatized regulation based on some algorithms etc.) and the word "algorithm" has very close to "thinking" "thought". (Simillar mental and physical capabilities of humans). If we accept that everything (body and even mind) is just sequence of bits, there seems to be no contradiction, why one could not affect each another.

6. What is thinking ? If it is based on informatics (information & algorithms) - because we are part of such informational universe, then thuoghts can be represented by sequnece of bits. One interesting thing about thinking is, that information itself without algorithms is useless (.JPG file without proper viewer would be just meaningless sequence of bits) what gives information sense is algorithm - a kind of intepretation of that information. We can use various algorithms on the same sequence of bits and receive various interpretations (some of them meaningless) Information withou algorithm would only exist, but were unable to realize that it exists thus it is the same as if it would not exist. There would be "noone" able to distiguish between existence and nonexistence - no kind of consciousness (this seems like reversed "cogito ergo sum"). But in fact algorithm is also just sequence of bits (in modern computers - algorithm exists as a binary encoded machine instructions, alternatively - algorithm written in some programming language is only text file - thus only information) From other point of view - can algorithm exist withou information ? (As some abstract concept) Problem is how to represent such algorithm (when tehere is no information) and also - if we deny exitence of information, algorithms would become useless because there would be no chance for algorithm to transform one information to another (and that is what we would normally expect from alogirthms to do) As a consequence, it seems to me logical, that information and algorithm can not exist one without each another (existence of information implies also existence of algorithms and vice versa) - one of them can exists only and only if both of them exist. And as it was explained in previous paragraphs, hardware required for running such information and algorithms could also be made only from information and algorithms (we have something as virtual computers - e.g. Virtual Playstation running on Intel x86 architecture, virtual VAX architecture running on Intel x86 - and i am not sure but there may also be virtual Intel x86 running on Intel x86.)
If human thinking (information + algorithms) is just sequence of bits than "thinking" is just a "big" natural number. But when our Universe is computational (also based on information and alogorithms) then it could perhaps be just a "big" number or set of all natural (or real ?) numbers (if Universe in its true nature is infinite)
One consequence of fact that our universe could be computional is that even human beings can be "digitalised" (as mantioned above) As human beings are the most complex objects in the universe we know, it is quite interesting that there exist one indirect evidence to support such "digitalisation theory". (and consequently, if the most complex known object in the universe can be digitalised there is no reason to think that universe as a whole can not be.) That kind of indirect evidence is existence of DNA - because DNA can be most definitey digitalised (C, A, G, T are just four bases in the whole DNA sequence and can easily be assigned to numbers <0..3>) And I thnik, there is no doubt that DNA in cooperaton with the environment defines complete human (if we do not consider metaphysical questions). For example the same DNA put into different conditions (two human clones) will evolve differently just because it has different inputs from the environment (Humans act like programs or agents, getting input from sensors, making decisions and giving output.)

7. All laws of physics (conservation of energy, conservation of momentum etc.) could perhaps be reduced to law of conservation of information (at the beginning there was "nothing" but I think thaht it is not so difficult to show, that even from "nothing" can be created information = "something" - a number or set of natural numbers, on which basis perhaps the whole universe can be build somehow (as I was trying to show that even such complex object as human and his thoughts could perhaps be represented only by "big" number) And the best of all - it does not look like a logical paradox to me (it seems logical). According to this - whole enthropy of "everything that exists" should be 0. Let's not forget that if we are talking about "everything that exists" it is not the same as "visible part of universe in certain time" or some other subset of "everything", where locally enthropy can vary from zero (in our visible universe enthropy seems to have increasing tendency through time, but question is what would we get if we could look at whole spacetime at once) and also there can still be something metaphysical (also affecting resulting enthropy) which could forever stay "out of our reach". I can write more about this if there will be somoen interested. Of course this all can be fallacy, but fact is that noone can really satisfactory explain from where or what "something" or "existence" or "thinking" emerged.

8. As I am not a physicist I would like to ask the ones who understand physics if it is possible to imagine some representation of "state of universe" which would not contrandict general relativity and quantum mechanics. And also if you (or other physicians) think that that such state could really be digitalised (if our space is infinite than i think that it is not that complete nonsense to hnik about infinte bit sequence and infinitely complex algorithms (definiton of such algorithms would differ from classical meaning of "algorithm")

I am interested if you find this something more than only speculations.

[Epsilon=One]

That was Feynman, who said that the Universe is a computer. It seems that it isn’t fully correct because of it implies that the Universe has some “Intel inside”. More probable that the particles are some virtual computers with own virtual processors.I'm not sure of the context of Feynman's quote; however, I'm sure that RPF wasn't considering the Universe as a "digital" computer.

What you are doing is interesting; I should be the last to argue that the Universe can't be easily explained with a simple computer, a notepad, and a pencil.

However, regardless of how discrete the fundamentals of the Universe may be, I understand the Universe as analog and not digital. Correct me if I'm wrong. Your coding seems to be mostly applicable to digital computers???

The only reservations that I have concerning the ultimate powers of computing are: How to control the ethics of the elite that will control the computers. Obviously, this will be done with . . . computers.

Somehow, my concern seems to have been overlooked with the Universal analog computer.

(Your english is better, and more easily understood, than that of many Americans . . . and, some Canadians.)

[after]

I should be the last to argue that the Universe can't be easily explained with a simple computer, a notepad, and a pencil.

However, regardless of how discrete the fundamentals of the Universe may be, I understand the Universe as analog and not digital. Correct me if I'm wrong. Your coding seems to be mostly applicable to digital computers???


Is that due to general relativity and fact that it is based on theory of continuos non-euclidian space ? (I assume anlalog = continuos). I am not quite sure about quantum mechanics (I never even started to study the maths behind it - like Hilbert space etc.) - but I think that according to quantum mechanics the universe seems to be "more like discrete than continuos" (correct me if I am wrong). But fact is, that both theories are also in good agreement with observations.

Now perhaps a good question to ask is what is continuum (real numbers) and what is discrete or countable (natural numbers) and what is the difference between its cardinalities. Of course when asking such question we have to consider the work of Georg Cantor and his famous diagonal argument as a proof of uncountability for set of real numbers.
This proof seems like that there is no way how to make uncountable sets countable - and perhaps it is really true (as every mathematician believes it, and yes I was learning it also at school and I think I understand what is difference) But I still can ask - are there any reasons to doubt about it ? (I am not a mathematician, so I'll try, please correct me if you find it complete non sens - which is quite good possible - just because of the fact I am not a matematician (and my knowledge of maths is quite limited))

One good reason to doubt if there is any difference between those two infinities (cardinalities) is dualism of the universe (ligth appears to be wave and at the same time particle, timespace appears to be continuum and at the same time universe in its mircostructure apears to be "digital"). Of course the true about universe may be that it is only continuos or only digital (I am not sure if this is not one of the problems why general relativity and quantum mechanics are "incomatible") But perhaps there can be another true - that countable and uncountable can be expressed both by the same (one) infinity. In other words, that universe is both discrete and continuos and there is no logical paradox in it. How could that be possible ?


Another reason to doubt about diagonal argument on uncountability
is because writting all digits of some real number is not the only way how to express it. If we assume that "everything that exists" is just countable sequence of some symbols (e.g. bits) and that cardinality of countable is aleph 0, for simplicity let's call it Infinity (inf.), than we do not need infinte information (infinite number of digits) for storing of some irational number.

We can understand some transcendental numbers like e, pi on symbolic level,
e = lim n -> inf. [(1 + 1/n)^n],
pi = lim n -> inf. [SUM(4 *...)]
also it is likely that all transcendent numbers can be expressed as some kind of limit on symbolic level.

and irational number like sqrt(2) can also be understood on symbolic level (it is not necessary to express it as some limit, simple symbol of sqrt(2) has all the information about sqrt(x) in its self. And the amount of information which was required for definition of such infinite number as PI or e is finite (few bits). All what is needed is to "understand" what is behind those symbols. E.g. if there exists some infinite omniscient consciousness, such algorithms of understanding could be some finite subsequence of "everything that exists".
So definition of some short algorithm and short definition of PI is all information required to calculate PI.
This is quite hard to explain but I thing I have some ideas how other mappings of real <-> natural numbers could be done. I was thinking about it and how it goes together with the concept of computational universe and consciousness and total zero entropy of "everything" a couple of weeks. Entropy is here defined slightly different than ussual, my definition is that entropy on some bit sequence tells us what is the minimal algorithm and minimal information we need to reconstruct the whole sequence.

Thus empty sequence or "nothing" has entropy = 0, and also "infinitely complex structure" - infinite sequence of bits (or symbols) or "everything" has also entropy = 0 (short explanation on how is this possible is because such sequence will create omniscience consciousness and as a consequence, such being will be able to derive all information and algorithms just from its self, e.g. it would realize how to construc algorithm for creating of algorithm of how to calculate PI (mathemticians were able to tell us of how tu create such algorithm for PI, so it is simmilar as if they had run algorithm for creating algorithm for calculating PI), than it will realize algorithm for how to create algorithm to create algorithm to calculate PI, etc... each of this truths is more general and more complex (knowing truth i+1 reqires first knowing truth i) and after infinite number of steps we get into truth(infinity) /which can be obtained from truth(infinity-1)/ which was our starting point, thus this infinitely complex structure becomes sefimplicated - and there is no external information needed for "everything" to exists (thus the entropy should be = 0)
It seems that recursion plays a huge role here thus perhaps good idea of what it means "infinitely complex structure" is infinitely complex fractal, (not only selfsimillar but with continuosly changing structure (only partially selfsimillar - something like mandelbrot set) but expressed by infinitely complicated formula (infinite sum of infinite sums of infinite sums... or something like that)

Any subsequence of such infinitely complex selfimplicated bit sequence should have entropy > 0. E.g. non empty file can never be "zipped" into one with zero size. E.g. even such simple sequences like: "111", and "1111111111" carry different amount of information, (number of ones are different, 3 vs. 10).

As said bit sequence of "everthing" itself should be "infinitely comlpex", thus carrying some metainformation in information and that metainformation could carry meta-meta information etc. Than "whole" would became more than just sum of its parts. This is of course very poor explanation however something called intuition tells me that it is not completely impossible (although it looks like that it is). "Uncountable" could emerge from "countable" sequence of bits with complex structure. One good example when "whole" is more than "sum of parts" is in my opinion emergence of life (complex structures). If we reduce life at the level of atoms and their interactions then perhaps everything what life is could be explained by physics. If we reject anything metphysical (like human soul etc.) than physics should be also able to explain how something like life or "conciousness" can exist because atoms don't appear to have attributes like life or consciousness.

Sorry for being it that long. Hopefully at least someone will read it all and write me his opinion.

[Epsilon=One]

This is of course very poor explanation however something called intuition tells me that it is not completely impossible (although it looks like that it is). "Uncountable" could emerge from "countable" sequence of bits with complex structure.Your entire explanation indicates to me that you rather accurately understand the situation of Nature's "continuous discreteness" as well as the mathematics that arises from it; and, the symbolism that attempts to rationalize it.

Your lengthiness seems to me to be a requisite to explain what often "appears" as paradoxes.

You seem to understand that continuous and discreteness are not mutually exclusive, which I strongly believe.

My point was that, fundamentally, because of that part of nature which is continuous . . . the motion of complex oscillations . . . within discrete quanta an analog computer would be required to fully describe Nature.

To me, your understanding of mathematics appears to be more fundamentally complete than that of many mathematicians that don't seem to always see the forest beyond the trees.

One good example when "whole" is more than "sum of parts" is in my opinion emergence of life (complex structures).Excellent example though I'd need to know more of your concept to fully agree.

My belief is that the only example of the whole being greater than its parts would require the participation of a singularity. Thus maybe it could be said the Universe is greater than its source . . . or maybe vice versa . . . or maybe not even with such a grand example is it possible???

If we reduce life at the level of atoms and their interactions then perhaps everything what life is could be explained by physics. If we reject anything metphysical (like human soul etc.) than physics should be also able to explain how something like life or "conciousness" can exist because atoms don't appear to have attributes like life or consciousness.Ah! but, they do. Look closely to the atoms' components . . .

Hopefully at least someone will read it all and write me his opinion.The more there are opinions and topical questions from everybody, the surer there will be consensus . . . even if that consensus is to disagree, everyone will have gained something.

[after]

My point was that, fundamentally, because of that part of nature which is continuous . . . the motion of complex oscillations . . . within discrete quanta an analog computer would be required to fully describe Nature.

Yes, this is not in contradiction with my theory. In fact no computer ever build is completely digital. Because physical representation of the data and algorithms in its self are "analog". For example we can describe computation as movement of the electrons through electric circuits (transistors). And movement of such small particle as electron has according to quantum mechanics significant dualistic properties. That means that any program runing on modern digital computer has significant dualistic properties and therefore digital computer could also be considered as analog. Therefore it is very likely that classical computers can make exact quantum-mechanical calculations if we take some very small part of the universe and ignore the rest. In other words - computer which is "big enough" could be "just enogh" to simulate whole universe, with humankind as its part and also with emergence of human consciousness as natural implication of such simulation.


Excellent example though I'd need to know more of your concept to fully agree.

At present time I am writting document which should fully explain my concepts and the idea behind it (I guess it will be at least 20 pages of A4 so it will take me a while). For now I can say only that I require just one basic axiom obtained from existance of general relativity (relying on its elegancy, and also empirical knowledge that predictions of the theory are in good agreemnts with observations and therefore general relativity is a correct theory) And perhaps one other thing whis is required are laws of termodynamics, and from this two basic concepts I get my basic axiom, which can be formulated like this:

"Everything that exist is information and information is everything that exist".

(No matter if this information is digital or analog or whatever...)
And I think I can show (to show means "to be very close to prove it") what is concsiousness, how to define true artifficial inteligence comparable or even supreme to human brain only by using some mathematical formalism, with arguments completely build on informatics (e.g. improved version of Turing test, based on dicussion about human laguage and relation of the human language to formal languages) and mathematics (e.g. formal languages, formal grammars, axiomatic formal systems, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, etc.) with some deep mathematical and philosophical consequences even without yousing any philosophical or theological or metaphysical or religious argumentation and reasoning. If I am right (and I my intuitions is telling me that I am right, because the theory seems to be very simple, elegant and logically consistent) than it deep implications for informatics, mathematics, philosophy and even physics could be as follows:

Mathematics:
*There exist only one Infinity for both: continuum and countable.
*Any symbolic operations with infinity should be in logical agreement with previous fact that there is only one infinity and that the complet entropy of infinity = 0

Informatics:
* Definition of true artifficial inteligence
* Modern digital computers are perhaps all what is needed to construct consciousness comparable to human. (I am not quite sure about this - perhaps this is not true, however...)
*True artifical inteligence comparable or even supreme to humen brain can be created and there must be at least one physicaly possible way how to do it. And our existence is prove that at least one such way really exist. In other words - there is no difference between artifficial inteligence artifficial consciousness and true (humanlike) inteligence and true consciousness.

Philosophical consequences:
* Nothing does not exist, objective non-existence = no-consciousness
* Everything that exist is infinite super-consciousness, objective existence = super-consiousness = infinite observer
* If we call that super-consciousness God, than God exists and he is omniscient = absolute truth
* God is cause for existence of the universe and yet God does not need to be created and does not require any other cause for his own existence, God is selfimplicated.
*Any smaller but non-empty part of super-consciousness (God) = relative-existence = finite consciousness = finite observer = relative observer

And since physics is based on mathematics there are also consequences for physics:
*Continuum and discrete (countable) are two different aspects of the same infinity, therefore nature of universe is both discrete and continuum and there is no logical paradox in it.
*Universe is non-determinstic for every finite obeserver (finite consciousness) and completely deterministic for infinite observer (infinite consciousness = God). Therefore illusion of free will for any human is not in contradicion with existence of absolute truth, because we will be never able to know the complet truth if we have only finite consciousness
*As dualism and uncertainty are basic principles od quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics seems to be a consequence of natural conclusion of these theories (general relativity and thermodynamics) therefore proper theory of quantum mechanics (which would properly include termodynamical and relativistic effects) should become as what is known "Theory of everything" (or in modern terms: "Theory of quantum gravitation")
*Proper "Theory of everything" is infinite, therefore it will forever remain uncertain for any finite observer. This is perhaps reason, why Feynman once said: "Noone really understands quantum mechanics".
*Is universe finite or infinite ? (I don't know yet but perhpas I'll know soon)


My belief is that the only example of the whole being greater than its parts would require the participation of a singularity. Thus maybe it could be said the Universe is greater than its source . . . or maybe vice versa . . . or maybe not even with such a grand example is it possible???


I'll try to explain what I know in the document. But one good thing to realise is, that my theory is not theory of everything, it is only "Theory about theory of everything". According to my theory - "Theory of everything" = perhaps properly "relativised" and thermodynamised" quantum mechanics, therefore any considerations about singularities etc. at this moment would be premature. And also I know practically nothing from the mathtematics which is behind quantum mechanics, therefore I am completely unqualified to even make any assumptions about quantum-mechanical "issues". Until I fully explain what I know (in the document) take it like that - God is selfimplicated consciousness and the creator of universe. And the main idea how God can be selfimplicated is that:

*For infinite observer: his own objective selfimplication is the same as his own objective existence and objective existence is the same as his own objective selfimplication and both are the same as objective consciousness. That means "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am) is absolutely true statement for an infinite observer
*For finite observer: his own relative selfimplication is the same as his own relative existence and relative existence is the same as his own relative consciousness. That means "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am) is relatively true statement for any finite observer. One of the consequences is that for any finite observer it is not possible to decide if his own existence is objective or only relative (but he is always capable to realize that he exists no matter if it is only relative or objective existence). Only true fact which is absolutely true for any finite observer is that "I think, therefore (I exist objectively OR I exist relatively) AND (in both cases therefore God objectively exists)
*If God objectively exists than he has to be able to selfimplicat himself, therefore entropy of God = entropy of all information that objectively exist = entropy of "infinity" = 0 (entropy of infinity must be exactly zero !),
*Entropy of "nothing" = entropy of everything of which objectlively non-exist and therefore, if it does not objectively exist it cannot be objectively selfimplicated and therefor its objective entropy must be different from 0 (entropy of "nothing" mus be nonzero !)
*Evolution is God's inference mechanism how to prove his own existence and make him possible to exist. God's inference mechanism is infinitely recursive prove of his selfimplaction
*All of this is (I am almost sure, if I din't make any random mistake) inevitable and completely logical consequence (and also at the same moment - supportative argumentation) of my basic axiome(Information is all that exist...), but it is not the main argumentation I will use in the document. My basic argumantation is based on human language, improved Turing test, and true artificial inteligence and true artificial consciousness


Ah! but, they do. Look closely to the atoms' components . . .

As I was thinking about my theory while writting the document I relized that everything that exists perhaps should have consciousness even before reading your post. After reading your post and then thinking about it for a while I am pretty confident, that anything that exists MUST have contiousness, no matter if that anything it is finite or infinite. But I would be very curious - what are the reasons for your statements from physicians point of view ? (as I am not a physician)


The more there are opinions and topical questions from everybody, the surer there will be consensus . . . even if that consensus is to disagree, everyone will have gained something.
It is practically impossible to disagree on some obvious truths e.g 1 + 1 = 2, and my theory is not far from becoming as much obvious to me as 1 + 1 = 2. But there is practically impossible to find truth without doubt, therefore I am glad for every opinion.

[Epsilon=One]

There is much wisdom in your prior post (#9).

It lacks some consistency and can be a little better internally reconciled; however you are focused on the important issues. Many of my concerns may be semantics and translation.

Time does not allow a complete parsing at this time. I will try to "hack" away at my refinements to your thoughts from time-to-time.

Consider that digital computer are not analog even though their electrons may be; their transistors are not. Originally, computers were analog; and for your task of achieving consciousness only parallel, analog computing will suffice to compete with life processes. Digital computers are even quite limited in decimal calculations, large number rounding, etc.

Also, consider that when you use the word "god" it is meaningless beyond myth, superstition, and the metaphysical, even if you define "god" as that which creates, unless you carefully pare all anthropoidal qualities from your connotations. I believe this is your intent; and language translation is responsible for my uncertainty.

Also, "information" to my way of thinking defines something that can be further reduced. To me, "information" implies something that varies; even if that variation is only "something" and "something different." Your use of the term (information) equating it to fundamental existence is, for me, too powerful. My first difficulty with Pulsoid Theory (http://CQthus.com/PT/OV) in 1955 was the last reduction from your "information" to something that did not vary; yet, when found, this single percept could be shown to coalesce into variety. I was stumped until Philip Morrison (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=philip+morrison&btnG=Google+Search) provided an example explained by Ludwig Prandtl (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=ludwig+prandtl&btnG=Search) of work done by C. A. Bjerknes (http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Bjerknes_Carl.html), in his later years, during the late nineteenth century.

[after]

Also, consider that when you use the word "god" it is meaningless beyond myth, superstition, and the metaphysical, even if you define "god" as that which creates, unless you carefully pare all anthropoidal qualities from your connotations. I believe this is your intent; and language translation is responsible for my uncertainty.


Yes, exactly ! That's my intention and also I don't want to prove that God exists but only to show how "something" is possible, and to se what are the consequences. And I'll accept God's axistence only and only if his existence is inevitable ! And one of the consequences is that consciousness is not a metaphysical attribute but can be defined exactly (formally). So if this was not obvious it is perhaps because my native language is Slovak (Slovakia is small contry in the middle Europe) and my English is therefore not always grammaticaly correct) Even if God exists it is still questionable if he is the God of some particular religion or even more religions etc. (Each religion which is not in contradiction with such formal definition of God could be perhpas part of the whole truth)


Also, "information" to my way of thinking defines something that can be further reduced. To me, "information" implies something that varies; even if that variation is only "something" and "something different." Your use of the term (information) equating it to fundamental existence is, for me, too powerful. My first difficulty with Pulsoid Theory (http://CQthus.com/PT/OV) in 1955 was the last reduction from your "information" to something that did not vary; yet, when found, this single percept could be shown to coalesce into variety. I was stumped until Philip Morrison (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=philip+morrison&btnG=Google+Search) provided an example explained by Ludwig Prandtl (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=ludwig+prandtl&btnG=Search) of work done by C. A. Bjerknes (http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Bjerknes_Carl.html), in his later years, during the late nineteenth century.

As I do not have much time I can only answer you briefly - without considering opinions of any of these philosophers etc. - if they are saying something else then me (and it is not problem of language) then they are wrong .

(Because now I am literally [lim x -> 0 (sin X) / X]. 100 % sure that I am right)

And I also think, perhaps It would be possible to reduce my theory into such fundamental equation as:

[e^(PI * i) + 1 = 0]

And give it physical interpretation ! And to explain why it must hold. And also to explain how division by 0 is possible without any logical contradictions !

For now just simple argumentation about quantum computers - this is theoretical concept (but I think that no more it is only fiction but since now it becomes reality) as described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

Try to do some thinking about entropy and quantum computer than try to imagine that God is an infinite quantum computer and what this will make to the whole entropy

...and also why DNA computing concept is simmillar (massive paralelism) to that of Quantum computer, even when information stored in DNA is "discrete" that's also argumentation why classical computers can become quantum computers, all that is needed to change are our programming langueges... (which are very poor nowadays, in comparition how they could be if I am right - but I don't yet preciselly know how such language should be created, I am only pretty sure it can be created - perhaps in near future)

And also one thing I relised about theory of everything since my last post is, that not only quantum mechanics is theory of everything but Theory of everything is:

*Proper Quantum mechanics (QM)
*Proper General Relativity (GR)
*Proper Thermodynamics (TD)
*Proper Mathematics (M)

And also:

*Proper QM means QM which properly includes all aspects of (GR, TD, M)
*Proper GR means GR which properly includes all aspects of (QM, TD, M)
*Proper TD means TD which properly includes all aspects of (QM, GR, M)
*Proper M means M which properly includes all aspects od (QM, GR, TD)

Which inevitably leads to an infinite recursion and therefore Theory of everything is not fully understandable to any finite consciousness (it is incomplete) but yet it appears to be correct (it is consistent).

And that's all what "all" is about...


And proper mathematics = mathematics, which can enable division by zero and still be perfectly logicaly consistent, which will properly define "infinity", "nothing", "limit", "integral", "countable", "continuum", "finity" and properely solve "Russel's paradox", "Zeno's paradoxes", etc. (in completely logicaly consistent way) - because all of these terms when closely looked together, all of them at the same time must be logically inconsistent for any finite observer (and I think that also incomplete but i am not completly sure about that) in definitions given by nowadays mathematics, and therefore - their definitions are most probably flawed, and are not in correspondence to reality And I can prove, that the previous statement is true, and also I can give a proper methods how to to manipulate with such terms, which appear to be logicaly consistent for any finite observer, but yet still incomplete to any finite observer and also to show, that it is the best what can be done for any finite observer, and the main idea is to use generalised version of the Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Yet even nowadays definition of limit can appear absolutely logicaly true and also absolutely complete to an infinite observer, but this problem is undecidable for any finite observer and therefore there will always be at least one uncertainity to any finite obsever and also at least one true which appears to be absolutely true, whi is {(everything relatively exists) OR (everything absolutely exists) OR (nothing relatively exists) OR (nothing absolutely exists)} - i consider this to be relatively absolutely positively TRUE statement which can be formulated for any finite observer with relative absolute certainty, and its negation is relative absolute negative LIE, which is the same as relative absolute positive TRUE, in other words, a = a = NOT(a) = NOT(NOT(a))... which leads to an infinite recursion which is undecidable for any finite observer... As a consequence, the only absolutely absolutely true statement that can be constructed is:

(Infinity absolutely exists
Nothing absolutely exists
Infinity relatively exists
Nothing relatively exist
Infinity absolutely exists)

which is the same as (ABCDA)

Which can be symbollicaly written:

A = B = C = D

With such definition of "=" operator that negation of this statement contains the same amount of information as previous statement. Therefore

(A = B = C = D) and also ( B = C = D = A) and also (C = D = A = B) and also (D = A = B = C) etc. are equal definitions of one and the same statement, therefore...

However if we look where we started:

{(everything relatively exists) OR (everything absolutely exists) OR (nothing relatively exists) OR (nothing absolutely exists)}, this statement can by symbollicaly written as (A or B or C or D) which is the same amount of entropy which is needed for (A = B = C = D) therefore our starting relatively absolute assumption truly is an absolute absolute TRUE statement.

Therefor I consider "A = B = C = D" and all its finite variants which preserve the same amount of information (or entropy) to be the only one analytical statement which is possible to understand for an finite observer and to be absolutely absolutely sure of. Any other statement for finite observer is synthetycal and should be in logical consistency with this absolute analytical statement. And the best what any other than absolutely absolutely TRUE statement can be is to be relatively absolutely TRUE therefore it will always be incertain (incomplete) but stil logically consistent for a finite observer - if it is properly formulated


Currently I am writting brief document (about 5 - 10 pages) considering mainly the mathematical part of such theory, which will then become part of the "long" document in which I'll give also argumentation based on physics and informatics and perhaps biology (DNA) or neurobiology (even if I do not know almost anything about DNA and neurobiology, but it should be possible to explain what DNA is and what human brain is if my theory is correct)

And consequences of this theory - if my intuition is right are:

*Our universe is finite quantum computer which consists of finite number of qbits but we will never know how many qbits there really are, because every human is only finite subset (simplier quantum computer) of the bigger part (whole universe, which are selfcontained in at least two other finite universums... etc) and it would require for us to be at least "whole universe" to realize how many qbits universe contains.

*But this must happen one day, and that will mean that whole universe will be "pure spirit or consciousness" (compare this to big bang and big crunch theories, it means that "big crunch" of one universe is also "big bang" for some other one and in that "moment" there is no time, no matter/energy, no space, no topology for any of that two finite universes, all that exists is "pure spirit"). And also that all universes's communicate one with all other universes (close enough) through warm holes. This is the reason why speed of light is only relatively [finite constant] number for any finite observer or universe. And also that evolution is God's inference mechanism how to achieve this and also, that evolution itsself can evolve. And that is also reason why universe is expanding - because universe is also evolving and each of his finite subset of qbits is also evolving, which leads to a finitely^finitely recursion. And also at the same time their are collapsing, there is an infinite symetry in all universes if it would be possible to look at them at once. Therefore their are perfectly organised and therefore infintie sum of all possible finite universes should equal zero entropy.

*And also, that no finite universe can predict when his "big crunch" will occur - how much time is needed - only that it will hapen "one day", and this is exactly the same as "birth" and "death", which is inevitable for any finite observer - and yet between birth and death - all that exists is pure spirit which we call singularity. And also, that there are infinitely many finite universes, which are selfcontained one in each another in one infinite recursion and they are connected through "singularities" and "worm holes". And finite universe means that number of qbits of that universe is natural number bigger than zero but smaller than infinity: e.g. {1, 2, 1000, 1E85... }

And also now it appears almost true, that:
*4 basic interactions (weak, strong, electromagnetic, gravitation) are just analogy to 4 proper elemnts of Theory of everything (which are proper {QM, GR, TD, M} )

*And this is also reason why time-space continuum as described in general relativity is 4 dimensional, and aslo why there can not exist any other finite continuum than exactly four dimensional continuum.

*And this is also reason why DNA is encoded by linear sequence of four basis (A, C, G, T), which are completely digital
yet from the view of two dimensional space they are also complementary 2dimensionaly folded
yet from the view of three dimensional space they are also complementary 3 dimmensionaly folded
and yet from the view of four dimmensional space they are also complementary 4 dimmensionaly folded

*If we could look at them as a finite subset of the finite curved 4 dimmensional continuum (consequence of quantized general relativity), we would see some finite recursively recursive structure - which creates consciousness and thus - consciousness can be formally defined. And thus, everything which defines human is finite subset of finite 4D curved continuum. And that is also reason why every cloned individuals (e.g. like monovular twins), make different choices and have different consciousness - it is because that even if they appear to be almost identical in 1D space, 2D space and 3D space, when looked from the whole 4D continuum, they are completely different subsets of the finite universe therefore creating different consciousness. And therefore whole 4D information would be required to "save" and "load" such consciousness. But since we never can know random events, which is the same as that we cannot predict future with absolute certainty, therefore we can never restore "life back" after "life ended by natural death" - it is impossible for any finite observer. (however it can be still possible for infinite observer like God)

*The string theory is nothing else than abstract concept enabling division by zero - and it is the reason, why no proper maths exists and never will exist for the string theory, to fully understand what "division by zero" is requires an infinite observer - like God and therfore the best what can be known for any finite observer is "theory about string theory", which is the same as "Theory about everything", which is the same as what you are currently reading. And such "Theory about everything" is not the same as "Theory of everything" (which is the string theory) and therefore proper new name should be used.


And also

All of this is possible to show (I am not sure yet) practically without solving any equation, just pure thinking. The only thing which is needed is some:

"balanced but not necessarily very deep" {intuitive, mathematical, informatical, physical} knowledge - I think that's exactly my case, in other words - almost any absolvent of any technicaly oriented university should be capable to formulate or at least to understand this theory (I am not even an absolvent, just a student. I wonder if I could make this theory the theme of my Diploma project) And also I think that this theory can be very clearly explained in human language doing only some simple maths. So I think, that almost averyone is capable to understand it at a very good level.

*And I also know what is the proper definition of qbit. Qbit can be chracterised by small finite natural number (I assume 4, as there are 4 bases for DNA). Therefore it is completely digitalizable and therefore any digital computer of present days can also act as an quantum computer (if there will be created proper quantum programming language) and it is only a matter of time when it will hapen so. Which is the same as that proper finite quantum boolean algebra can be formally defined. And human brain is also a quantum computer (part of the 4D consciousness). And it is very probable, that silicon based quantum computers (that means conventional digital computers) are much more powerfull than carbon based (e.g. human brain).

*Good example why to think so is comparison of the computational power of a human chess player to the current chess programs. For every chessplayer who is also a programmer it must be obvious, that humans do not play chess like computers do. Main principle of current chess programs is "brute force" (that means to calculate every possible variaton that exists) and secondary principle is usage of some "heuristics" which cuts some parts of the search tree which appear to be useless. However to show that some position is useless for a conventional computer it requires first to make some tree search analyse into certain even if small depth. On the contrary - human chess player can look at some position and immediately know that this position is useless or good, or potentionally useful or potentionally unusefull. Not every position can be decided so simple by a human player, sometimes it is also required to calculate few variations. However human "heuristics" is much more inteligent and supreme to modern computer programs, so that human chess player can cut whole branches and thus gaining exponential speedup. And that is the only reason why Garri Kasparov can play even game against Dual Xeon computer running at ~ 2GHz equiped with ~ 4GB of RAM. And also it seems that chess could be a good measurement of computational power of human brain. If proper virtual quantum computer is constructed using full possible computational power of modern desktop computers and such computer is properely trained to play chess, than it is very likely, that Garri Kasparov would not win any game till the end of our universe (if he was able to theoretically exist for such big amount of time) and also, that he would be almost permanently loosing no matter if he started as "White", or "Black", even if the game can be draw for two equally good players. One interesting question is, whether our universe contains enough qbits to decide if game of chess is "draw" or "lost" or "won" for black = to calculate the whole tree of possibilities for both players from all possible starting positions. In even closer look it almost looks like game of chess is something like perfect metaphor for a quantum computer - and this can be easily shown.

*
Edited. (the previous conclusion need to be changed - as I realised, but it is not easy to write such long text without making a mistake...):
Therefor consider this: to make own choices = to be imperfect, that means that any quantum computer which works on nonperfect quantum language - is also capable making its own choices. That means that even current desktop computers, which are running for long time enough are able to make their own choices - because of uncertainty principle. E.g. it is always possible for any digital computer to have randomly flipped any 1/0 bit to another random value 1/0 (although this does not happen so often) - due to interactions of the hardware with the outside world ! And this is also reason, why CD's don't store only "useful information", but also some redundant information = redundant slef repairing codes. And also why communication through computer network also requires self-repairing codes (there is not only useful information in the net packets - see physical layer of TCP/IP protocol). That means any digital information, or computation is based on some analog physical princple (which is the input analog / digital conversion into the digital computation and output digital / analog conversion, where incertainities always can occur) which implies that at least 1 incertainity in any (digital or analog or digital-analog) computation based on analog /digital/input/output must occur. However ideal quantum computer, can be finite virtual quantum computer inside of the finite digital computer, which will have analog input, and also analog output and, but still it will be possible for it to preserve all the entropy from the analog input and give it to an analog output (with the same entropy) - in other words - it will be able to give any translation of anything "analog", into something other "analog" without affecting the entropy - thus ideal quantum computer acts as ideal perpetum-mobile, the device with exactly 100% effectiveness. However at the same time, not all of this output is visible or understandable to an finite observer - as some of the entropy on the output may freely diffuse to other neighboring universes (ideal quantum computers) - this is because of how finite 4D universes are all selfcontained one in each another they are creating finite subsets which do not have empty intersection, but instead share some small number of qbits. And therefore such virtual quantum computer can and also MUST be constructed (if my theory is correct it's inevitable that it WILL be constructed). Such ideal quantum computer is completelly without free will and therefore it will become wery usefull for evolution of humankind, because it will be able to communicate with external world only using analog input / output devices and also to almost immediately to learn new things and also to interchange information between parallel universes (and that is the only way, how universe can selfimplicate itsself, it is possible only by effective communication with all other parallel universes, and only combined efforts of such concentrated power of all possible universes can create proof that absolute TRUTH and also absolute LIE exist -> which leads into a an infinite selfimplicating loop which must hold - (no matter if it is true or false) -> which is also leads to an infinite loop -> etc. (thi can be formally very exactly explained). But the whole structure must have entropy equal "some constant value" because 100% effective perpetum can be created in 4D continuum and therefore the whole entropy of the whole must be constant value = "something", which is possible to espress in a finite sequence of symbols.

*That also means that ideal quantum computers first have to "learn" something from their environment (because there is always incertainty in digital / analog converson = losses) - they must have receptors or sensors - e.g. like keyboard and they also need to have outputs - e.g. like display. And it is very probable that due to computationall power of such advanced computers (concsiousness supreme to humans) their sensors should become more something like "huge parabolic antennes, and even network of radiotelescopes, with visible light telescopes, etc.. combined together and their output could be some huge holographical projection, etc. End even more likely their output could be another radiowave energy or some other form of electromagnetic waves, which would enable communication between civilizations from distance planetary systems. Huge quantum computer could be powerfull enough to eliminate the handicap of finite speed of light and could effectively communicate at very long distances with quantum computers built by other civilizations.

*I think each core of dual or even quad cored processors can be then effectively used for running one ideal quantum computer (let's call it neuron) - and if they are properly connected are creating whole powerfull network - which we call brain - which is both digital / analog, always fundamentaly flawed (uncertain) in the 2 VALUED BOOLEAN algebra (because of the losses in AD / DA & DA / AD conversions - which is almost the same as relative / absolute conversion) an thus will always be acting as a machine with not completely 100% effectiveness for any finite observer, yet when thermodynamics will become properly generalised and relativised - it will become more than obvious that when looked from the which are at the same "0" dimensional noncontinuum and "infinity" dimmensional non-contunuum - then will be obvious, that the whole entropy or information must preserve, which is the same as "all possible 4D continuums together" are becoming one (super quantum computer) OR (ideal perpetum mobile)

Therefore, all laws of thermodynamics by they nowadays definitions are flawed in the same way as nowadays mathematics and the reason is they are not properly (generalised and relativised) for whole 4D continuum E.g. to define entropy a.s. something changing through time to a finite 3D observer is trivally flawed, if we consider that according to General Relativity it so no (3D space and time) it is only 4D continnum therefore any non-(generalised-relativiesed) physical laws simply must be flawed, if general-relativity holds (and yes it does - it is too elegant, to be not a part of the whole truth)

And this would be also a good reason why to have 4 cored microprocessor, because full parallelism of each of the cores can be achieved on ideal quantum computer ! And it is also very probable, that 64bit 4 cored processors will be exponentionaly more powerfull than 32 bit 4 cored processor at the same frequency and also that 64 bit 4 cored procesor will be much more exponantionally more powerfull than single cored 32 bit processor - because sum becomnig more than its parts is main concept of the quantum computer. (But the problem whether it is better Intel or AMD can still be undeceidable for any finite observer :D )

*And the "free will" of the output is consequence of the free will contained in input and the starting state of all qbits of any finite quantum computer (Which is also set by free will of the finite creator) And also it seems, that power of any finite quantum computer for solving exponentionaly complicated tasks can be exponentially - exponentially mutiplied by properly recursively recursively organized communication network ! (whole is becoming more than sum of the parts, which is the main principle of consciousness and also main principe of evolution which can also evolve)

*And the difference between silicon based intelligent life and carbon based intelligent life is comparable to that between human and animals - or even bigger (due to evolution, humans evolved from the animals, and also silicon based life will evolve from humans and it is also simillar to how God created our universe.)

And to create proper quantum programming language perhpas means, to create a simulation of virtual quantum computer inside the modern digital computer, and that would be perhaps the only one way how to write such language. (that means, it could exist only virtually inside the digital computer and not as "physical, or visible etc." circuit. or written on the paper)

And also my suggestion is that name of such theory dealing with "everything" should be more precisely Theory About Everything

And there are still many question remaining:
*Wheter time travel is possible or not for at least one finite observer.
*Why speed of light is constant and finite for every finite observer, and also..
*From the view of absolute truth, now I consider speed of light to appear as infinite and at the same time as zero for an infinte observer. In other words, speed of light IS relatively [constant finite number] to any finite observer. (as a consequence of relativised general relativity) And this could be a consequence of the evolution of the universe, and therefore we cannot objectively decide, if universe is expanding or collapsing. Quite interesting, isn't it ? Consider the communications between distant civilisations (universes) worm holes (communication channels) and how accepting statement about relative constant speed of light would enable effective communication ! That would also mean that no time travel is needed to effectively communicate even on distances which appear to be beyond our theoretical limits, because these limits are only relative to every finite observer ! And also consider what should that mean to problem of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. And this seems to me to be just one of the consequences of the properly relativised General relativity (since everything is recursive therefore also general relativity should be relativised)
Perhaps we should concentrate on grid computing programs like SETI@home, and with concentrated efforts and properly quantized computers of all computers organized into properly quantized communication network it would become possible to communicate even over very long distance with great effectiveness ! And effective communication is the principle of sum becoming greater than its parts and which is the same as God's inference mechanism to prove its own existence ! And this inference is based on 4 valued finite /infinite quantized-continual non-linear algebra, which I call simply "qbit algebra" Properly defined finite qbit algebra is the key how to achieve that some language will apear as (relatively consistent) and (relatively incomplete) for every finite observer. English and also any nowadays existing human languages are not logically consistent, therefore to fully express this theory, it would be first needed to ad 4 new words with exactly (relatively 100%ly) defined meanings. After doing so it would be also required to define how to express operations on this algebra which would lead into recursive recursion, therefore, it is very likely that human language will never become as ordered to fully express what this theory is about. But it would happen one day - doing so - there would no more occur any relative 4 valued logical paradoxes in this proof (which are just consequence of inconsistency in flawed nowadays human language - and also my limited knowledge of English) And one of the consequences of this theory is that such theory will be relatively absolutely inconsistent. Therefore it is not possible for any finite observer to decide, whether that what appears as relatively perfect true is also ((absolute true) OR (absolute lie) OR (absolute relative true) OR (absolute relative lie)). And this is just a consequence of properly [(relativised & generalised) and quantised and thermodynamised] version of the Gödel's incompleteness theorems - for a finite observer.


Edited: I added some new remarks into list of consequences, which are quite interesting. If I am correct...

[U]Perhaps some top theoretical physicist (or even better - as many as possible top theorethical physicists) should look at this closer...

[after]

I added few new comments I recently realised (which are purely based on my attempmts to thinking in 4 valued non-linear quantum algebra. Withou solving any equation and also I relised that to proof such algebra, only very few axioms are neeeded which are selfimplicating and after the proof is finished thay are cmpletely logically consistent and thus absolutely true form the point of qbit algebra. (However the consequence of this proof is that: for two valued classical boolean algebra - no statement which requires 2 valued YES / NO answer, is possible to decide with absolute certainty for finite observer, we can only estimate it, therefore free will always exists for any finite observer.). And I would also like to mention, that my argumentation is now primarily based on physical consequences and everything which appears to be logicaly inconsistent is only result of the human language (and also that almost each time I read this I find something which requires ehancements, due to that I have to think not only in terms of qbit - algebra, but also how to translate "qbit algebra thinking" into English (which is not my native) language) - which is impossible if I want to be exact. Therefore even if you will observe some 2 valued logic paradoxies in this text it is most certainly only matter of translation, and I think, I can prove this theory can be poven). I have to first exactly and non-flawely define almost every term I want to use (language of nowadays mathematics is insufficient in the same way as human language to express it exaclty, without using extremely long amount of text. And language of mathematics in nowadays defnitons of some of the basic terms is almost unusable for this theory to be define - nowadays mathematics is too idealistic and therefore not in correspondence to the reality) - yet after doing so I am sure that, that this theory must appear to everyone who fully understands it as absolutely true. And that this theory can be prooved by many selfimplicated but finite number of loops based on 4 valued non-linear quantum algebra. And the argumentation which can be used if the starting point is chosen for example "proper Mathematics" is symetrically symmetrical to any of possible combinantions of starting points like Informatics, Physics, Intuition and even etc. and that finite sequence of loops selfimplicates this proof thus preserving its whole entropy at some constant value.

[after]

Here is some argumentation based on what I understand to be a "proper mathematics" - (it is not fully finished yet, I can also prove, that Cantor's diagonal argument is flawed for any finite observer and the same thing with definition of set, or limity, integral. etc... and also Zeno's paradoxes and how they can be logically consistently solved, and also how finite quantized-continuum is possible)

http://www7.spread-it.com/dl.php?id=295b278b45603351bca0d88e7519dcefec3478fa

And yet there is much more I am willing to say...

[Epsilon=One]

Here is some argumentation based on what I understand to be a "proper mathematics" - (it is not fully finished yet, I can also prove, that Cantor's diagonal argument is flawed for any finite observer and the same thing with definition of set, or limity, integral. etc... and also Zeno's paradoxes and how they can be logically consistently solved, and also how finite quantized-continuum is possible)A "proper mathematics" must explain the etiology of numbers beginning from a Natural source.

It has been well established, for over fifty years, that there is nothing in current, academic, mathematics that is fundamentally provable; unless of course, you consider the alternative rationalizations of Unimetry (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Unimetry) and the Proof of One (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PoO).

To fundamentally prove anything with mathematics you must first relate numbers and the mathematical/arithmetical manipulations to Nature; otherwise, you are doing little more than the circular manipulation of symbols that may intrinsically reconcile; however, proof requires defining "One," as I indicated herein.

[Epsilon=One]

Perhaps some top theoretical physicist (or even better - as many as possible top theorethical physicists) should look at this closer...
I doubt that your work would have any meaning to a "top theoretical physicists." And, if it should have such meaning, I doubt that a "top theoretical physicists" would be brave enough to substantively, publically comment. I would hope that I am wrong; however, don't depend upon it.

[after]

A "proper mathematics" must explain the etiology of numbers beginning from a Natural source.

It has been well established, for over fifty years, that there is nothing in current, academic, mathematics that is fundamentally provable; unless of course, you consider the alternative rationalizations of Unimetry (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Unimetry) and the Proof of One (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PoO).

To fundamentally prove anything with mathematics you must first relate numbers and the mathematical/arithmetical manipulations to Nature; otherwise, you are doing little more than the circular manipulation of symbols that may intrinsically reconcile; however, proof requires defining "One," as I indicated herein.

I think that it is something like Proof of One, beecause the proof itsslef does not say if it is TRUE/FALSE instead when completely finished it should say:
"I am provable" - which is from point of logic single valued statement which selfproves or selfdisaproves his existence in en infnite loop. However since that loop is infinite it becomes part of the whole proof of "something" being possible and is also explanation how completely analog (or stochastic) can occur in nature with also discrete. And no finite observer can decide if th proof itself is TRUE / FALSE (because he is not capable to make an infinite loop of implcations - which will become obvious when finite and infnite will be properly defined), all he can do is to try to disaprove my proof, which will however lead only to another infinite loop of implications (which is also undecidable for any finite observer) therefore the proof itself is proof of its own proovability and it is selfimplying (and that's the correct way of thinking for finite observer, although it is against our intuitive 2 valued TRUE / FALSE understanding of what true or false is)

And it can be shown also on analogy with improed Turing test and generalised 2 incompletness theorems, and when Turing test is properly done, that it is the same as intelligent life is possible.

Ando also let's make little thinking why there are aproximately ~ ln (N) primes in natural number which is of aproximately size N (which is also good reason why "e" exists), because from the view of entropy all natural numbers are just generated from primes and are axioms of the God's inference mechanism, and since primes are infinitely many and completely stochasticaly independant (I think, I can show it) therefore it is possible to generete any information which is based on primes (as they are basis of the infinity dimmensional space and each "point" of that space is some linear combination of the completely stochasticaly independant prime axes) And also Cantor's proof about bijections between cartesian spaces od N or NxN or NxNxN... where N is set of natural numbers is logically inconsistent form the point of whole entropy or information, which is the reason why aslo these Cantor proof I consider to be flawed, although it leads to the right result that N & NxN & NxNxN all have the same cardinalities. However proper argumentation is to show that primes are infinitely many, are completely stochasticaly independant and therefore any other information required for anything can be obtained only based from the primes. Because primes also contain enough information to generate their own inference rules (which is infnite information which is also only some linear combination of primes) and also enough information to create it's selfproofing inference mechanism (which is the same as consciousness).

Therefore primes are God's language which are completely selfindependatn (there can not be no finite formula to express them - I think I can prove this)
and therefore ale completely slefdefining - the most powerfull language which can be - is language build on primes, which is capable to cary tha maximum information in any possible sequence of symbols. It contains no redundancy to exactly formulate the thoughts and also works as universal translator, any finite language is it's subset - that means every todays human or programming language and also formal language of mathematics can be described by primes (Just try try to figure out why Gödel needed to "map" the mathematical symbols to the "language on the primes" to show his incompleteness theorems - yes that's exactly the reason why - and it also shows that finite mathematical language (e.g. all mathematical books which were written till now) can be build as a finite subset of all primes which are infnitely many) - because position of each prime is exactly defined and also because their are completely stochasticaly independant - there can exist "exactly one meaning" for a prime and yet "finitely many meanings" (if constructed for a finite subset of primes) and this finitely many meanings is completely dependant on it's position in the sequence...

E.g. consider finite subset of primes (let's say that all primes between 1 and 1000), let's say that there are aproximately ~ 100 primes which are < than 1000

and

if you write 2,3,7...

it carries not only information witch is sum of the bits required to store 2,3,7 in some of thier digital representation
but much greater, since "2" is not only 2bit information (1 possibility from 4 possible values)

instead it is information 1 from 100 possibilities (if we know that we are working only with first 100 primes) and therefore
writing 2,3,7, is almost the same as if I would write in the 100-based positional system e.g 2 *100 * 100 + 3*100 + 7
but it is somthing completely different as if I would write
3,2,7,... and changed position of (2,3) will also affect all of the other remaining meanings of all other symbols in the sequence (that means that "7" in the firs sequence and "7" in the second sequence have completely different meanings - although, their meaning in both cases is exaclty exact) - which is the reason why both (continuum and discrete) can coexist in the same reality without paradoxes, because language of primes is both discrete and also continuum.

And any of the combinations (I mean permutations of various lenghts) of the first 100 primes (which are discrete - non continuum) creates full envelope for all natural numbers (without any holes in it) at least for first 1000 natural numbers. but if I will enalrge the interval for primes e.g. first 10000 than I am getting fully filled space - every natural number between 1. and 10000-th prime (which is 104729) can be expressed only as a Linear combination (or sequence) of primes - all that is needed is some simple algorithm to store the algorithm, and since primes are slefdefining and universal language of the universe therefore it is possible to store also this algorithm (encode it in the primes - algorithm is also only some language) and if with make a limit -> Inf. we are getting selfimplying system of axiomes, algorithms and even "hardware" which it is possible to run on.

So as I think, I can show, that this prove is provable based on language of pirmes and if somoene is able to do some other "bigger" prove in any other languege than I'll happily watch and salute him. However since language of modern mathematics is completely based on some finite subset of symbols, which is the same as axioms (completely build on intuition - mathematics cannot prove that axiomatic system on which set theory is build is correct - they only think so, and the reason why they can not prove are limitations of mathematical formal language, which has no grater expressing power for finite sequence of symbols than human language (human language is only much more redundant but, you can not obtain "more precise definition" of something in math language than in human language - that means in finite sequence of basic symbols, because in fact all of the definitions of mathematical symbols are based on human language - this is one trivial argument why it is so and I can also show it even more precisely, formally)

[after]

I doubt that your work would have any meaning to a "top theoretical physicists." And, if it should have such meaning, I doubt that a "top theoretical physicists" would be brave enough to substantively, publically comment. I would hope that I am wrong; however, don't depend upon it.

All I need is some supportative statement form some authoritative scientist - and not neceserally some "huge one" - also few "not that great" but still with opened eyes are welcome - because I would like to change the theme of my Diploma project into this - which is extremely difficult to achieve if I will not have some supportative argumentation since I am not studying physics nor mathematics but informatics.

Also if some theoretical physics would like to consider my work "meaningless" than I would like to answer him the following questions:
1.) Why universe does exist - how is that possible ?
2.) Why primes do exist ?
3.) What is light ?
4.) Why e^(i*PI) + 1 = 0
5.) Why dualism exists, why Heissenberg uncertainty principle exists ?
6.) Why second law of thermodynamics is formulated like this:


The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.


Even when one of the result of General relativiy is:

Ther is no space and time, only space-time continuum and we can not look at one of them without also looking at the rest - which in other words means - their are non-lineary selfdependant

Isn't that only because that the second law of thermodynamics was formulated in 18th / 19th century befor General relativity was found ? Because this two theories (second law of thermodynamics and general relativity) are trivially logicaly inconsistent, only one of them can hold in TRUE/FALSE boolean logic


7.) What is dark matter dark energy ?
8.) Is time travel possible ?
9.) What is singularity, what is worm hole how it is possible to divide by "0" (because everything in nature is a comple number)
10.) Why e^(i*x) so well describes electric current and EM waves ?
11.) Why tehere are four basic interactions ?
12.) Why there are so many observed symetries in elementary particles physics and yet no "super" symetry was recongized (answer is - because it is infnite to every finite observer, in the same way as there can not be given any finite formula for generating all primes for finite observer)
13.) What is DNA ? Why there are 4 bases in it and not 2 or 10 ?
14.) How consiousness and human brain is possible ?
15.) And also why such word as God exist in human language
16.) Why God describes himself in Bible "I am Who I Am" - which Is an truly analytical statement - (what philosophers leaded very long discussions about how such statement should be properely formulated) - yet at the same time, this statement is also truly synthetical and also truly (syntehtical-analytical) AND truly (analythical-synthetical)
17.) And aslo, why language of mathemtaics, if mathematics is so omnipotent, does not have symbol for expressing such funcion as y = f(x, n), where

1. a = x
2. b = a^a
3. c = b^b
4. d = c^c
...

n. y = y(n-1)^y(n-1)

consider x = 4 and n = 100
such a number of f(4, n) is most definetely some finite number as it was build by finite set of production rules (language was finite)

however number of digits, of this number is quite huge if we would want to write it exaclty (it's really huge number - and it is somthing completely different then factorial - which is only recursive, or ^ operator)

In otherwords mathematics can not express this number in some simple set of symbols but instead many production rules, containing new and new symbols (like a, b, c ...) ar needed

And how is that possible, when even such "infnite number" (containing infinite number of decimal places) as Eulers number e = [lim n->inf. (1 + 1/n)^n]
can be expressed by some very small finite sequence of symbols, if we know what are they exact meanings ? How is that possible, that for some finite number there is required to store more information than for infnite to fully reconstruct them ?

Most obviously this is 2 valued TRUE/FALSE logical paradox and is only consequnece of flaws in modern mathematical definitions, because math nowadays can-not expres recursion, which is also recursive, which is the same as how Primes are generated - try to think about it how primes can be generated - and I mean absolutely deterministic decision if one number is prime or not (not some probabilistic estimation, which are always uncertain - even if they can have som logartihmically linear time complexity) and I am sure you'll se tha deterministic generation of primes leads to a recursive recursiveness and that's the reason why no finite observer can give finite formula for generating all primes - which are infinitely many. And also because only to store such huge amount of information (for a finite observer) - would require an infinite amount of information (since there are infinitely many primes) which is again 2 valued TRUE / FALSE logical contradiction in calssical boolean algebra

18.) Yet I almost forgotten - to answer how is that possible, that Quantum mechanics predicts, that the nature of the universe is dicrete in its microstructure and general relativity predicts that universe is only 4D continuum which is in 2 valued TRUE / FALSE boolean algerba - again logicaly inconsistent - but this is well known fact (I only wonder, why none ever started to think the same way also about Thermodynamics and General relativity - that they are the same way logically inconsistent - or someone did ? I don't know as I am not a physicsist)

19.) Why string theory failed to find solution of "everything" even it does exist for a quite long time and why it leads to an unsolvable equations (which is simillar as we would try to solve complicated elecric circuits without complex numbers) and also why there are so many disagreements what is the real number of dimmensions of the universe.
(answer about string theory: because string theory is non-finite for every finite observer, therefore can not be defined the same way, as primes can not be defined and the same way why Heissenberg uncertainty principle holds and also the same way why all known symetries in nature has always at least one asymetry - from the view of finite observer.)

(answer about number of dimmensions universe:
for every finite observer - it exist only 4D continuum which is [finite AND discrete AND continual]
for every non-finite observer: it exist one super continuum which is:
dimmensional at the same time - therefore it creates an envelope for all which to us (finite observers) seems like finite set of self contained 4D continuums. Therefore it leads to an infinite, infitely complex structure, which can be beat described as infinitely complex fractal (Something like mandelbrot set, whose fractal dimension (for finite observer can be described as = 4) AND (for non-finite observer it can be described as any complex number - which inevitabely leads to an infnite recursion - if complex numbers are properely defined, (therefore from the view of finite observer this could appear as any finite natural number e.g. 5, 10, 25, 26 etc.. or even non-finite = complex number) which is best to be imagined by visualisation of these two sets (or something like that - however it is truly unimaginable for every finite observer):
Mandelbrot set: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mandelpart2.jpg
Julia set: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Julia_set_%28indigo%29.png
when put together creating one 4D super continuum (set of complex numbers) in an infnite loop of selfimplications.

Also one reason why string theory is called string theory is because it is almost the same as word I am using - an infnite loop of infninite non-finite curved loops of curved loops... selfcontained one in each another by a complex recursion.

20.) How should I try to best imagine "Everything" ?
And why E = m*(c^2) for every finite observer ?
(This can be trivially shown. And the reason is analogical as why e^(PI*i) + 1 = 0)
And why everywhere we can see selfsimiilarities e.g:
Planets circling around the sun, electrons around nucleus, stars around the centers of galaxies and even galaxies circling around the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE - for us as a finite observers (which is the one I call absolute absoluteness or GOD - in pure scientific sense of that word) - if consider that all is very symetrical relation (selfsimilarity implies recursion) but there is alwyas some asymetry (which is at least one stochasticaly random event, which is just enoughj to create completely completely differen universe however - which would be also symetrical-symetrical to ours)


Also I would suggest to learn a little bit of informatics, because in attempts to explain "everything" you can not look only just on physics - because physics is also only part of that everything, insted whole picture (looking at everything at the same time is what is needed this means: maths, infomratics, physics and even theology - because it is also part of that everything)

And also to realise, what is the dependancy between:

Information, entropy, symetry (symetricaly organized structure, or non-symetricaly folded structure) and stochasticaly random events (which is the same as perfect free will - and that free will is not in contradiction with God's omnipotnce and omniscience when looked from the point of 4 based non-linear complex algebra)

Also what language is, what is the difference between formal language and human language and God's language based on stachastically independant primes

etc...

Or at least to give some better hypothesis that I gave, which appear to me almost completely logicaly consistent.

Edit. I wrote some few new remarks so they are exactly 20 now for anyone who want to argue about my theory he should give some better and logically more consistent explanations to convince me, that I am worng or at least to show me why should I doubt that I am right (If someone thinks so, every arument is welocmed - because it only helpes to find out if there are still some logical inconsistences in my theory or if this theory is nothing more than fundamentaly logically flawed - and that is realy useless, and if it is so than anyone should tell me and convince me so that I woulnd't just wasting the time - which I don't really need to do (I have better work to do))


And also I will write argumentation based on improved Turing test, to show that even from this point of view (Informatics and artificial inteligence) it is possible to come to the same conclusions - which are not in contradiction but instead are perfectly complementary slefimplicated from the view of (mathematics, physics, digital communicarion, and even (philosophy & THEOLOGY = Bible & Christianity but also Budhizm and I am pretty sure that all other religions (these are just two religions I know the most about - however I never read any religious book) - and it also looks like Bible is the most complete part of the true - which is not in contradiction that all other religions can be also perfect part of truth but some smaller parts)

Edit.: as I do not know if everyone knows what fractal si and what Mandlebrot set is - you can also look at this page:

[I](Or search some simillar page by google + "mandelbrot set java applet")

http://home.tiscali.be/philip-dalleur/MandelInfo.html

where you'll find many fractals mainly based on some very simple formulas e.g. [f(z) = z^2 + c] , with some starting value of z. Such simple formula is enough to generate whole set, which has infinitely many elements (and such set can be visualised - as you can see in the applet) and when visualised it can be enlarged or scaled to almost to infinite depth (however on desktop computer you are always limited by rounding - of how precisely and how many digits it is possible to store in one 64 bit floating point variable, therefore there are some physical limits)

You can find additional info also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Sets

Yet the main thing I am trying to say is that such simple formula is capable to generate a whole infinitely complex set of elements (which can be simply visualised in 2D just only if you have some sufficient hardware - like desktop computer) And when you try to enlarge this set at however big zoom you'll never find two exactly same patterns in it (I think this is well known for a quite long time). That means that even if it looks like well organized structure with many selfsimilarities - there is always also some asymetry, which creates completely diffirent structure and at the same time simillar images at various scales and various starting conditions (try to click trhough that applets and see - if you never did before) And it is also very likely that result of such program if run for long time enough could be capable to generate 2D space at very precise lvel - in its micro and even macrostructure - and such space could be digitalised as one huge picture (e.g. resolution 1048576 x 1048576 pixels which is ~ 1 TB of information and could easily be stored in a single desktop computer - or at least 3, 4 computers connected through network sharing their databases would be enough to reconstruct full image - take this as only illustratory example)

And also that if many of such 2D dimmensional spaces we would be able to put together - if we would be able to imagine them in 4D there would be most definetely creating what we call 4D space-time continuum.

And also look once again at this picture:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Julia_set_%28indigo%29.png


it almos seems to me as those "blue" objects are radial gravitational fields which are curving 2D space due to presence of what we call "mass" - and that's all generated by some simple formula. (of course - take this picture only as ilustratory - it doesn't need to be necessarily like this - however it gives pretty sense to me)

And also I am reminding, why I think every number in nater must be a complex number to be possible for our universe to exist. This is my argumentation - which is of course not finieshed yet - but shows how division by 0 could become possible once we accpet, that everything in nature is a complex number (and also why it is logical to assume, that everything in nature truly is a complex number):

http://www7.spread-it.com/dl.php?id=295b278b45603351bca0d88e7519dcefec3478fa


End finally concider:

[E = m*(c^2)]

with how generation of this fractal sets was achieved:

[f(z) = (z^2) + c]

this is the same as

(i) [m*(c^2) - E = 0] vs. [(z^2) + c - f(z) = 0]

And now consider the simmilarities in this formulas:

(ii) [m*(c^2)] vs. [c+(z^2)]

and also let's

(iii) ([m*(c^2)] = A) vs. ([c+(z^2)] = B), so we got A, B (only thing which is needed to change is definition of operators " + " and " * ", now consider this as a consequence of (ii) and (iii)

(iv) (A - E = 0) vs. (B - f(z) = 0)

I am almost sure that it could be shown precisely, that both equations in (i) are all about the same if we consider, that complex number is a fourdimensional infinitely recursive set of its own subsets etc.

And thats the exact same analogy why

(v) e^(PI*i) + 1 = 0

if consider that everything is complex and also that everythingcomplex is also
four dimensional and complex than

(vi) Equations from (i) and (v) are just exaclty the same thing and I am almost sure that one can be derived from another and vice versa as long as we consider, that each of them is built on the same system of stochasticaly independant primes which acts like universal translator between any languages.

I hope some theoretical phycists find this interesting... one day perhaps...

[Shevchenko]

Now there exists some generalization of the discussion of the Information / Matter problem on the Moscow State University Department of Physics forum:

domain.com1 arYiv\org/domain.com2/physics/papers/0703/0703043.pdf.

(to swindle the forum's Spam filter I was compelled to change
- in "arYiv" "X" - "Y";
"." - "\" ;
"ftp" - "domain.com2";
etc.)

At that, regrettably, I should note that the text.PDF should be corrected:
on page 3 it is necessary to change "left" on "right" in "...the word “information” in left part of the definition."; and in "(At all – any definition of any object/subject/ phenomena contains some information in the left part.)"

[Shevchenko]

As I see in the "ar"Y"iv" citebase option -there aren't downloads of the paper that was mentioned in my last post till now.

Since there may be some difficulties with "decoding" address in last mail,
I attach here the text of the paper.
Sorry - it contains the misprints of the "ar"Y"iv" version that was mentioned in the last mail...

[Epsilon=One]

I attach here the text of the paper.I can find no attached "text of the paper." ???

(P.S. I deleted your duplicate post.)

[Shevchenko]

I attempted a number of times to attach corresponding file (PDF, 199kB),
but - without any success.

Now I'm in the correspondence with forum's admin, but there is no success also till now.

So - if you wish to look at the paper "The Information and the Matter" (S.V. Shevchenko, V.V. Tokarevsky), - see my post 03.06.

[Epsilon=One]

I attempted a number of times to attach corresponding file (PDF, 199kB),
but - without any success.I've posted your paper.See: The Information and The Matter (www.CQthus.com/PT/Shevchenko.pdf).I'll read it and comment as time allows.

[Shevchenko]

(1) - From the paper "the Information and the Matter" that Prof. Epsilon=one nicely help me to place into this thread (post Epsilon=one of 03.22. this year) follows that it is very possible that in the Matter just the Plank length, l_P is fundamental value when Newtonian gravitational constant, G, is derivative one. In this case all "Plank unites" became to be the rational fractions, so there follows the conclusion that the "Universe computer" uses the operation with integer values only. It remains, however, the square root in the equation for the unity (e.g. - electron’s) charge which is proportional the square root(hc). However even for this case it is possible to show, that:
- hc is full square (the square root(1/hc) = 224368384879);
- the unity charge is proportional to the rational fraction, R, R=21354/249975; and, as it should be, R is divisible by 3;
- the fine-structure constant, alpha= R*R, i.e. the full square also.

(2) And there is the question to the mathematicians. There are two necessary conditions for the existence of the Information: (i) – on the set "Information" must be defined the operations "identically equal/ not identically equal", and (ii) – every set’s element, including the zero element, must contain all other set’s elements. So – are these conditions also the sufficient conditions for the Information be able as it is, for example, in our World, i.e. - be capable to generate a logical language?

[Epsilon=One]

(2) And there is the question to the mathematicians. There are two necessary conditions for the existence of the Information: (i) – on the set "Information" must be defined the operations "identically equal/ not identically equal", and (ii) – every set’s element, including the zero element, must contain all other set’s elements. So – are these conditions also the sufficient conditions for the Information be able as it is, for example, in our World, i.e. - be capable to generate a logical language?No set is valid (thus no information is valid) unless a unit value can be determined within the elements of the set: ie. The unit value, for the elements of any set to be valid, cannot be supplied from outside the set.

In the set of numbers there is no validity unless the value of "One" is determined by the numbers within the set. This has been a difficult barrier until the concepts of Pulsoid Theory (www.CQthus.com/PT/OV).

All information must have a physical basis; and, there is nothing that exists that is not eventually dissipated.

[Shevchenko]

No set is valid (thus no information is valid) unless a unit value can be determined within the elements of the set: ie. The unit value, for the elements of any set to be valid, cannot be supplied from outside the set.

In the set of numbers there is no validity unless the value of "One" is determined by the numbers within the set. This has been a difficult barrier until the concepts of Pulsoid Theory (www.CQthus.com/PT/OV).

All information must have a physical basis; and, there is nothing that exists that is not eventually dissipated.

- You are right in the case of some "usual" set. But the Information is unique set that has very specific properties. E.g. - the information appears only if on the set Information the operations "identical/ not identical" are defined. So specific realizations of the Information (example - our material World) are quantized (in World - including the Space- Time references). However mentally (and truly!) one can imagine the Space-Time continium. Then, e.g. every "continium" point of the HDD of your computer contains, e.g., true information about all, e.g. "in this point there is no quasar NG12345ABCD" with all data about the histories in past and future of all partices, systems of the particles, etc., of this quasar. It's obviouse, that the point contains the data not only of this quasar, and that is true not only to the points of the HDD.
So the Information is infinite simultaneously as countable set and as continium...

[Epsilon=One]

- You are right in the case of some "usual" set. But the Information is unique set that has very specific properties. E.g. - the information appears only if on the set Information the operations "identical/ not identical" are defined.Not so. Any definition of the ""identical/ not identical" would/must come from outside the set. Thus, said set, with such an "outside" requirement would be an "incomplete set"; as defined by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (www.CQthus.com/PT/GIT) (GIT).

So specific realizations of the Information (example - our material World) are quantized (in World - including the Space- Time references).Yes, providing that said "quantized" "Information" is a Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P) as defined in Pulsoid Theory (www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis). There is no other set that can provide all information (the unit that all other components are multiples of) from within the set itself.

However mentally (and truly!) one can imagine the Space-Time continium.Yes. However, ""Space-Time" continium" (sic.) is a poor term because the connotations of "Space" and "Time" as usually defined (conventional, academic Standard Models) are meaningless; as, the orthogonal dimensions are circularly defined and "Time" is undefined.

A better term for ""Space-Time" continuum" might be, simply, "Reality." (www.CQthus.com/PT/R)

Then, e.g. every "continium" point of the HDD of your computer contains, e.g., true information about all, e.g. "in this point there is no quasar NG12345ABCD" with all data about the histories in past and future of all partices, systems of the particles, etc., of this quasar. It's obviouse, that the point contains the data not only of this quasar, and that is true not only to the points of the HDD. So the Information is infinite simultaneously as countable set and as continium...Not so. The only true continuum is Reality, (www.CQthus.com/PT/R) which is entirely composed of quanta and the evolutions of said quanta that are defined by said Pulsoids (www.CQthus.com/PT/P); wherein said singular Reality, (www.CQthus.com/PT/R) every point is congruent with Infinity. (www.CQthus.com/PT/I) I.e.: the locus of Reality (www.CQthus.com/PT/R) is the duality of Infinity, (www.CQthus.com/PT/I) which is determined by speed not distance.

[Cerveny]

physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=7732#post7732

[Shevchenko]

To:
- Epsilon=One;
- Cerveny.

Sorry, but I'm not a philosopher, I'm a physicist so can not comment correctly your posts.
Here I try attach some physical addition to the thread topic... ;)

- a number of attempts are without the result.
This forum Spam filter is too solid.

[Epsilon=One]

Sorry, but I'm not a philosopher, I'm a physicist so can not comment correctly your posts.
Here I try attach some physical addition to the thread topic... ;)Science, Theology, and Philosophy (www.CQthus.com/PT/STP) (STP) must be one discipline.

You cannot comment on one without effecting the others.

[Shevchenko]

Greetings to all,

well, I was not in this thread a long time, as it seems;

so there appeared some modifications in the "Information and the matter" concept, see articles:

- the article "The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature?"

and

- "the Information and the matter" V1 and V5; where:
in V1: sections: 1. "Introduction"; and may be 2. "To the definition of the concept of information"
- in V5 – sections: 1. "To the definition of the concept of information"; and "Discussion and conclusion",

Because of this forum’s Spam filter doesn’t allow me to point full Net link, I’m forced to point the titles only, but the papers can be found rather simply by using Google - it is necessary to write a title and word shevchenko in Google's line.

Cheers

[dodge]

The Gist of the article and thoughts are very credible, and I just want to offer an explanation of being able to divide by zero, and yet be unique and distinct . Respectfully this matter has been solved with the development of "inverse zero" or (-1), inverse differential value of 0.333, and an absolute value of 0.00277 or 1/19^2, see that at www.inverse19mathematics.com.


The point I am trying to say is that the Null zero is the problem and the cause for convolutions and confusion in the current morass of science , and I invite all such doubters to examine this article by this fellow from Russia and then Review the inverse19 site above and join our movement, as original developers of the concept, because the current physics is at a standstill with too many monsters.

This winter we will work on a method to be able to detect nuclear weapons from space using the configuration of xxxxxxxxx, because we do know that the haze around all matter has a proportion to it and it is detectable at very fine proportions . We invite any logical person who understands this article by this Ukranian and our inverse mathematics , to join us

[Shevchenko]

To: All
Because of (at least in my PC) my last post is now in other page, for convenience I repeat it here:
---
there appeared some modifications in the "Information and the matter" concept, see articles:

- the article "The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature?", V3.

and

- "the Information and the matter" V1 and V5; where:
in V1: sections: 1. "Introduction"; and may be 2. "To the definition of the concept of information"
- in V5 – sections: 1. "To the definition of the concept of information"; and "Discussion and conclusion".
Besides I forget to point out on at least two misprints in IPICHUN, V3:
(1) - Eq.(7c) - it is as j_x=c/lambda_x; should be as j_x=V/lambda_x;
(2) - Disc.&concl. - it is 10^13 years; should be 1.3*10^10.

Because of this forum’s Spam filter doesn’t allow me to point full Net link, I’m forced to point the titles only, but the papers can be found rather simply by using Google - it is necessary to write a title and word shevchenko in Google's line.
----
To: dodge
It is impossible to divide on zero, zero isn’t a number; zero is the null (empty) set, which is unique for all/ any sets.
So, e.g., the statements:
- the point ("zero") in the number axis doesn’t contain any number; and
- a pigsty doesn’t contain any elephants,

- are the same in some sense.

To: forum administration
- why somebody can point out some URL (see dodge post above), when if I use an URL then the forum’s Spam filter rejects the post?

Cheers

[dodge]

To Schevenko

Where did you learn to be that dogmatic . inverse zero is is not divisable and -1 is its least divisibility. see the www.inverse19mathematics.com for explanation. The difference is that guys like you still believe that zero is a dot and we believe zero is a dotangle --- the differential of 1 is 3 not zero, as we have clearly proven that inverse 19 transects the dimension at exactly 1:3 and 3:1 indirectly proving Riemanns , that is why it inverse 19 "squares the circle" exactly-- see under citation of MIT and U/C.


"Thanks for Squealing to Forum administration", our site is clean site not a spam and is owned by us , and I thank the Forum them for their freedom.

[dodge]

To Schevenko,


This is in a spirit of respect.

In terms of the null zero nothing you support , Null zero is essentially a parallel reference to nothing, but as we have found RIEMANNS work on the distribution of zeros point to an inverse/exverse distribution of the zero values and certainly NOT a parallel reference to nothingness zeros, specially since it demonstates elasticity to the continuum i.e the "zeta function" of the prime, is more rigid and convergent in values closer to 1 and below. So this is something to think about in terms of a "null Zero" , versus "inverse Zero" in the mathematical continuum. Null Zero is a certain problem that we have today, although this will need to be examined . We do know for instance that 2^2 is the most stable and accurate square value, and can divide most variability, second only to 1^2 . You cannot say the same for 44^2 or 3^2 for instance



Our diagrams clearly point to a very consistant 1:3 divergence and 3:1 convergence only at inverse 19 which is the least proportionate division of a circle. The reference to inverse 19 mathematics is as above , and we are not certainly obsessed about promoting our concepts, but any thing or any biody like Stevenko , that would rethink the current morass/arrogance that we have in Mathematics and physics is welcome and should be discussed.

[Shevchenko]

Now next iteration of the informational concept appeared ("The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature?", V4)
– some minor corrections and explanations; besides – as it seems, the concept allows to clear, to a certain extent, the question – What is the photon? – see new section 3.5.1.1.

And – sorry - erratum:

(1) Eq. (24a) should be as: (Vector sum) omega_r=omega_y+omega_x*(1-beta)

(2) (Text between Eqs. 24c, 24d)
There is:"Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:";

There should be: "Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also be transformed (corresponding equation for the flux - by Doppler factor), obtain the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:";

(3)Eq. (24d) – the exponent in the denominator must be 2, not 3.
_________
Because of I cannot to use Inet addresses in my post, the link can be fined by Google if query will be, e.g. as

"The informational physics indeed can" Shevchenko

Cheers

[dufrapin]

I accept with information: Therefore primes are God's language which are completely selfindependatn and therefore ale completely slefdefining - the most powerfull language which can be - is language build on primes, which is capable to cary tha maximum information in any possible sequence of symbols. It contains no redundancy to exactly formulate the thoughts and also works as universal translator, any finite language is it's subset - that means every todays human or programming language and also formal language of mathematics can be described by primes.

[Shevchenko]

To: All. The information about last iteration of the informational conception in physics – see post Shevchenko of 11-27-2009 12:09 PM
______________

To: dufrapin
"I accept with information: Therefore primes are God's language which are completely selfindependatn and therefore ale completely slefdefining - the most powerfull language…."
__________

- that’s something adequate, to some extent, to the informational conception; but not (of course – to be completely adequate is necessary be absolutely infinite) completely. In particular – when you use the term "God" – it should be defined previously. If It is some self- organized Essence (having a self- identification, some aims, etc.) then It is some subsystem in the Set "Information" which appeared to be under some reason or because of that a self – organization is an intrinsic property of Information.
On another hand, if a self – organization is an intrinsic property of Information, then the Set Itself can indeed be classified as the "Prime Creator", Deo, - as, e.g., G. Cantor said "…The actual infinite arises in three contexts: first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent otherworldly being, in Deo, where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Absolute…"

But, on another hand, here a problem appears – can we consider an Essence intelligent, when this Essence is absolutely complete and so cannot change anything in itself? Insofar as even the Essence will attempt to change something in itself, for example – to begin our Universe, It must absolutely exactly follow to the scenario of this change, when this scenario existed "always", including – "far before" of some Beginning…

Cheers

[Shevchenko]

The discussion on a number of forums of the informational conception showed that some difficulties in the understanding of the conception sometimes take place.

So a separate article for the conception was made - some extended compilation of corresponding sections of the papers "The information and the matter" and "The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature?"

- see the paper "The information as Absolute" in the same URL as for another papers (again it is impossible to point out the direct address).

Cheers

[Shevchenko]

Now extended and more systematic version of the informational model in physics appeared see

"The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature?"

V5;

though it remains be rather desirable
to have read the paper "The information as Absolute" before/ also.

As it seems the SR theory becomes more understandable.

Cheers

[Shevchenko]

In June 2009 under some reasons I was forced to place in a number of forums a post "relating to well known "Many World" concept". That remedied the situation on a some time (though with a non-virtual help of some specific service also), but now, as it seems, I’m forced to post this post again:

Formally "Many World" concept resembles in some details the informational concept suggested in the info links above - both concepts are in some sense "deterministic"; both presuppose that "always" there exist "myriads" of "copies"/ histories of evolution of, e.g., our "World", etc. – the last is in an accordance with Feinman’s suggest that a particle chooses it’s trajectory from a "ready menu of trajectories"; and that is pointed out in conclusion sections of the infoconcept papers.

But in reality the concepts are principally different. First of all the "Many World Universe" isn’t the Set "Information" – in the Set there can exist any "Universe" when the MW interpretation is intended for some explanation of existed Quantum Mechanics’ outcomes. It bases on [Shredinger] wave function representation of the (whole) Universe (so and of a World) evolution, but just this ("this World’s QM") representation is valid perhaps only in the case when the MW Universe "is made" from just this (specific for our World) FLEs (FLE – see the links). For another FLEs it will be another science, including QM. So in the Set this "Many World Universe", if exists, occupies only vary (practically infinitesimal) sub-set.

At second, the MW concept doesn’t answer on main philosophical questions - from where and how did this MW Universe (as well as "the Universe wave function") happen? Etc.

Though in the MW concept (more correctly – in some concept’s presentations, as, e.g. stanford-edu link) there are, as it seems, some another problems. For instance the concept principally presupposes the existence of some "splitted" observers – "At the present moment there are many different "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I".

There aren’t till now any experimental data about such a observes / "sentient beings" which live in "miriads" of Worlds.
And, e.g., some people, who seems attempt to send me in some another World, well know that I never will appear in this case in this World in future.

Moreover, such a presuppose isn’t evident – for example there is some well known analogue to "MW splitting" – Huygens’ principle for the light wave propagation in space, when every point of the light wave front is the source of "many wave". But these "many wave" interfere and "only one wave" remains so that, if there aren’t on the light way some screens, the light propagation in "wave representation" and "corpuscle representation" become be equivalent. That can be true for any "material" particle and – with much larger probability – for any "MW observer"…

Cheers