Dear Dr. Zou:
Most interesting.I enclose a recently submitted manuscript for your perusal.
Cordial  wishes,Otto E.Rossler

Who can program the Einstein Rocketship?

 Otto E. Rossler1 and YaëlKolb1,2

 1Faculty of Science,University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 
Tübingen, Germany

2University of Design (HfG), Lorenzstrasse 15, 76135Karlsruhe, Germany


Acomputer-game version of the famous Einstein equivalence principle of 1907 
isproposed. Surprising implications predictably follow. The idea appears 
worthchecking by the computer-game community as a contribution to science. 

 (March 12, 2018)

 The Einstein rocketship of 1907 [1] consistsof a constantly accelerating 
vertical paper strip (interpreted as the interiorof a roaring rocketship) and 
an internal light ray that is continually emittedvertically along the strip 
from the bottom to the tip. 

 Einsteinfirst solved this typical computer-game problem in his mind, to in 
this waypredict out of the blue sky the famous “gravitational redshift”: The 
ascendinglight ray on arrival at the tip is slowed in its frequency by a 
negativeDoppler effect (like the sound of a departing ambulance) because the 
point oforigin of the vertical light ray is constantly falling back from the 
tip duringthe time it takes the light to arrive although the distance remains 
unchanged.This at the time absurd prediction enables accurate car navigation to 

 Thejust described “Einstein task” is only the first step (one-dimensional 
case).It has never been simulated even though this is of course possible and 
indeeddesirable. The young Einstein thereafter in the same 1907-paper looked 
also atthe two-dimensional case: How does a horizontal light ray that hugs the 
floorof the rocketship appear from the tip when made visible towards above 
throughsome smoke in the air? This mental image would later become the “light 
clock” –a laser pulse inside a glass tube with reflecting ends and a bit of 
glitterinside to make the ticking visible to the outside world.

Programmingthis 2-D game to make it totally transparent, too, is a bit more 
difficult butis bound to teach something new. While the light pulse is 
progressinghorizontally down there, the bottom is constantly falling back from 
the tipwhile keeping its distance as we saw. Therefore, the horizontally 
advancinglight pulse downstairs necessarily does so in a locally 
downwards-slantedfashion relative to the tip. This is a first post-Einsteinian 
Einsteinianprediction (PEEP). 

 Megaconsequences follow suit if the PEEP can be successfully programmed rather 
thanremaining a mere mental fantasy. For it logically follows that the light 
pathdownstairs is increased in its length relative to the tip owing to its 
beingslanted everywhere locally relative to the tip, but this without 
appearingshortened due to the slant. For special relativity which governs the 
gadgetenforces preservation of optical width inside the rocketship. Hence 
theslowdown visible from the tip, seen in Einstein’s mind in 1907, reflects 
thefact that all objects downstairs are invisibly to above enlarged in 
sizerelative to the tip by the gravitational redshift factor. This prediction – 
iftrue – entails that the speed of light downstairs is actually 
non-reduceddespite appearances.

If theproposed computer game confirms this new prediction made whilst 
anticipating it,surprising consequences follow suit. One of them reads: “No Big 
Bang” anymore becausethe speed of light is rendered a global constant again by 
the computer game. Notethat mutually very distant points in the universe now 
can no longer recede fromeach other at super-luminal speeds as is being assumed 
at present.  

So the proposed “Einstein computer game”(ECG) is a surprisingly serious playful 
proposal in the realm of games. Itwould be especially great if it could get 
implemented right away by utilizingan already existing game portal like 
“gamelab” [2]. The race is on.

We thankWolfgang Rindler, Susan J. Feingold and Andrei Ujica for stimulation. 


[1] A.Einstein, On the relativity principle and the conclusions drawn from it. 
Jahrbuchder Radioaktivität und Elektronik 4, 411-462 (1907), in German.



    On Monday, March 19, 2018, 7:26:52 AM GMT+1, ZouXiaohui <> 
 Dear colleagues
The era of large-scale or big production of knowledge and small-scale or normal 
production of knowledge is about to come. Author: Zou Xiaohui Time: 2018-03-19 
08:57:37      In the age of mobile networks where information and knowledge 
exponentially grows, any one of a small WeChat group and a circle of friends 
can detonate the spiritual world of any individual. This is incredible in 
ancient times. Therefore, it is already lagging behind to rely on the 
2,000-year-long knowledge production method to do spiritual product processing. 
      The double-chessboards based on the wisdom integrated theory and cultural 
gene system engineering practice came into being. Its primary feature is that 
it is a combination of humans and machines that can instantly complete the 
knowledge production of any one knowledge module. The formation and promotion 
of popularity has gradually highlighted its unique charm.       For example, 
any text segment imported into the word chessboard web development environment 
and application platform can instantly form almost all the language points, 
knowledge points, and original points contained in the world-wide super 
collaboration of the text segment. . This not only provides the convenience for 
the original creators or experts themselves to confirm their themes, styles, or 
characteristics, but also provides a common platform for teachers, students and 
the general public to participate in the finishing of knowledge modules.       
Such a large-scale production of knowledge is supported by the three major 
system engineering practices of language, knowledge, and software. It is a 
brand-new approach to education informatization. At the same time, it provides 
a typical example of collaborative innovation that focuses on the intelligence 
capabilities of human-computer dual-brain intelligence. Both men, women, and 
children can discover from their most interesting speech fragments. Their 
respective real interests, hobbies, and good at, and then used them to 
participate in the integration of teaching and learning of social system 
engineering and the combination of soft and hard language and formal system 
engineering double practice, so as to reflect the three basic categories of 
object-oriented text The generalized textual cultural genetic system project 
contributes meager forces and gradually discovers and finds their precise 
positioning in the overall system of human knowledge building construction. 
 Data, language, information, and knowledge all have intersections. Therefore, 
it is often misunderstood. The text that records knowledge is a typical type of 
data. Obvious ambiguity allows the machine to be automatically ejected; human 
experts are easily ambiguous in their respective fields; the most difficult 
ambiguity is the category of overlapping (basic concepts).
Best wish!         
       Zou Xiaohui

------------------ Original ------------------From: Syed Ali 
<>Date: 周二,3月 6,2018 11:20 上午To: ZouXiaohui 
<>Cc: 闫学杉 <>, fis <>Subject: 
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Many thanks Zou.

Confidential: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email 
is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have 
reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify 
the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other 
use, retention, dissemination, forward, printing, or copying of this message is 
strictly prohibited.

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 6:35 PM, ZouXiaohui <> wrote:

Dear Colleagues and Syed:      Thank you for your attention!                Let 
me answer your question(“Could you critique a view: Information is the 
container of meaning ?”):        Undoubtedly,the point of view “ information is 
the container of meaning” is certainly wrong.                      For first 
and foremost, phenomenal information is all-encompassing, in addition to 
carriers of mass and energy, which can be anything in the physical world, 
anything in mind, anything in narrow and broad language or generalized text. 
Among them, there is both formal information and content information.         
Furthermore, looking at ontology information, which is simplified in many ways 
and then focused on the same meaning or content, aims to disambiguate. Many 
people's cognitive errors and misunderstandings come from ambiguity.        
Finally, in fact, and most importantly, the essential information that can be 
calculated by using truth (this is the fundamental object or subject of 
information science).         These are Zou Xiaohui's point of view. Please 
give comments or suggestions!             Thank you!         
      Best wish!         
       Zou Xiaohui       

------------------ Original ------------------From: Syed Ali 
<>Date: 周一,3月 5,2018 4:26 上午To: ZouXiaohui 
<>Cc: 闫学杉 <>, fis <>Subject: 
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear Colleagues:Could you critique a view: Information is the container of 
meaning ?Syed       附中文:



     因为,首先,除了具有质量和能量的载体之外, 现象信息是无所不包的,它们可以是物质世界的任何表现, 也可以是心智的任何情形,还可以是狭义和广义的语言, 

     进而,再来看本体信息,它由多种形式简化之后再聚焦于同一内容, 旨在排除歧义。人们的许多认知错误与误解,都源于歧义。

     最后,实际上也是最重要的就是:可用真值计算的本质信息( 这才是信息科学根本的研究对象)。







On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 5:00 AM, ZouXiaohui <> wrote:

Dear colleagues and Xueshan,

The relationship between meaning and information:

 1. Three levels to understand them

1.1  words in language: there are just two different words,meaning and 

1.2 concepts in thought: the meaning of meaning, the meaning of information, 
where both are the same, then they are two usages of one use of synonymy, 
respectively; if both mean something different then they are two different 

1.3 objects in world: the meaning and the information of these two terms 
specifically refer to. 

2. Either look at them from a linguistic point of view, or talk about them both 
from an informational perspective. In principle, they should not be discussed 
both in linguistics and in information science. Otherwise, they will encounter 
the contradiction between the two.

Best wishes,

Xiaohui, Zou 


   - 分三个层次来理解


1.2.思想概念:意义的意义或含义,信息的含义或意义,两方面 如果所指相同,那么在此它们就是同义项的一个用法分别采用了两个 


2.要么都从语言学的角度来看它们,要么都从信息科学角度来谈它 们。原则上不应该同时既从语言学又从信息科学两个角度来谈它们。 否则,就会遭遇两者的自相矛盾。





------------------ Original ------------------From: 闫学杉 <>Date: 
周日,3月 4,2018 9:18 上午To: FIS Group <>Subject: Re: [Fis] A 

Dear Dai, Søren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet,

I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post about the 
paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank you. Now I offer my 
responses as follows:

Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics, which reveals the 
relationship between tenor and vehicle, ground and figure, target and source 
based on rhetoric. But where is our information? It looks like Syed given the 
answer: "Information is the container of meaning." If I understand it right, we 
may have this conclusion from it: Information is the carrier of meaning. Since 
we all acknowledge that sign is the carrier of information, the task of our 
Information Science will immediately become something like an intermediator 
between Semiotics (study of sign) and Semantics (study of meaning), this is 
what we absolutely want not to see. For a long time, we have been hoping that 
the goal of Information Science is so basic that it can explain all information 
phenomenon in the information age, it just like what Sung expects, which was 
consisted of axioms, or theorems or principles, so it can end all the debates 
on information, meaning, data, etc., but according to this view, it is very 
difficult to complete the missions. Syed, my statement is "A grammatically 
correct sentence CONTAINS information rather than the sentence itself IS 

Søren believes that the solution to this paradox is to establish a new 
discipline which level is more higher than the level of Information Science as 
well as Linguistics, such as his Cybersemiotics. I have no right to review your 
opinion, because I haven't seen your book Cybersemiotics, I don't know its 
content, same as I don't know what the content of Biosemiotics is, but my view 
is that Peirce's Semiotics can't dissolve this paradox.

Karl thought: "Information and meaning appear to be like key and lock." which 
are two different things. Without one, the existence of another will lose its 
value, this is a bit like the paradox about hen and egg. I don't know how to 
answer this point. However, for your "The text may be an information for B, 
while it has no information value for A. The difference between the 
subjective." "‘Information’ is synonymous with ‘new’." these claims are the 
classic debates in Information Science, a typical example is given by Mark 
Burgin in his book: "A good mathematics textbook contains a lot of information 
for a mathematics student but no information for a professional mathematician." 
For this view, Terry given his good answer: One should firstly label what 
context and paradigm they are using to define their use of the term 
"information." I think this is effective and first step toward to construct a 
general theory about information, if possible.

For Stan's "Information is the interpretation of meaning, so transmitted 
information has no meaning without interpretation." I can only disagree with it 
kindly. The most simple example from genetics is: an egg cell accepts a sperm 
cell, a fertilized egg contains a set of effective genetic information from 
paternal and maternal cell, here information transmission has taken place, but 
is there any "meaning" and "explanation"? We should be aware that meaning only 
is a human or animal phenomena and it does not be used in any other context 
like plant or molecule or cell etc., this is the key we dissolve the paradox. 

In general, I have not seen any effective explanation of this paradox so far.


Best wishes,



From: Syed Ali [mailto:doctorsyedalimd@gmail. com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:10 PM
To: Sungchul Ji <>
Cc: Terrence W. DEACON <>; Xueshan Yan <>; 
FIS Group <>
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox


Dear All:

If a non English speaking individual saw the  newspaper headline “Earthquake 
Occurred in Armenia Last Night”: would that be "information?"

My belief is - Yes. But he or she would have no idea what it was about- the 
meaning would be : Possibly "something " as opposed to the meaning an English 
speaking individual would draw.

In both situations there would be still be meaning - A for the non English 
speaking and B for the English speaking. 


Conclusion: Information is the container of meaning.


Please critique.



Confidential: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email 
is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have 
reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify 
the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other 
use, retention, dissemination, forward, printing, or copying of this message is 
strictly prohibited.


On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Sungchul Ji <> wrote:

Hi FISers,


I am not sure whether I am a Procrustes (bed) or a Peirce (triadomaniac), but I 
cannot help but seeing an ITR (irreducible Triadic Relation) among Text, 
Context and Meaning, as depicted in Figure 1.




                                             Context  -------->  Text   
--------->  Meaning






“The meaning of a text is irreducibly dependent on its context.”


 “Text, context, and meaning are irreducibly triadic.”   The “TCM principle” 

Figure 1.  The Procrustean bed, the Peircean triadomaniac, or both ?
f =  Sign production;  g =  Sign interpretation;  h = Correlation or 
information flow.


According to this 'Peircean/Procrustesian' diagram, both what Terry said and 
what Xueshan said may be valid.  Although their thinking must have been 
irreducibly triadic (if Peirce is right), Terry may have focused on (or 
prescinded) Steps f and h, while Xueshan prescinded Steps g and h, although he 
did indicate that his discussion was limited to the context of human 
information and human meaning (i.e., Step  f).  Or maybe there are many other 
interpretations possible, depending on the interpreter of the posts under 
discussion and the ITR diagram. 


There are an infinite number of examples of algebraic operations: 2+3 = 5, 3 - 
1 = 2, 20 x 45 = 900, etc., etc.

If I say "2 + 3 = 5", someone may say, but you missed "20 x 45 = 900".  In 
other words, no matter what specific algebraic operation I may come up with, my 
opponent can always succeed in coming up with an example I missed.   The only 
solution to such an end-less debate would be to discover the axioms of algebra, 
at which level, there cannot be any debate.  When I took an abstract algebra 
course as an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, in 1962-5, I 
could not believe that underlying all the complicated algebraic calculations 
possible, there are only 5 axioms ( 
-the-difference-between-the-5- basic-axioms-of-algebra).  


So can it be that there are the axioms (either symbolic,  diagrammatic, or 
both) of information science waiting to be discovered, which will end all the 
heated debates on information, meaning, data, etc. ?


All the best.



From: Fis <> on behalf of Terrence W. DEACON 
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 1:13 PM
To: Xueshan Yan
Cc: FIS Group
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox 


It is so easy to get into a muddle mixing technical uses of a term with 
colloquial uses, and add a dash of philosophy and discipline-specific 
terminology and it becomes mental quicksand. Terms like 'information' and 
'meaning" easily lead us into these sorts of confusions because they have so 
many context-sensitive and pardigm-specific uses. This is well exhibited in 
these FIS discusions, and is a common problem in many interdisciplinary 
discussions. I have regularly requested that contributors to FIS try to label 
which paradigm they are using to define their use of the term "information' in 
these posts, but sometimes, like fish unaware that they are in water, one 
forgets that there can be alternative paradigms (such as the one Søren 


So to try and avoid overly technical usage can you be specific about what you 
intend to denote with these terms.

E.g. for the term "information" are you referring to statisitica features 
intrinsic to the character string with respect to possible alternatives, or 
what an interpreter might infer that this English sentence refers to, or 
whether this reference carries use value or special significance for such an 

And e.g. for the term 'meaning' are you referring to what a semantician would 
consider its underlying lexical structure, or whether the sentence makes any 
sense, or refers to anything in the world, or how it might impact some reader?

Depending how you specify your uses your paradox will become irresolvable or 


— Terry


On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Xueshan Yan <> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the 
following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information or Armenia 
Paradox. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and 
strictly limit our discussion within the human context.


Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media 
of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two students A 
and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper headline “Earthquake 
Occurred in Armenia Last Night”:

Q: What is the MEANING contained in this sentence?

A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.

Q: What is the INFORMATION contained in this sentence?

A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.

Thus we come to the conclusion that MEANING is equal to INFORMATION, or 
strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In Linguistics, 
the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In Information Science, 
the study of human information is called Human Informatics.

Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of 
human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistic 
Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human language. Without 
loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions here, so we regard 
Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same.

Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its main 
task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one of the 
disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with the human 
information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, thus we have 
the following corollary:

A: Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics.

According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle for 
transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human 
Informatics, so we have another corollary:

B: Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics.

Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a 
paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement 
about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a 
subject, but how should we understand this paradox?


Best wishes,


______________________________ _________________
Fis mailing list n/mailman/listinfo/fis



Professor Terrence W. Deacon
University of California, Berkeley

______________________________ _________________
Fis mailing list n/mailman/listinfo/fis


______________________________ _________________
Fis mailing list n/mailman/listinfo/fis

Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to