Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 2/15/17 at 20:33pm UTC, wrote oh my god ,my English now is not perfect, but there in 2009 wowww it was...

Yehuda Atai: on 2/15/17 at 19:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Michael It is very interesting to see who you are zooming into the...

qsa: on 4/18/12 at 0:44am UTC, wrote Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure. A computer program can...

Chester: on 11/6/11 at 1:35am UTC, wrote I AM 0

Anonymous: on 8/17/10 at 19:43pm UTC, wrote The next ultimate theory/understanding will explain how thought (in...

Georgina Parry: on 8/10/09 at 10:01am UTC, wrote In reply to Michael John, I would agree that from logic and reason alone...

Georgina Parry: on 3/19/09 at 5:14am UTC, wrote I was talking about "Physics from logic" in the post above . I did not...

Georgina Parry: on 3/19/09 at 5:12am UTC, wrote I think this is an interesting approach. However from my perspective you...



FQXi FORUM
December 13, 2017

ARTICLE: The Next Ultimate Theory [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Michael John wrote on May. 10, 2008 @ 01:38 GMT
That was a very interesting article about the fundamentals of physics. However, I've argued about this for many years, and I'd like to add to the conversation. Inevitably the debate about the foundations of physics and about theories of everything ultimately reduce to conversations about contingency verses tautology. Is the universe a thing about which the rules of logic and mathematics apply? Or do the laws of physics derive from logic and reason itself? Some would like to think that logical reasoning and mathematical modeling are merely abstract tools invented by man to facilitate conversation. And its ultimate use is to talk about things whose existence is considered concrete and separate from abstractions such as reason. Others, however, believe that there is a reason for everything to the point that reason itself gives rise to reality. Here, reason is not just an abstraction, but reason itself is describing the nature of something real in the universe - that reason is a law of physics.

I take the view that logic and reason describes something real about the universe. For if our theories rest on the existence of some contingent particle or field, then we will always be looking for still further explanations for that particle or field, and physics will always be left incomplete. But questions stop, and physics is complete, when the answers are derived from logic itself. There would be nothing left to question except reason itself. And those would be philosophical questions, not physical questions. A theory of everything would explain everything, and this sounds like a job that only reason itself can do.

So the questions become, how can physics be derived from logic? What kind of logic should be used? And how would we know it's correct? Whatever theory is supposed, we are forced to ask if it is true or false. That is the ultimate question. And so the ultimate answer (or theory) would have to be based on the algebra of true and false - or in other words, on propositional logic. If we follow the rules of deductive logic and analysis, then we cannot be wrong. And if it happens to describe part of the universe, then we know it describes it all. For logic is a set of consistent statements. And reality is a set of consistent facts. So if both logic and reality agree somewhere, then they agree everywhere.

As to how to derive physics from logic. I believe I have a good start. I use the premise that reality is a set of consistent facts. By treating each fact as a proposition, I have come up with a type of logical path integral. Then by applying a measure to this logical formula, I get Feynman's Path Integral of physics. See more details at:

Physics from Logic

report post as inappropriate


SSDS wrote on Nov. 11, 2008 @ 12:18 GMT
See http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , V5 (and first couple of pages in V1)

Cheers

report post as inappropriate

Chester replied on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 01:35 GMT
I AM 0

report post as inappropriate


Steve wrote on Jan. 18, 2009 @ 12:59 GMT
Hello,

It is not easy to understand all the fundamental interactions of our Universe, when we analyze all the parameters and that from a point of view of spatiotemporal whole.

It is evident and we know it all, everything is connected and unified.

The complexification of the polarizations and the variety build up themselves and harmonize themselves.

I work on my...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 20:33 GMT
oh my god ,my English now is not perfect, but there in 2009 wowww it was catastrophic lol

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 19, 2009 @ 05:12 GMT
I think this is an interesting approach. However from my perspective you have turned something reasonably comprehensible, into something incomprehensible but perhaps for others it is the other way around.

A problem I can see is in ascertaining what are actually facts rather than assumptions. Many things are assumed to be facts that are not. They have just not yet been disproved. Subjective reality and relativity also comes into this. One persons fact can be anothers falsehood, depending on the relative positions or motion of the observers. Experimental observations do not necessarily provide facts but subjective interpretations.A statistically significant difference can be taken as proof when it may be due to unrecognised experimental error,or poor experimental design or lack of current alternative explanations for the observations obtained.

Putting a few untruths into the mix along with the truths could be akin to a spanner in the works.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 19, 2009 @ 05:14 GMT
I was talking about "Physics from logic" in the post above .

I did not make that clear.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 10:01 GMT
In reply to Michael John,

I would agree that from logic and reason alone a model of the universe could be formed. It would not be a scientific theory of everything though, if only logic and reason could be used to test it.

Also many things may appear illogical that are not when explained differently.Such as the singularity at the centre of a mass when gravity is considered. When regarded as the furthest limit of "observable" 3D space, beyond which is afore space, it is logical. It only appears as a singularity from our 3D space perspective. Relativity too may appear illogical at first but fits with observations.

A model based on logic and reason alone would be a logical model of everything in the same way that a religious model can be a model of everything but is not a scientific model.

I do not think true or false is the best way to proceed because this can be very difficult to ascertain. Reason and logic will fail when based on perceptions and assumptions because both can be misleading.This is especially so when contemplating a reality formed from a dimension (or dimensions) that can not be observed but which influence the reality perceived.

You have stated "Starting from the premise that all facts are logically consistent with each other, reality can be defined as the logical conjunction of all facts," This very first premise can not be correct, in my opinion. Facts can be contradictory and still true. This is shown by relativity. Different observers can watch the same events but do not necessarily see them occur in the same order.That is a fact.Consider a thunder storm passing overhead. Also some "facts" are actually false or considered true as not yet unproven, or opinion or assumption rather than true.

Although a model may be consistent with all observations, there is no way to access underlying objective reality which is unobservable.Therefore the model will always be a representation of reality and incomplete rather than actually being how reality is. As an analogy, the avatar in the computer game can not access the machine code that has created the computer generated environment it inhabits. A logical model will be a construct of the human mind formed from the way in which the human mind has logically reasoned to produce it.

Having a model that works for all observations is still an advance and the best that can ever be achieved. Alternative models may also work to a greater or lesser extent.The question then may be which model works best for mankind not just physics.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 19:43 GMT
The next ultimate theory/understanding will explain how thought (in general) is fundamentally more like sensory experience in general BECAUSE:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately/fundamentally dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

report post as inappropriate


qsa wrote on Apr. 18, 2012 @ 00:44 GMT
Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure. A computer program can illustrate that easily. While reality CAN be simulated but it looks like it is a natural process. A mathematical structure not unlike a circle.

Here is what I call the most beautiful graph ever, I simulate two particles interacting, with different compton wavelengths for each run. they all converge on the .00054858 the mass of the electron. This is just one of many results that I have obtained by the simulation.

http://www.qsa.netne.net

attachments: emassinter.jpg, qsaclean.txt

report post as inappropriate


Yehuda Atai wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 19:04 GMT
Dear Michael

It is very interesting to see who you are zooming into the language of phenomena, of nature. The evolvements the occurrence of ever ending Phenomena with a finite duration of there self organization. There is such language' it the language of movement, the underlying language of phenomena. I am a philosopher and a poet, yet I invite you to read a short essay of mine in FQSi Contest, that is up and running now:

"We are together, therefore I am"



It is an ontological new perception of reality.

thanks

yehuda atai

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.