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.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

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

Efthimios Harokopos: on 8/1/15 at 12:21pm UTC, wrote I give you a chance and keep it in., You deserve a chance.

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 4/23/15 at 0:10am UTC, wrote Efthimios, That's a big oups! The word "God" is out of context! Anyone...

Jason Edwards: on 4/22/15 at 18:08pm UTC, wrote This is a fascinating paper. This is the first time I read that power could...

Efthimios Harokopos: on 4/22/15 at 7:34am UTC, wrote Thanks. However, "mainstream" physics may not agree. They are immersed in...

Efthimios Harokopos: on 4/22/15 at 7:22am UTC, wrote Thanks. However, "mainstream" physics may not agree. They are immersed in...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 4/22/15 at 3:32am UTC, wrote Efthimios, Calculus allowed us to remove time so that we could write...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 4/22/15 at 1:18am UTC, wrote Efthimios, Excellent paper indeed! A real understanding touching the crux...

Jim Bollinger: on 4/20/15 at 11:55am UTC, wrote Excellent paper. One of the best! Jim


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Pentcho Valev: "Nothing in the podcast about this: Program Max Tegmark (Massachusetts..." in The Sudoku Universe, Why...

Herbal Sejagat: "Suatu keadaan yang tidak pernah saya rasakan sebelumnya minum Obat Herbal ..." in Deferential Geometry

Herbal Sejagat: "herbal sejagat Obat Tradisional Kanker Payudara telah mendapatkan izin ..." in Help Fight Negativity!

Herbal Sejagat: "Obat Tradisional Amazon Alami Penyakit Jantung Koroner ialah pilihan..." in Baez on Quantum...

Herbal Sejagat: "Jus Kulit Manggis yakni Obat Tradisional Alami penyakit Kanker Paru-paru..." in Quantum Distractions

Herbal Sejagat: "Online shop herbal sejagat dikelola oleh pekerja yang berdedikasi tinggi,..." in Open Source Science

Herbal Sejagat: "Batu Ginjal ialah berbentuk benda keras menyerupai batu yang berada di..." in Foundational Physics...

Herbal Sejagat: "Kista harus segera diatasi dan diobati apabila dibiarkan akan terjadinya..." in Is the Moon Alive?


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?


FQXi FORUM
November 25, 2017

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Mathematics is the Link Between Physics and Metaphysics by Efthimios Harokopos [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Efthimios Harokopos wrote on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 00:33 GMT
Essay Abstract

Mathematics allows us to develop physical theories that make accurate predictions. These theories relate a primitive ontology to nomological variables. All of our physical theories make metaphysical commitments that are directly or indirectly related to mathematical models. After a brief introduction to some of the fundamental issues associated with the use of mathematics in developing physical theories, I discuss how the link between physics and metaphysics was achieved in classical mechanics, special relativity and quantum theory. I argue that mathematics may not be sufficient for developing a theory of everything due to incompleteness of formal systems or the existence of unknowable truths.

Author Bio

Efthimios Harokopos received Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from State University of New York at Buffalo, a Master’s degree from Columbia University and completed the necessary coursework for a PhD while working for AT&T and Bell Labs. He is an independent researcher in the field of philosophy of science.

Download Essay PDF File




Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 07:51 GMT
Great paper!

With regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate


Author Efthimios Harokopos wrote on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 08:00 GMT
Thanks Sujatha!

Good to be back with another essay after 4 years from last one. This is a great community a an abundant source of interesting ideas. I see that some other authors also claim that math may not be enough. Let me be clear because this may get tricky: math is more than enough if what we are after is some accurate predictions about everyday life phenomena. Math may not be enough if what we are after is a theory of everything because of unknowable truths or incompleteness or formal systems. Thanks to the pioneers that "lifted all the intellectual weight", we already know enough but not nearly enough for a theory of everything. Math is a great tool and it is neither trick nor a panacea.

My best regards to all participants.




Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 10:25 GMT
Dear Efthimios,

Your comment elsewhere talking about the need to identify the most appropriate out of the different varieties of space or spacetime drew my attention to the fact that here was someone knowledgable about some of the fundamental issues in contention.

I enjoyed your essay very much and the reasoning was impeccable in many places. You however seemed to place too much...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Efthimios Harokopos replied on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 19:24 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Thank you for your good words. I don't pretend to know everything but I'm not aware of any experiment that falsifies special relativity. If you are ware of one I would be very interested in knowing that.

About Zeno's paradox I talked in detail in my 2011 essay.

I will read your essay and comment soon.

All the best.



Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 12:22 GMT
Dear Efthimios,

I just replied you on my blog. Also I just read your 2011 Essay and your discussion of Zeno's Dichotomy paradox. I see that you desire to make spacetime as the foundation of your proposed solutions. Please be careful about this.

When you say, "I'm not aware of any experiment that falsifies special relativity", are you aware of observations and experiments that falsify...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Efthimios Harokopos replied on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

I agree with you that if any of the two main postulates of SR are falsified the theory will be falsified. However, I am not aware of conclusive evidence that falsifies either. As I said I do not know every little detail. Please note that regarding SR and QM I have not expressed personal views but those that are accepted. However, my objective was not to promote any theory but...

view entire post





Antonio Bodig wrote on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 12:44 GMT
Efthimios Gia sou, Ciao,

very interesting essay. Do you think that meta-math will still be expressed in some new math?

Good work and right on the subject.

Antonio

report post as inappropriate

Author Efthimios Harokopos replied on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 19:26 GMT
Ciao Antonio,

I have no idea as I wrote in the essay whether it is possible to have a meta-mathematical framework in physics and I cannot speculate of its form. Possibly some sort of new math but I don't know what. Thank you.




Author Efthimios Harokopos wrote on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 19:55 GMT
Today after this was posted I show a 9 public rating and now I see a 5.5. Quick calculation shows that someone gave me 2 points. I would appreciate if he can state the reason for that. Then we can all learn something.




Anonymous wrote on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 01:14 GMT
Your essay touches on something that I have pondered. Newton’s second law of motion

F = ma,

has a vector quantity that is physical equal to a physical scalar times a vector that is purely geometric. The acceleration a = d^2r/dt^2 is a derivative of one geometric object, a vector in space with respect to another geometric parameter called time. In some funny sense we might think of the geometric quantity as converting the physical scalar into a physical vector. The physical vector is a dynamical quantity that results from the multiplication of a physical scalar (kinematic in nature) with the geometric object.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Efthimios Harokopos replied on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 15:21 GMT
Note that F = ma is referred to as Newton's second law but it is not, according to the statements in Principia. I think Euler stated that law and it happens to correspond to Newton's law when the mass is constant, F = dp/dt

I am not sure time is a geometric parameter. Actually, I have no idea what it means other that it is a reading of a clock. Thus, there is some physics in both sides of the equation but also metaphysics. I see nothing wrong about that as long as it works and it does in weak-field limit. After that one must use general relativity or equivalent and maybe there are no forces, i.e., the metaphysical commitments may change.

Thanks LC




Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 02:06 GMT
Dear Efthimios Harokopos,

I very much enjoyed your well-written essay. Unless I have forgotten someone, I do not believe any other essays maintain such a clear focus on linking physics and metaphysics through math, and it seems quite an appropriate undertaking. What is most interesting is that you managed to do so using the most basic concepts and beginning with Newton. The math is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Efthimios Harokopos wrote on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 10:34 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I truly appreciate your good words about my essay. However, I have a problem with your invitation to read your essay as follows:

Before your comments my community rating was at 6.0 based on two votes. Afterwards, it dropped to 5.0 based on a single vote. This means that someone rate it at 3. There are two possibilities then

(1) Either you rated my...

view entire post




Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 21:26 GMT
Dear Efthimios Harokopos,

I saw your complaint about scoring on your thread before I commented on your essay, so I knew that you were already upset about scoring. What I had not realized was that you think you can, in general, correlate comments with voting behavior. It is upsetting when low scores are received for no apparent reason. During the first weeks of this contest I was the top...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 13:26 GMT
Efthimios,

I think something has happened to your .pdf file. I have attempted to download your essay several times and it is blank. Obviously from comments above, your essay was present in the system. I have downloaded other essays, so I am not sure what has changed. Perhaps the file has become corrupted or perhaps my Adobe Reader has become corrupted. Also, I have Windows 8. It is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 16:05 GMT
Efthimios,

False alarm on my part. It appears that somehow my Adobe Acrobat .pdf reader became corrupt.

In your statement of Newton's 2'nd Law, you implicitly assume that the force and the resulting change in motion are collinear. This is the standard understanding. What would you do if they were not collinear? The reason for my question is that I can use Hamilton to produce an...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Efthimios Harokopos replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 17:42 GMT
Hi Gary,

By "change in motion" it is meant change in momentum vector mv. This is the meaning of "motion" in Newton's law. In circular motion the change in momentum dp/dt is along the direction of the center of the path. Thus, a centripetal acceleration is generated and a centripetal force. By definition, these are collinear.

You said:

"The reason for my question is that I can...

view entire post





Alex Newman wrote on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 18:28 GMT
I do not understand the part about power and cause-free motion but the rest is an honest attempt to answer the essay questions. First time I read a concise explanation of relativity theory. Good essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Efthimios Harokopos replied on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 15:24 GMT
Thanks. The explanation of relativity is not mine. See related reference in the essay that gives credit where it is due.




Author Efthimios Harokopos wrote on Mar. 3, 2015 @ 18:35 GMT
Thank you Joe. If I said anything else, i.e., about accurate predictions, I would be wrong given that Newton's law applied to free fall was tested to be accurate to about 1 part in a trillion and Einstein's equivalence was tested to even better accuracy. But as I write, there is a lot of metaphysics behind the math. I sense you did not read the whole essay, just the abstract.



Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 4, 2015 @ 16:00 GMT
Dear Dr. Harokopos,

You sense wrong. I read all of your essay. Newton's abstract law applied to abstract free fall of what? All real surfaces must travel at the same constant speed. You apparently only understand codswallop abstractions.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 15:22 GMT
If I am correct about only surface having the ability to travel at a constant speed, it means that scientists attempting to build a spaceship that would have a physical surface that could travel “faster” than that of a surface of a garbage can are engaged in an act of utter futility.

Warm Regards,

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate


Donald G Palmer wrote on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 02:21 GMT
Dear Efthimios Harokopos,

Thank you for a very readable essay touching on some basic concepts.

If I understand you correctly, the primary evidence of physics (experimental results) coupled with mathematical expressions (or equations) constitute the primitive ontological basis of physics. The nomological variables are more the interpretation of the experimental results and need to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Efthimios Harokopos replied on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 12:30 GMT
Dear Donald,

Thank you very much for an interesting comment. I admit I have not thought of things this way. Your thinking is quite original. I talked about the accuracy of special relativity and quantum mechanics. Apparently, I paid for this mistake and have received low marks because this contest is flooded with cranks of all kinds that have no connection to math and physics whatsoever but...

view entire post





Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 15:04 GMT
Dear Efthimios,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate


Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 21:16 GMT
Dear Efthimios,

It was refreshing to read a paper on the connection between physics and mathematics that made explicit that the manifestation of this connection in different domains involves metaphysical commitments that are often not sufficiently acknowledged.

I think you are right the choice of a particular mathematical formalism to represent an aspect of reality entails a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Efthimios Harokopos replied on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 12:19 GMT
Hello Armin,

I appreciate your comments and they are indeed useful.

Here are my comments:

"Concerning your axiom of motion, I must say, as metaphysical as "Force" is, it seems in some sense more concrete than Power. I don't know if this is an artifact of my education,"

It may be more concrete because it has already become common sense through education. But the notion...

view entire post





Jim Bollinger wrote on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 11:55 GMT
Excellent paper. One of the best! Jim

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 01:18 GMT
Efthimios,

Excellent paper indeed! A real understanding touching the crux of the problem; the lack of substance. The bridge that mathematics provide between our reality and the metaphysical one.

A theory of everything will be a symbiosis between physics and metaphysics with a mathematical bridge. Natural Metaphysics runs on a logical engine with the rule of non-contradiction as starting impossibility, evolving/exploding time at a certain rate as substance, any differential in the time rate as a cause. Yep! Good old substance and cause. Physics can always say how it happens, metaphysics will tell why. They are complementary but mutually exclusive components of knowledge.

Bests,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Author Efthimios Harokopos replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 07:22 GMT
Thanks.

However, "mainstream" physics may not agree. They are immersed in "math games". Billions have been spent in string theory math research although it does not produce a single unique prediction. After all, one task of modern physics has been obscuring issues and a focusing on epistemology. Fitch's paradox is a slap on science face. The price for mentioning it in my paper is the low "community" grade. Most scientists are naive enough to believe that a theory of everything will be obtained through math alone without requiring omniscience, i.e., man becoming God.




Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 03:32 GMT
Efthimios,

Calculus allowed us to remove time so that we could write equation on paper which is not the passing time background we live in. All our notions of physics are over integrated in time by one order. What concerns us on paper is energy. But what concerns the universe is power. Energy is a dimension of knowing the final result or a form of accounting. Power is a dimension of happening, what it is like out there.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Author Efthimios Harokopos replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 07:34 GMT
Thanks.

However, "mainstream" physics may not agree. They are immersed in "math games". Billions have been spent in string theory math research although it does not produce a single unique prediction. After all, one task of modern physics has been obscuring issues and a focusing on epistemology. Fitch's paradox is a slap on science face. The price for mentioning it in my paper is the low "community" grade. Most scientists are naive enough to believe that a theory of everything will be obtained through math alone without requiring omniscience, i.e., man becoming God.

Yes, or put it in math language, power is the rate of change of energy, i.e. the flow of energy in time. In your house you get power and you pay for its integral, energy. No one cares how much work was done. You may as well dissipate all energy back in space. Power is the single most important concept in physics. When I published my paper on the laws on motion based on power in 2005, I received many emails from physicists around the world that were excited but ask me not to mention them because they were possibly afraid of consequences. There has been no rebuttal since but mainstream journals have refused publishing articles on it, considering the case closed in favor of force. There is a fundamental reason for that struggle, it will be explained ion my soon to be published book. In a nutshell, behind any theory in since, even math, a certain ideology hides, often of sociopolitical nature. Science nowadays is indistinguishable from politics. Physics is becoming like economics: there are many truths but no one knows which one applies at a given moment or the choice is based on ideology. If you believe in locality, you adhere to that one QM theory and if you believe in non-locality you adhere to the other theory but surprise! They all generate the same predictions. Isn't that funny?

Thanks and all the best.




Jason Edwards wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 18:08 GMT
This is a fascinating paper. This is the first time I read that power could take the place of force in mechanics and yield laws of motion.

Jason

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 00:10 GMT
Efthimios,

That's a big oups! The word "God" is out of context! Anyone seeing that may think that there are other words or concepts out of context and dismiss the whole paper. My opinion is that this extension of "omniscience to God" opens up a whole can of worms which is not your first intent, which is physics and mathematics. Give yourself a chance and leave that one out. It is like pulling down your shirt and asking for flogging.

Just my opinion.

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Author Efthimios Harokopos replied on Aug. 1, 2015 @ 12:21 GMT
I give you a chance and keep it in., You deserve a chance.




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.