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

elena gilbert: on 3/24/16 at 17:11pm UTC, wrote Buy Data Based Genuine Registered Passports,Id Cards( pvc),Driver's...

elena gilbert: on 3/24/16 at 17:04pm UTC, wrote Buy Data Based Genuine Registered Passports,Id Cards( pvc),Driver's...

Shaikh Raisuddin: on 3/16/16 at 9:35am UTC, wrote Contextuality is undefined without definition of INSTANT of time. And...

Rob: on 2/15/16 at 2:13am UTC, wrote Why does God have to mentioned in this article? Enough God. More science....

Nicholas I Hosein: on 2/11/16 at 14:48pm UTC, wrote In the past couple months I've witnessed God a number of times. He is the...

Frank DiMeglio: on 1/16/16 at 20:12pm UTC, wrote Your approach to quantum physics is incomplete and flawed. We always begin...

ioannis hadjidakis (narsep): on 1/10/16 at 16:47pm UTC, wrote The dialogue could finish like this: - OK, I will try to find some more...

NARSEP: on 1/10/16 at 16:22pm UTC, wrote - “Could God be omniscient, if reality itself is not set until it is...



FQXi FORUM
March 24, 2017

ARTICLE: The Quantum Reality Paradox [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Peter Morgan wrote on Nov. 19, 2015 @ 01:02 GMT
I pronounce on one problem with this article, that Jan-Åke is not Jan-Âke (in 3 of 4 places). Also, more proofreading, "contextulaity".

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Nov. 19, 2015 @ 20:52 GMT
"The quadrupole moment is three-dimensional, and you can choose two of three axes along which to measure it: the x-axis, the y-axis, ... you don’t expect that your choice to measure along the second or third axes should affect the result you get for the measurement along x-axis."

A cube is also three dimensional, and you can choose two of three axes along which to measure it too. But you do expect your measurements to directly effect the result of an additional measurement, precisely because merely being three-dimensional is not sufficient to cause the measurements to be independent.

QM assumes the things being measured are independent, simply because they are three dimensional, in theory. However, if they are not, then it is no surprise that the results seem "weird". The real question is, Why were the measurements ever assumed to be independent in the first place? Just because there are described, in the theory, via three parameters, that may or may not be independent of one another?

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Nov. 20, 2015 @ 14:18 GMT
Abstract finite "quadrupole moment is three-dimensional," have absolutely nothing to do with the real unique infinite Universe.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 26, 2015 @ 14:59 GMT
That's an excellent point, Rob.

Without an extra degree of freedom, there is no way to show that quantum mechanics demonstrates more than it assumed in the first place.

With an extra degree of freedom, entanglement fails.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 26, 2015 @ 17:46 GMT
In fact. if anyone is interested, I have a draft paper on quantum contextuality at ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275962
863_Special_Relativity_and_the_Origin_of_Probability

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 19, 2015 @ 23:59 GMT
The viewpoint of Gühne, Cabello, Larsson and their colleagues that was quoted reminds me of some of the discussion on the "spookiness" page. A question needs asking ; What is "reality" in the context of physics? The word may need differentiating to specify different kinds of reality in order to unambiguously deal with objective measurement outputs that are real in their own right but were not preexisting, and the concept of a reality that exists independently of the measurement process.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 20, 2015 @ 00:31 GMT
The intrinsic reality seems to be related to the fundamental "dimensions" like mass, (amount of substance), charge. Length could be included in that list but it can also be a derived reality depending on how it is measured. Velocity, orientation and measured orientation of ordinary spin are not intrinsic reality. It seems to me there must be an intrinsic spin that is the rotation relative to the whole of the Object universe not relative to a measuring device. Position is an oddity. As everything is in absolute motion nothing has a precise intrinsic position but it is always somewhere. A definite unchanging position has to be an outcome of measurement, so a derived and not intrinsic property.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 20, 2015 @ 01:00 GMT
Velocity, orientation and measured orientation of ordinary spin are not intrinsic reality but relative measurements.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 20, 2015 @ 04:53 GMT
Tying that in with my other writing; Object reality is intrinsic reality, Image reality (output of a reality interface subsequent to EM information receipt) is a form of derived reality.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Nov. 24, 2015 @ 20:04 GMT
This article does not compute without a lot of background information. For example, someone invented an new term for quantum phase coherence which is renamed contextuality. Great, that is what we need...anopther term to describe something that we do not understand understand in the first place.

Here is a blurb from a past article that would have been helpful here:

"The term...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Nov. 25, 2015 @ 14:20 GMT
Why do you utterly confuse unreasonable codswallop with acceptable truth? You wrote: “Yes. Ordinary classical reality does not decohere very fast and so we think of classical gravity reality as permanent.” Did you mean that extraordinary unclassical reality does cohere very slowly while you think either that unclassical gravity, or classical levity was temporary? The real unique Universe am infinite.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Nov. 26, 2015 @ 00:06 GMT
I am afraid that I do not understand what you have said.

Do you believe in quantum computing with qubits?

Do you believe in quantum phase coherence?

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Nov. 27, 2015 @ 15:46 GMT
I know for an absolute fact that I can prove that the real unique Universe am infinite. I know for an absolute fact that I can prove that finite abstract quantum computing with finite abstract qubits is a real physical impossibility. I know that the statement of there being any finite abstract quantum phase coherence is utter codswallop.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 27, 2015 @ 18:04 GMT
Kuepfmueller's 1924 uncertainty refers to two different values either 1 or 1/2 where the latter one results from the assumption of positive and negative frequencies. I guess 1/2 is correct and agrees with Heisenberg's 1927 uncertainty. If only the physicists didn't doubt that the restriction to positive elapsed time necessarily implies to accept negative frequencies. Dirac rejected in a textbook negative frequency and he was certainly not the only one.

++++

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Nov. 28, 2015 @ 16:06 GMT
Is certainty finite? If so, then one cannot be finitely uncertain about certainty can one?

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 29, 2015 @ 21:33 GMT
The FUNDAMENTAL quantum reality state balances being and experience AND is NECESSARILY one OF INVISIBLE AND VISIBLE SPACE IN FUNDAMENTAL EQUILIBRIUM AND BALANCE CONSISTENT WITH HALF GRAVITY AND HALF INERTIA.

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I. Hosein wrote on Dec. 2, 2015 @ 14:01 GMT
I really enjoyed reading this article. See a response to Jozen-Bo which I wrote in 2008:

This theory of an information system directly affecting the physiological function of the eye is an absolutely true statement. Reality is entirely all-inclusive. It includes all the beliefs as well as the facts, all the mental and the physical sides. There is a complete absence of separation. The dark is absence of light. Light is truth and cannot be contradicted unless by lying. And information systems like the internet are consisted of elements of truth and false statements that are analogous to real and unreal. That which appears to the human eye is information and the mind creates the interpretation. As reality is an all-inclusive set containing mental and physical elements, mind and reality cannot be separated. Reality is contained in the mind via perceptual awareness all at once these processes are creating and containing information. Perception takes place and awareness is the complex network of the creative consciousness in which reality appears. Thoughts that are both true or false are governed by perception. Perception of both the inner and outer halves of the body concept or object are happening in but one reality or the monic term infocognition. Each moment the creative mind contains mental and "physical" information.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Dec. 2, 2015 @ 16:27 GMT
Dear Fellow,

The real unique Universe am infinite. You wrote: “This theory of an information system directly affecting the physiological function of the eye is an absolutely true statement.” All finite statements are unrealistic. Any abstract theory of any abstract information system abstractly affecting the abstract physiological function of an abstract eye is utter codswallop. You need to get real.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I Hosein wrote on Dec. 2, 2015 @ 20:33 GMT
WHY ONE MAY NEVER SEE GOD

Because reality is hard to see. (Also see this thread).

If we work on this premise, we can prevent deceiving ourselves by distinguishing the differences between God's work and blind nature's. One may walk around and experience one's fear rising in a pitch black room. Since mind is reality, you are transparent and your thoughts may become manifest unless one takes full control. According to Christopher Langan, we are transparent to the global conscious agency God, which means God is there in the room with us even in our most ignorant and fearful moments as God sees all. In regards to how and why God rarely responds to us I would think it is due to the fact that we must "go beyond" the everyday existence to reach Him and in return we may or may not be disappointed. I leave any further speculation on this matter to you the reader.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-one-may-never-se
e-god.143202/

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Dec. 3, 2015 @ 14:51 GMT
My dear fellow,

Reality is easy to see, all you have to do is open your eyes. You mistakenly wrote: “Because reality is hard to see. (Also see this thread). If we work on this premise, we can prevent deceiving ourselves by distinguishing the differences between God's work and blind nature's.” Reality is not dependent on any abstract we abstractly working on any abstract premise so that abstract we can abstractly prevent abstractly deceiving abstract us from abstractly distinguishing the abstract differences between an abstract God’s abstract work and an abstract blind abstract nature’s abstract work.” Please stop thinking about abstract we and concentrate on the real you.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I Hosein wrote on Dec. 2, 2015 @ 20:37 GMT
According to the configuration space intepretation of quantum mechanics, the world of our perception is just a projection of an incredibly high dimensional configuration space. Again, this interpretation of quantum mechanics is realist in that the space of all configurations has its existence and properties quite independent from our observations. But once again, this configuration space is perceptually inaccessible to us — we can only see the effects it has within our much smaller three-dimensional space. The upshot, as before, is that if you really believe quantum mechanics, then you believe that the physical world outruns our perceptions of it.

Taken from: https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum
-mechanics-suggest-about-our-perceptions-reality

Nicholas I Hosein, Idealist

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Dec. 3, 2015 @ 15:04 GMT
My Dear Fellow,

You bewilderingly wrote some more abstract codswallop: “According to the configuration space intepretation of quantum mechanics, the world of our perception is just a projection of an incredibly high dimensional configuration space” Forget about any abstract “our” abstract perception. No matter in which direction you look, you will always see a plethora of real intermeshed flattish surfaces. As only real surface can be really observed, there can be no space.

Glad to set you straight,

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I Hosein wrote on Dec. 2, 2015 @ 21:51 GMT
The fundamental starting point for this alternative paradigm has to be speculations about Universal Consciousness as laid out in the Vedanta of Indian Philosophy.

“The identity between the world and Brahman is explained. On this ground that all is known when the “one” is known is accounted for. Since all entities are real only as the effects of Brahman and as ensouled by Brahman, it has been said, “That is True”. In no other way are they real. Just as, in the illustration of clay and its products, the products are real only as of the nature of clay, even so the world is only as sustained by the indwelling Brahman. [10]

The universal, omniscient backdrop of Brahman as the primary stage for all further acts and scenes of the evolutionary drama, Maya, as described in Vedanta, explains the onset of the multiple layers of differentiated Consciousness, Mind, Brain, Matter, actually in the reverse, as manifestations, that are distinct and yet one and the same as the original consciousness. A logical fallacy it would seem but defended as follows. “The signfication of an identical entity by several terms which are applied to that entity on different grounds is coordinated predication. In the illustration of (say) a Purple Robe, the basic substance is one and the same, though purpleness and robeness are different from it as well as from each other. That is how the unity of a Purple Robe is established. The central principle is that whatever exists as an attribute of a substance, that being inseparable from the substance is one with that substance.” [11]

Taken from: http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper
/2962

Nicholas I Hosein, Idealist

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Dec. 3, 2015 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear Hosein,

GET REAL. Please stop repeating abstract codswallop: “The fundamental starting point for this alternative paradigm has to be speculations about Universal Consciousness as laid out in the Vedanta of Indian Philosophy.” Only real surface is always observable by real eyes that have real surface. Real surface has no abstract fundamental starting point.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


idontknowanything wrote on Dec. 4, 2015 @ 14:25 GMT
lets say we view quantum theory to counting from 1 to infinity (start with one because we cant start at nothingness), when going from a number to the next you can find similarity and rules etc... that govern what the next number with no duplication's. However there are events that do not have any context except that of themselves and the original starting point. in the case of counting this would be prime numbers. So as we may find ways to describe events such as odds/even multiples of 3 etc... there is nothing that can definitively define primes. Anyway if you apply what you are saying to my statement above then you are saying the starting point of your observation is the phenomenon creating this "quantum contextuality" ... i leave the rest for your own conclusion/judgment

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Dec. 4, 2015 @ 15:14 GMT
Dear One,

Please stop offering poorly written codswallop ruminations of an: “lets (sic) say (abstract) we (abstractly) view (abstract) quantum theory to counting from 1 to infinity (abstractly) (start with one because we cant (sic) (abstractly) start at nothingness), Open your real eyes and take note of the fact that no matter in which direction you look, you will only always see a plethora of real enmeshed flattened partial surfaces.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Dec. 4, 2015 @ 15:25 GMT
I agree that prime numbers are the context for quantum domain. See "Khrennikov's theorem" pp. 10 - 13 in https://www.researchgate.net/profile/T_H_Ray/contributions

report post as inappropriate


YOUKNOWHOWTOSPEAKENGLISH wrote on Dec. 5, 2015 @ 16:07 GMT
Existent and non-existent are one.

See: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Is-True-Reality-the-
Immaterial-Influencing-the-Material

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Dec. 5, 2015 @ 17:02 GMT
One what?

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Bertrand Ducharme wrote on Dec. 6, 2015 @ 15:45 GMT
Let’s see that a real observable with contextuality can exist thus showing that a hidden variable model of QM could possibly be contextual, thus not obeying the premises of the Kochen-Specker Theorem. The definition of noncontextuality given in the reference The Kochen-Specker Theorem is :

«If a QM system possesses a property (value of an observable), then it does so independently of any measurement context, i.e. independently of how that value is eventually measured.»

Let’s take a macroscopic spinning object like a pencil with a central spinning axis. It can have a clockwise or anticlockwise sense of rotation when viewed from its top.

Let’s define what I call the «relative sense of rotation». Instead of refering to the topview of the pencil for the sense of rotation, we will refer to an observer’s Z axis of reference making an angle with the spinning axis of the pencil. We will measure the sense of rotation relative to that axis. In that case, its value, clockwise or anticlockwise, depends upon the angle between the spinning axis of the pencil and the Z axis. Rotate suffisantly the Z axis towards or away from the pencil, as could be done with an astronaut in a weightlessness state, and you change the «relative sense of rotation» of the pencil from clockwise to anticlockwise or from anticlockwise to clockwise.

The measured sense of rotation here is a «contextual» value of the observable I called the «relative sense of rotation». We deal with a real observable with contextuality. I therefore see no reason why hidden variables models in QM should be presumed to be non-contextual. The key of the matter should lie in the three dimensional spatial behavior «perceived» by the measuring apparatus of the quantum phenomenon or particle under study. No «magic» there.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Dec. 7, 2015 @ 14:49 GMT
Dear Bertrand,

Could you possibly try a bit harder to write understandable English? You mystifyingly wrote: “Let’s see that a real observable with contextuality can exist…” All observations made with real eyes are real because they are seen with real eyes. You do not need to see if any abstract context could exist, the fact that you are really looking at a real plethora of real surfaces automatically provides all the context you will need.

Glad to have been of health,

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Bertrand Ducharme replied on Dec. 7, 2015 @ 15:51 GMT
You are right. «Real observable» should be replaced with something like «an observable taken from a classical physics context». Sorry for the confusion between the word «real» and the intended idea of giving a «realist» example!

report post as inappropriate

Luca Valeri replied on Dec. 19, 2015 @ 11:06 GMT
Hi Bertrand

I don't think this is, what contextuality means. Your observation is relative but not contextual. An observer in one direction can share its information with another observer in another direction. If they know their relative location (rotation or distance or whatever), they can agree, that they observed the same thing. This is not possible any more in QM.

A easy introduction to contextuality seems to be in this blog.

Regards

Luca

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I Hosein wrote on Dec. 8, 2015 @ 21:28 GMT
Joe,

One reality. Where reality is dual. Immaterial wavefunction and material particle. Metaphysical/ subjective and physical/ objective.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Dec. 9, 2015 @ 14:51 GMT
Dear Nicholas,

Reality cannot have a finite whereabouts.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I Hosein wrote on Dec. 8, 2015 @ 21:31 GMT
Robert,

The one spirit;

Every conscious being is one conscious being existing in parallel, experiencing themself as separate and distinct lifeforms.

See http://www.sankaracharya.org/i_am_that.php

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Dec. 9, 2015 @ 14:55 GMT
Dear Nicholas,

Reality cannot contain a finite spirituality. Please think for yourself.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I Hosein wrote on Dec. 8, 2015 @ 23:59 GMT
From Article:

"God’s Omniscience?

It was through these interviews that Cabello discovered that Specker wanted to study quantum reality—whether it was indeterministic, as standard quantum theory asserts, or could instead be described by a deterministic hidden-variables theory—in part, to better understand deep religious questions. Could God be omniscient, if reality itself is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Dec. 9, 2015 @ 15:00 GMT
Dear Nicholas,

Reality cannot be studied. Only unrealistic abstract information about abstract reality can be abstractly studied.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I Hosein wrote on Dec. 9, 2015 @ 16:31 GMT
Joe,

I wish there was an ignore option for you.

report post as inappropriate


Bertrand Ducharme wrote on Jan. 1, 2016 @ 17:15 GMT
Let me reframe clearly the question of noncontextuality and hidden variable models.

With their theorem, Kochen and Specker showed that noncontextual theories that invoke hidden variables cannot explain the outcome of quantum measurements. But it says nothing about the nature, quantum or classical, of contextual measurements.

In classical physics, the sense of rotation relative to the observer or to a measuring apparatus is clearly a contextual property. A rotating object impacting a measuring apparatus will deviate accordingly to this sense of rotation. The «subjective» act of measurement is as important here as the intrinsic rotation of the classical object. So Kochen and Specker and its reference to contextuality in no way exhausts the question of the deterministic or non-deterministic nature of quantum reality.

Let me finish by stating my own opinion on the Bohr-Einstein controversy : as proven and stated repeatedly by modern physicists, Einstein was wrong to refer implicitly to noncontextual hidden variable models but he was quite right is thinking that QM in its current form is incomplete…

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jan. 2, 2016 @ 16:35 GMT
Thanks for the Kochen and Specker reference. I continue to be amazed at the large number of different approaches to the quantum versus classical dilemma...is reality real?

I tend to like Category Theory as a more general approach to the algebras of either classical reality (parabolic, commuting) without phase coherence or quantum reality (elliptic, noncommuting) with phase coherence. Category Theory includes one more quantum algebra, hyperbolic, that I find especially intriguing.

However, at the root of all of these algebras is the phase coherence of matter and the quantum dilemma and all of these restatements using words like context and Hilbert space and commutation tend to obfuscate the basic notion of the quantum phase coherence of matter.

The missing piece in our quantum dilemma is gravity phase coherence, which is a very much weaker effect than charge, but phase coherence must be somehow just as important for quantum gravity as it is for quantum charge.

One of the pieces that is always missing in quantum phase arguments is the role of quantum phase of gravity with charge. Just because we can ignore gravity phase in much of our classical reality does not mean that gravity phase coherence plays no role in our quantum reality.

In a sense, the hidden variable of quantum charge lies in the nature of quantum gravity, which bonds each particle of matter to the universe as well and therefore to each other as well. Quantum gravity is ever so much weaker than quantum charge that it appears as our classical reality without phase coherence. However, gravity phase coherence is there and is simply hidden by a lack of understanding, not by its absence.

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I. Hosein wrote on Jan. 2, 2016 @ 14:06 GMT
Does Commonsense really run counter to Quantum Mechanics?...

http://sciforums.com/threads/does-commonsense-r
eally-run-counter-to-quantum-mechanics.153740/

report post as inappropriate


NARSEP wrote on Jan. 10, 2016 @ 16:22 GMT
- “Could God be omniscient, if reality itself is not set until it is observed by humans? “ –

First, let us change the word “God” with “Nature” in order to avoid any offense. A simple dialogue follows:

- What if a cat observed the “particle” of the exp? Will the result be changed?

– Of course it would. But no cat is able to observe the “particle” as it...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

ioannis hadjidakis (narsep) replied on Jan. 10, 2016 @ 16:47 GMT
The dialogue could finish like this:

- OK, I will try to find some more paradoxes.

I would hopping to a different response ...

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 16, 2016 @ 20:12 GMT
Your approach to quantum physics is incomplete and flawed. We always begin with typical and ordinary experience in establishing physical fundamentals/truths. Also, it is a great and fundamental truth/fact in physics that the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. Moreover, it seems that we want to balance being and experience AS WELL. Indeed, if we did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience, we would then be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are. Should we not then also carefully consider experience as it is seen, felt, AND touched? So, in carefully examining ALL of the above, and for other reasons as well, it seems clear that the ultimate unification (AND understanding) of physics balances being and experience. It does seem clear that we want to balance (and match up) being and experience.

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I Hosein wrote on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 14:48 GMT
In the past couple months I've witnessed God a number of times. He is the self-aware reality.

report post as inappropriate


Rob wrote on Feb. 15, 2016 @ 02:13 GMT
Why does God have to mentioned in this article? Enough God. More science. God particle. God in the universe. Blah blah. The more God the less I want to read the article.

report post as inappropriate


Shaikh Raisuddin wrote on Mar. 16, 2016 @ 09:35 GMT
Contextuality is undefined without definition of INSTANT of time.

And instant of time can only be axiomatic because speed of light is axiomatic.

INSTANT OF TIME is the key concept.

report post as inappropriate


elena gilbert wrote on Mar. 24, 2016 @ 17:04 GMT
Buy Data Based Genuine Registered Passports,Id Cards( pvc),Driver's Licenses/Intl Driving Permit,Visas,Resident Permit Cards,Green Cards,Passport Cards,Birth Certificates,College degrees,School Certificates,IELTS, TOEFL, ESOL All English Language Certificates,Training Certificates,Attestations,Private Cards,Student Cards,Diplomas,SSN,Marriage Certificates,Credit Cards,Counterfeit Money,Clear...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


elena gilbert wrote on Mar. 24, 2016 @ 17:11 GMT
Buy Data Based Genuine Registered Passports,Id Cards( pvc),Driver's Licenses/Intl Driving Permit,Visas,Resident Permit Cards,Green Cards,Passport Cards,Birth Certificates,College degrees,School Certificates,IELTS, TOEFL, ESOL All English Language Certificates,Training Certificates,Attestations,Private Cards,Student Cards,Diplomas,SSN,Marriage Certificates,Credit Cards,Counterfeit Money,Clear...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'R' and 'T':


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