Search FQXi


Steve Agnew: "The reason that I like the Fringe is that the Fringe asks more challenging..." in Defining Existence

Georgina Woodward: "Ted, you misrepresent the linked website, there is nothing there about..." in Quantum Thermodynamics

Eckard Blumschein: "Lorraine, Evade and inevitably refer to intentions. You are stubbornly..." in Defining the Observer

Gary Simpson: "Akinbo, You have stated that Adel derived the following: E = -GMm/2a for..." in Defining Existence

Pentcho Valev: "Why Einstein's Spacetime Is Doomed "Spacetime is any mathematical model..." in What Happens Inside the...

Lorraine Ford: "Tom, Where is your definition of the “observer”, the topic of this..." in Defining the Observer

Ted Esaters: "I can't imagine a Universe with only 2 substances: time and space. Such..." in Quantum Thermodynamics

James Putnam: "Steve Agnew, Hi, A correction is in order: "It is the time it takes for..." in Alternative Models of...

click titles to read articles

Rescuing Reality
A "retrocausal" rewrite of physics, in which influences from the future can affect the past, could solve some quantum quandaries—saving Einstein's view of reality along the way.

Untangling Quantum Causation
Figuring out if A causes B should help to write the rulebook for quantum physics.

In Search of a Quantum Spacetime
Finding the universe's wavefunction could be the key to understanding the emergence of reality.

Collapsing Physics: Q&A with Catalina Oana Curceanu
Tests of a rival to quantum theory, taking place in the belly of the Gran Sasso d'Italia mountain, could reveal how the fuzzy subatomic realm of possibilities comes into sharp macroscopic focus.

Dropping Schrödinger's Cat Into a Black Hole
Combining gravity with the process that transforms the fuzzy uncertainty of the quantum realm into the definite classical world we see around us could lead to a theory of quantum gravity.

October 25, 2016

Bookmark and Share

Comment on this Article

Please read the important Introduction that governs your participation in this community. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated and posts containing such language will be deleted. Otherwise, this is a free speech Forum and all are welcome!
  • Please enter the text of your post, then click the "Submit New Post" button below. You may also optionally add file attachments below before submitting your edits.

  • HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page.

  • You may use superscript (10100) and subscript (A2) using [sup]...[/sup] and [sub]...[/sub] tags.

  • You may use bold (important) and italics (emphasize) using [b]...[/b] and [i]...[/i] tags.

  • You may also include LateX equations into your post.

Insert LaTeX Equation [hide]

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

For more help on LaTeX, please see the LaTeX Project Home Page.

LaTeX Equation Preview

preview equation
clear equation
insert equation into post at cursor

Your name: (optional)

Important: In order to combat spam, please select the letter in this menu between 'O' and 'Q':

Recent Comments

The problem I have with virtual reality/computer simulation hypotheses is that, to me, they inevitably lead, almost paradoxically, to an infinite regress of simulator/programmer. By this I mean that, if we say it is possible for a sufficiently powerful computer/virtual reality machine to run *our* simulated reality so that there is no way we could falsify it, then how could the "simulators" falsify their own "reality" being a higher level simulation? And so on up the heirarchy? It's a bit like,...

The subjective reality that we all inhabit is created by each individuals brain from the input it has received and processed. Everything that is seen is generated internally by the organism and sent to the conscious mind, with the information that it exists externally.

Since the reality we inhabit is already a biologically generated simulation,if the input is good enough the virtual reality is experienced as real and therefore is real.

The reality could be said to be an...

The article comments on our not being able to prove we are not in a simulation, but don’t really talk about looking evidence that we might be.

There is a comments about drifts of fundamental constants - but really, so what.

But it never really ask the question,

“If we were simulating a universe, and machine resource was an issue, then what sort of computational tricks would we use and how might their effect be observable?”

The first thing we...

read all article comments

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'H' and 'J':

Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.