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 blogger 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

Eckard Blumschein: on 3/23/17 at 17:03pm UTC, wrote Perhaps every author patiently feels annoyed by someone who calls himself a...

Jochen Szangolies: on 3/23/17 at 15:29pm UTC, wrote Well, except of course that essays that have received fewer votes are going...

white smith: on 3/23/17 at 12:11pm UTC, wrote I have gone through your article and came to know about the theme of your...

Philip Gibbs: on 3/23/17 at 7:55am UTC, wrote Everybody in the top 50 at least has been repeatedly 1-bombed. It affects...

James Putnam: on 3/23/17 at 4:05am UTC, wrote Quoting Gary D. Simpson: "If you disapprove of one-bombing and wish to...

Lawrence Crowell: on 3/22/17 at 18:51pm UTC, wrote The choice for anonymous commenting is a good idea. A person scoring less...

Lawrence Crowell: on 3/22/17 at 18:49pm UTC, wrote This goes with other threads along these lines. As with Tejinder I went...

Jonathan Dickau: on 3/22/17 at 18:40pm UTC, wrote I'm with you Tejinder.. At this point I'm ranked equal with you, down in...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

James Putnam: "In my previous message something important did not get included. My..." in Alternative Models of...

Steven Andresen: "I am aware of an everyday phenomenon that is comparable to the quantum..." in Alternative Models of...

Steven Andresen: "I am aware of an everyday phenomenon that is comparable to the quantum..." in Rescuing Reality

Eckard Blumschein: "Perhaps every author patiently feels annoyed by someone who calls himself a..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

thamtubachtin: "Tìm dịch vụ thám tử Hãy đến..." in Wrinkles in Spacetime

Jochen Szangolies: "Well, except of course that essays that have received fewer votes are going..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

thamtubachtin: "Bạn đang tìm công ty cung cấp dịch vụ thám tử? Hãy đến..." in Wrinkles in Spacetime

sara edward: "ok sir sara edward hr@ dissertation writing services." in Pieces of E8


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

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.


FQXi BLOGS
March 24, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: FQXi Essay Contest 2016: Wandering Towards a Goal [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Dec. 2, 2016 @ 17:46 GMT
In physics we tend to stick to asking what happened, how did it happen? We like to describe, usually in minute details. We like to use the smallest possible components, “building blocks”, “unit cells".

But there are other ways to think about physical reality. We can ask why did it happen? Was there a reason, or a reason it seems to have a reason? We can go beyond describing and try to explain, motivate. We can see beyond parts and think in terms of systems and wholes.

This shift in thought brings us to the next $40,000 FQXi essay contest, brought to you with our partners at The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation!

This year’s theme is: Wandering Towards a GoalHow can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions?

One way to think of physics is as a set of mathematical laws of dynamics. These laws provide predictions by carrying conditions at one moment of time inexorably into the future. But many phenomena admit another description – sometimes a vastly more useful one – in terms of long-term, large-scale goals, aims, and intentions.

The motion of the most basic particle can be described by the action of forces moment by moment or as the attempt to extremize an action integral, calculated over the particle’s entire path throughout time. Many-body systems can seem hopelessly complex when looked at in terms of their constituents' detailed dynamic motions, but neatly elegant when viewed as attempting to minimize energy or maximize entropy. Living systems efficiently organize their simplest components with the intricate aims of survival, reproduction, and other biological ends; and intelligent systems can employ a panoply of physical effects to accomplish many flexibly chosen goals.

How does this work? How do goal-oriented systems arise, and how do they exist and function in a world that we can describe in terms of goal-free mathematical evolution?

Relevant essays might address questions such as:

* How did physical systems that pursue the goal of reproduction arise from an a-biological world?

* What general features — like information processing, computation, learning, complexity thresholds, and/or departures from equilibrium — allow (or proscribe) agency?

* How are goals (versus accomplishments) linked to “arrows of time”?

* What separates systems that are intelligent from those that are not? Can we measure this separation objectively and without requiring reference to humans?

* What is the relationship between causality – the explanation of events in terms of causes – and teleology – the explanation of events in terms of purposes?

* Is goal-oriented behavior a physical or cosmic trend, an accident or an imperative?

We are accepting entries from now until March 3, 2017, with winners announced in June. The contest rules will operate as in past contests. Please read the contest pages for instructions and full rules.

The contest is open to anyone, so please share this info with everyone. Good luck and good writing!

report post as inappropriate


H. G. wrote on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 11:16 GMT
I don’t want to be negative but I don’t understand FQXi. Why does they think that “top thinkers in foundational questions” will send in an essay? Because they love competition and want to win and cash? That cannot be serious.

Research in the field of the foundations of physics/mathematics is perhaps one of the most earnest human activities. So it is correct to state that an essay have to be technically correct and rigorously argued. Nevertheless, the essay is limited to a stunning 9 pages so this “identification of top thinkers” isn’t serious. Personally I asked the FQXi administrator to delete my essay (bit from it) after a couple of days when I realized myself these inconsequences.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 12:17 GMT
Hi H.G.,

Have you seen this What makes us feel good about our work? - Dan Ariely It shows that for tasks requiring mental effort monetary reward is a poor motivator.

Longer than 9 pages wouldn't be manageable for peer review.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 12:40 GMT
Hi Georgina, H.G.,

I don't understand why You wanted to delete your work Mr HG,like I am curious ,I have seen the essays and I don't find.Could You post it or tell me what was this essay,please.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre replied on Dec. 5, 2016 @ 17:55 GMT
H.G.:

The reason we're optimistic that top thinkers will submit essays is that they keep doing so! We've had a large number of essay submissions by many many FQXi members (who are highly regarded scientists) as well as lots from farther afield. Although an essay contest is not the place to fully explicate a large or highly technical piece of research, we've found that it's a great context for people to explore and think through ideas and get a lot of attention and feedback on them. The top essays tend to be very good and very interesting, but if you don't want to participate that's certainly your prerogative!

report post as inappropriate


H. G. wrote on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 15:22 GMT
@Steve Dufourney,

The contents of the old essay are not important. I only tried to explain that it is – in my opinion - impossible to get “fresh” insights in the foundations of physics/mathematics with the help of a contest (with limitations). I don’t blame FQXi for organizing contests, I only doubt the effectiveness "to find top thinkers in foundational questions”. Anyway, you can find some of the descriptions of the old essay at https://ephys.blogspot.com (post 03 till 12).

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 15:58 GMT
Thanks for sharing H G I am going to look at your papper ,if I can it is dufourny without e :),

about the contest, it is short indeed but it is always interesting to see the works of different thinkers in a total transparence.FQXI makes a wonderful jobs in fact.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 16:09 GMT
Maybe, H. G. stands for Henk Grimm. The latter's blog does neither reveal to me Henk's qualification nor due effort to question work by others including my own.

++++

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 17:06 GMT
Dear Mr Grimm,

I have seen several posts you seem to like the sphere ,I am happy.:) They turn so they are these sphères after all.Do you know My humble theory of spherisation with quantum 3D sphères and cosmological 3D sphres Inside an universal 3D sphere in spherisation optimisation of matter energy.Here are my tow correlated équations E=mc²+ml² and mlosV=constant don't hesitate to ask details I will answer with pleasure.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 7, 2016 @ 17:25 GMT
May I suggest that FQXi change the topic of the essay contest? The following quotations clearly show that the foundational problems of physics are quite far away from teleology:

"That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Dec. 7, 2016 @ 17:38 GMT
Pentcho,

I'll give you points for hutzpah:-)

Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 7, 2016 @ 18:08 GMT
Hi,

Space does exist it seems to me.Only matter and energy exist.This dark matter and the spherical volumes at all scales imply that this space disappear when we consider a specific serie ,universal of spherical volumes.The central BH being the biggest volume and correlated particles produced the smallest.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 7, 2016 @ 18:21 GMT
Pentcho,

Spacetime stands for teleology. "God doesn't play dice". Einstein didn't object when Popper compared him with Parmenides.

++++

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 8, 2016 @ 16:15 GMT
Deduction: The Only Method in Theoretical Physics

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Math can do a lot of things for you, but in the end it's merely a device to derive consequences from assumptions."

Yes, deducing consequences from assumptions, or, more precisely, conclusions from premises, is the only reasonable method in theoretical physics. Any theory, if it is truly a theory and not an...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Dec. 8, 2016 @ 20:14 GMT
Pentcho,

I'm looking forward to your essay. I've already submitted mine although I will NOT count myself among those "top minds" and "top thinkers" that Anthony Aguirre mentions:-)

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Jose P. Koshy replied on Dec. 10, 2016 @ 06:01 GMT
Pentcho,

What Einstein said is correct, if we read it out of context.

"If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

Any device to measure time uses some kind of inside motion as a standard to which the measured time is compared. This inside motion of the clock, even if it is a 'very accurate atomic clock', is affected by the motion of the clock as a whole. But this phenomenon is now being wrongly explained as time dilation.

In my hypothesis, G is proportional to square of the speed (a body at absolute rest has zero G), and so the lagging of clock depends on its speed.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 10, 2016 @ 07:27 GMT
Only if absolute rest means no motion of B relative to A then it makes sense to me. Jose, how do you define speed?

++++

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Dec. 10, 2016 @ 03:55 GMT
Thank you for this essay topic.

It will be interesting to ponder and to read other peoples's ideas on the subject.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 10, 2016 @ 16:50 GMT
Deduction: The Only Method in Theoretical Physics (2)

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Every theory needs assumptions. The problem isn't the existence of assumptions, the problem is the lack of clarity about what exactly is assumed and what follows from what."

Correct. Many problems of theoretical physics will be solved if each theory is obligatorily presented as a list of valid arguments, and each argument in the list as clearly stated premises and a conclusion. For instance:

Argument number 8

Premise 1: ...

Premise 2: ...

Premise 3: ...

Conclusion: ...

Any premise is either an initial assumption (postulate, axiom) or a conclusion already deduced in previous arguments. Arguments in the list are constantly checked for validity.

When the theory is presented in this way, its truthfulness is guaranteed if the initial assumptions (postulates, axioms) are true. If some initial assumption turns out to be false, the conclusions deduced from it are removed from the theory.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Efthimios Harokopos replied on Dec. 14, 2016 @ 18:43 GMT
I believe that deduction does not offer any new knowledge. Induction offers a law subject to probability. It is abduction that offer the possibility of new knowledge (a hypothesis)

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 12, 2016 @ 18:20 GMT
There is an article in Nature suggesting that LIGO's gravitational waves topple, rather than confirm, general relativity. In my comments on the article I am much more radical - gravitational waves do not exist and general relativity is an empirical concoction, not a deductive theory:

Zeeya Merali: "LIGO black hole echoes hint at general-relativity breakdown"

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Dec. 13, 2016 @ 12:15 GMT
Despite the experimental imperfection and some attempt at cooking up data, what the experimenters in the Advanced LIGO experiment claim, i.e. a rhythmic shortening and elongation of two lines, one at Livinston, Louisiana, the other at Hanford, Washington, both in the United States of America already hints that a line has discrete and non-continuos features. The claim is that the two 4km lines lengthened and shortened rhythmically by about 10-18m.

First is that if a line can alternately shorten and lengthen then it is a physical thing, and not merely a relational concept. Einstein in several parts of his theory follows Mach and relies on space as a relational concept and not something real. Although in his 1920 Leiden address he recanted somewhat and said a line can have physical qualities.

Second is that a line containing an infinite number of points cannot be physically lengthened or shortened because infinity cannot be added to or subtracted from. Only in finite geometry can a line be logically added to and subtracted from.

This being so, Einstein himself already hints at general relativity breakdown without travelling to the edge of black holes. He is quoted to have said in 1954, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics".

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Dec. 14, 2016 @ 04:27 GMT
Oh for goodness sake...give them at least a chance. Any reasonable theory of gravity has to have waves since no reasonable theory of graviy supposes that there be instantaneous action.

Gravity waves are not therefore unexpected and it is kind of silly to argue against them. There are many problems with general relativity by gravity waves simply are not an issue...

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Dec. 14, 2016 @ 11:02 GMT
Despite ingenious attempts to use math and words to obscure what Advanced LIGO PRIMARILY purports to measure, what was actually measured is change in the magnitude of a line. Whether this is due to gravity waves or black holes colliding far away is very very SECONDARY and a matter of conjecture. And the chosen method of measuring the changes in length is by how long light takes to traverse the 4km distance.

They were not measuring space-time either. What they put forward as their result is alternate changes in length between (4km + 10-18m) and (4km - 10-18m).

"...a modified Michelson interferometer (see Fig. 3) that measures gravitational-wave strain as a difference in length of its orthogonal arms. Each arm is formed by two mirrors, acting as test masses, separated by (...) 4 km. A passing gravitational wave effectively alters the arm lengths.." - abstracted with a discerning eye from from Physical Review Letters

All in italics is conjecture. Only what is in bold is primary because difference/ variation in length can arise from many causes. A line that can be subjected to strain by whatever cause is not dead, but very much alive and must therefore have physical qualities and not merely be a relational concept or fiction. This alone contradicts the relationist and supports the substantivalist view of space. Can a fictitious object be subjected to strain?

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Dec. 14, 2016 @ 19:17 GMT
we know all that already

read my book

Advanced Relativity.

report post as inappropriate


John S Minkowski wrote on Dec. 15, 2016 @ 04:31 GMT
The Common Knowledge Game gives the Big Bang and Black Holes credibility. As in investing analysis, 'bracketing' prevents insiders of the mainstream view from going outside the box. That is why WMAP, Planck, and now Ligo are propagated in the Media to perpetuate the Common Knowledge Game, not to mention Higgs, etc.

The real question is whether we are in a Neo-Ptolemystical age, where most of the models fit, except at the edges (of extremely small or large)!

John S Minkowski

report post as inappropriate

Helmut Hansen replied on Dec. 15, 2016 @ 05:01 GMT
Dear John,

can you explain your last statement, concerning cosmological models that do not fit at the edges of extremely small or extremely large? Can you give an example? Actually there is an empirical fact referring to the edges of the universe which cannot be explained by modern cosmology. It's in a way a sort of anomaly.

H. Hansen

report post as inappropriate

John S Minkowski replied on Dec. 15, 2016 @ 14:04 GMT
H.H. Perhaps you could provide your own anomalous example. I am only an amateur, but doesn't the ubiquitous use of the term 'singularity' answer the question? Apparently, we have a singularity at the center of a Schwarzschild diameter and another at the center of the 'Big Bang'. These two singularities appear to be opposites. Crothers and Mersini-Houghton have written about the mathematics of black holes, and each find that the singularity does not exist! Hope that answers your question. J.M.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 15, 2016 @ 15:08 GMT
Hello to both of you,

It is complex when we consider the main cause,the uniqueness if I can say,quant or cosm.The interprétations of singularities are complex.It dépends of how we consider the singularity.The mathematical universe for example of max Tegmark considers mathematical singularities with mathematical codes.I beleive that these works are relevant for the convergences.Now we can...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Ted Erikson wrote on Dec. 17, 2016 @ 17:38 GMT
Perhaps too far off base, but does this essay assignmentsinvoke the possible use of the word, "panpsychism"?

A model that incorporates the use of measured, calculable, or predictable values is needed. The extremes of geometrical "activities" (surface to volume ratios) for spheres and tetrahedrons as used by the ancients suggests a means of attack to define such a premise..

Yes or no?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 17, 2016 @ 21:12 GMT
Hello Mr Erikson,

Spinoza d say that after all we were, we are ,we shall be .....bodies and souls....we die eletromagnetically, not gravitationally in logic :) eternally yours so :)

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 18, 2016 @ 13:03 GMT
Jonh and Tom but where are you Jedis ?

report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on Dec. 24, 2016 @ 02:02 GMT
I am posting this just in case you are interested in new perspectives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btk-_WuvAAI

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

sherman loran jenkins replied on Dec. 24, 2016 @ 07:21 GMT
Pick up your purple robe at the red castle and straight ahead to Heaven's Gate.

report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Dec. 31, 2016 @ 15:45 GMT
Essay topic is very challenging. Seems to be taking a long time to get the first batch of essays posted.

I wish a happy and safe New Year to All.

Best regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 31, 2016 @ 16:31 GMT
I wish you also a happy new year Gary and to all.

Happy also to see you again.Have you news from Tom and John?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Dec. 31, 2016 @ 17:34 GMT
To you also Steve. No. I have no news of Tom or John.

My Mom passed on in Sept and I have been handling things for the estate and traveling a lot to get the house ready for sale. Unfortunately, I have not practiced guitar or piano in several months.

I had an essay already written that roughly fits into the essay topic so I submitted that weeks ago. This is a very difficult topic I think.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 31, 2016 @ 18:56 GMT
I am sorry.Sincere condolences.I know that it is difficult, I have lost my mom also 3 years ago and my father 21 years ago.I have even problems with the house and the debts, I am going to loose it like I am without job actually.

Indeed it is very vast topic.I will read the essays,I wait, I like in fact :)

Take care and regards Gary

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 1, 2017 @ 09:20 GMT
Happy New year Steve, all the best, Georgina

report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jan. 1, 2017 @ 15:17 GMT
I would like to discuss and to submit an article on this topic, by assuming the nature of inertial fundamental matters in one-dimension. In this regard I invite different standpoints and arguments.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 9, 2017 @ 19:47 GMT
Can you please say a little more to explain what you are thinking?

report post as inappropriate


Jose P. Koshy wrote on Jan. 8, 2017 @ 11:26 GMT
Hello,

I do not know why so much time is taken for posting the first lot of essays. Is there any shortage of Participants?

Anyway I have submitted my Essay arguing that the 'Cosmos strives to attain self-realization through intelligent beings'.

Jose P Koshy

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 8, 2017 @ 12:26 GMT
Hi Jose, entries are being accepted until March 3rd. I think it is a topic that I would like to take some more time thinking about before writing.

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Jan. 8, 2017 @ 12:44 GMT
Jose,

In the Frequently Asked Questions portion of the Contest page, it mentions that they won't post any essays until they have a batch of 5-10 available to post. They probably have not had many essay submissions thus far. This is a very difficult topic in my opinion.

I have also submitted an essay ... so, that makes at least two:-)

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 8, 2017 @ 13:03 GMT
Hi all,

It is beautiful topic ,it is not easy and so vast.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Ted Erikson wrote on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 18:20 GMT
Is anyone aware of a geometric model or mechanism for "panpsychism"? In particular, the use of the fact that an inscribed sphere in a regular tetrahedron, having equal surface to volume ratios, is an excellent basis for equilibrium at zero entropy production, i.e. any change implies changing "activities" of spherical mass to tetrahedral energy...

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 22:48 GMT
Re Goals:

“There are un-pleasurable, even painful aspects to pursuing most goals, and so we must be clever about what we choose to go after. To go wherever desire and pleasure whisk us is to fall into the trap of chasing things we want in the immediate moment but may care nothing about in the longer term. Zooming out on our lives, it is fascinating to see that both our goals, and the ways in which we set out to achieve them, so often go unexamined. Why do we want what we want?

“…That he ever thought he could achieve perfection, without setbacks, without respites, Franklin admitted, was his gravest error. He had been naïve. And prideful. Only decades later, while writing his autobiography, did he realise that his goals could not be attained just by trying hard, by going at them again and again, without rest or leaving a place for pleasure: ‘the mere speculative conviction that it was our interest to be completely virtuous was not sufficient to prevent our slipping.’ He saw that pursuing his truest goals would take more than pure desire. It would also take reason. It would take a plan.”

From When it’s good to be bad, by Cody Delistraty, https://aeon.co/essays/the-road-to-excellence-is-paved-with-
a-few-lapses-on-the-way

report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 03:06 GMT
Ladies and Gentlemen,

The essay contest is roughly half over. I hate to say it, but IMHO this essay contest is not going well thus far. If I were the folks at FQXi, I would be very disappointed. Hopefully, more of those top thinkers will participate soon.

Even if you don't think you are a top thinker (hey, I'm not for sure) it is worth participating. You just never know how your thoughts might affect someone else who might then affect someone else ...

I am hoping for more essays and for more participation by authors ....

Best Regards and Good Luck to All.

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Ajay Pokhrel wrote on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 13:17 GMT
Hello,

As I see all here in FQXI are scientist and good researcher.I have read some of the article and essay but gained many knowledge.But since here are all universities student and scientist, Would it be taken good if a high school student(as I am one) submit essays on FQXI and share some ideas, though I am not fully aware of most of the Physics and Maths theories.As I was informed about this platform by Steve Dufourny and I found it quite interesting for learning and sharing views.Can I get some suggestions?

Ajay Pokhrel

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 23:41 GMT
Ajay, you are mistaken if you think that all who post comments and submit essays here are scientists and good researchers. If you are able to put together a coherent, sensible argument, relevant to physics, in English I would be very happy to read what you have written and attempt to offer feedback and constructive criticism if I am able. I like the idea of learning, sharing and developing ideas that is allowed here. It would be great if you have some ideas that fit the current essay competition that you would like to present there. There isn't an age limit as far as I know.

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Jan. 26, 2017 @ 01:05 GMT
Ajay,

Welcome. Georgina is absolutely correct. FQXi does have a number of genuine scientists working at the institute, but most of the people on the forum are not truly scientists. The level of skill and knowledge ranges from respectable amateur to absolute crackpot. There is room for all ...

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 26, 2017 @ 19:31 GMT
Hi Ajay, Gary,Georgina,

I agree also.What I find relevant is this transparence.It is even foundamental for the sharing of ideas. The most important after all is to learn the good works and sort the pseudo sciences.You know Ajay ,in the sciencesz community,even the Professional ,it exists serious thinkers and others who are not relevant.For example me who is a simple nursery man for plants and flowers,I have seen Professional who didn't understand what is really the relativity and the entropical principle.It is ironical even.Sometimes I am surprised by the extrapolations of some thinkers.You know the most important is to be rational.And also make the difference with the hypotheisis in the works of people and the postulates utilised.I have seen also that many scientists were good in engineerings or in computing but they confound the generality.It is odd in fact.The problem is more complex that you can imagine dear Jedis.:)but it is the life.Love sciences, never stop to learn,always search answers.

report post as inappropriate


Harry Hamlin Ricker III wrote on Feb. 2, 2017 @ 23:22 GMT
Here is my review of the some of the essays

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2017/02/02
/fqxi-essay-contest-2017-review/

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 12:23 GMT
Hi Brendan , I'd like to include a table of information and a diagram with word labels on it in the body of my essay. Can you please tell me if the words in the table and diagram are to be included in the character count limit. I'm hoping they might not as I have a lot that i'd like to say in the rest of the essay and I think the table and diagram add to the arguments. They aren't really technical extras that could be supplemental. Please let me know , as I may have to decide what I must leave out if their characters are included. Thanks, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Brendan,

I just have a little doubt about the rating of some participants.

It seems that there some authors that are spreading the rating 1 without even having read the specific essay. I was warned before by another author, if you have a high rating be prepared to receive a 1 ratings.

Of course everybody is free toas he wants, and it happens to any particpant but after all the positive critics in my thread it was incomprehensible that tha 1 rating was a real one, a three or four if you don't agree is acceptable I think, but a 1 mena that the essay is absolute out of order.

Plus that the rating came without any critisism on the thread.

So I am n advocate that if you give arating give also the reason why.

thank you

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 08:12 GMT
there are a number of rating systems that are more effective than the "popular consensus" which has been demonstrated time and time again to be extremely damaging and at best ineffective. the largest and longest-running system of moderation, which is based on the principle of random selection amongst readers (i.e. you may NOT just choose yourself to be a moderator of comments), includes...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 22:27 GMT
Somebody is not scoring fairly. I opened Jarmo Makela's paper this morning. I read it again opened up the contest area to score it. His paper had been with score = 6.5 with two votes and was down to 5.3. Somebody gave this a score of 3. Folks, this paper deserves more than that. Even if you disagree with the conclusion of a paper if it is well enough written it deserves a reasonable score, such as at least 5. The arguments in Jarmo's paper are clear, they are crafted in a creative way as a dialogue and this deserves a score of 5 or above.

I have seen other cases here of "one bombing" that seems to occur in a blanket fashion. There seem to be some who have a desire to blanket attack papers with some hope of bringing theirs up. Sure if a paper is really poor then score it accordingly, but no more of this nonsense of "one-bombing."

cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Ted Christopher wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 16:44 GMT
I see some concerns about the scoring here. My essay's score dropped from 9 to 6 overnight apparently due to a 3 score. My essay simply raises basic questions about the current vision of life, and it does it through accepted phenomena and the missing heritability problem. If someone bothers to read the essay they will find minimal speculation and plenty of relevance to the contest goal. I doubt that the 3 scorer bothered to read my essay and moreover think that this kind of score nuking is probably pretty widespread.

Critical scorers should inform their scoring with explanatory comments.

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 18:08 GMT
Ted,

You statement regarding your score does not make any sense. You presently have an average of 6.5 with two votes. One of those votes is mine and it was not a 9 or a 3. In fact, since I know the score I gave you, I also know the other score ... and it was not a 9 or a 3 either.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 18:48 GMT
Ted,

BTW, it is the community vote that matters ... not the public vote. Looking at your score again, I see that you were probably referencing your public vote rather than your community vote ... my bad.

Regards.

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 17:59 GMT
All,

Members of the community continue to attempt to apply game-theory to scoring ... that's fine with me as I really do not care. I only mention this since I have received a score of one and two scores of two. What is notable is that my average score reached a value of 7 and was then hit with a 2 and a 1. This brought the average down to a 5.6. My score then rose to a 6.1 and was PROMPTLY rated with a 2 to push it down to 5.7.

Perhaps this is coincidence or perhaps not ...

Having stated this, I will also state that I have scored two essays with a 1 ... and they both deserved it. I would have given one of them a zero or a negative score if that was possible. I read both essays and interacted with the authors. I have also scored many essays with a 10. There have been several essays that I would have given a 10 except they were already at or near the top of the rankings ... so they got a 7 or an 8. There have been a few cases where I have given a high score knowing that someone else was going to give it a 1.

I would suggest that if scoring is something that truly bothers people, then do not post a running average of peoples' scores. Then people will have to vote on essays without knowing where the essays are ranked at the time of their votes. The votes would then be tabulated AFTER the voting ends.

Best Regards and Good Luck to All,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Ajay Pokhrel replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 15:18 GMT
Hello Gary,

What is the topic of your essay, could you mention it? I am curious to read your essay.

As you have mentioned about scores, for me it's only starting phase and I have my first essay submitted to FQXI which is now in the rating of 4.3 and I guess most of the authors are ignoring my essay "Our Numerical Universe" because I am just a high school kid. But scoring does not matters to me as I want to thank FQXI for providing such opportunity to share my ideas and further I will improve.

Best Regards

Ajay

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:18 GMT
Hello Ajay,

The title of my essay is "Five Part Harmony". I would be delighted for you to read it and ask questions. I will answer as clearly as I am able.

Also, I will have a look at your essay "Our Numerical Universe".

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Ajay Pokhrel wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 15:57 GMT
Hello,

I have just submitted my essay on topic "Our Numerical Universe" and as I am a high school student, it might happen that my essay is not as competitive as others. So, what if my essay is rejected? Can anyone tell me about the possibility?

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 03:09 GMT
Just seen it in the list. So that's a good start. I'll have a read.

report post as inappropriate


Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 08:00 GMT
hi, ok so my essay is submitted, and i am reviewing the various submissions and asking questions and providing feedback.

the thing is, i am having extraordinary difficulty identifying submissions that answer the actual question, or a variant thereof, or answers any of the sub-questions such as "what separates intelligent systems from those that are not?"

i've encountered one essay which challenges the contest's validity (as being "too early), which is, at the present time, the only essay yet encountered after reviewing about 10 so far, that seems to clearly acknowledge the questions. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2833

have i missed something important, here? surely i must have made a mistake, and would appreciate some help and clarification.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 09:15 GMT
Hi Luke, I have tried to answer all of the questions FQXi asked as well as i could in the allotted character limit. I would be very happy if you read it.

report post as inappropriate

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 10:54 GMT
ah! thank you georgina. duly noted, and read - some questions raised for you as well. if i may clarify, i am not seeing anyone starting with a pre-existing definition of intelligence, mind or consciousness, nor deriving one during the course of their essay and logically confirming it and that it answers the primary essay's question. apologies but i have to include your essay in that, much as i enjoyed reading it.

i honestly have to admit to being really very surprised and slightly concerned. once i have thought of a way to make it clear i will post a series of questions (along the lines of, "what definitions of intelligence, mind or consciousness is your essay working from or deriving, and how do you use them to answer the essay's core question") for people to consider responding to.

if anyone has any suggestions as to how to go about doing that in a respectful but clear way i would be most grateful to hear them.

report post as inappropriate

Karl H Coryat replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 21:47 GMT
Hi Luke, I agree with you about a lack of focus in a lot of the essays. I invite you to check out mine. It proposes a physical definition of intentionality and applies that definition to various systems, not only advanced biological ones -- many people assume, I think unjustly, that intentionality is limited to them, and I argue why it isn't. Enjoy!

-Karl Coryat

report post as inappropriate


Saibal Mitra wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 22:42 GMT
Instead of the current rating system, one should implement a referee system where each participant is given a new anonymous referee login and is asked to evaluate a number of assigned essays (say 3 essays). The referee reports will be visible to everyone, so that may then generate discussions. Obviously the author him/herself is likely to respond to the reports. The reports plus all the discussions can then be used to rate the essays much better.

To force compliance, one can impose the rule that all authors must submit the 3 referee reports by some deadline. Failure to do so will mean that their own essay will be removed from the contest.

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 02:22 GMT
This would be tough to implement..

Lots of Physics journals have a hard time finding qualified reviewers for many of the papers they receive. I get more referee requests than I can field personally, and my qualifications are not adequate for some papers I am asked to review. Is every reviewer honest about what they are qualified to weigh in on? And do the really qualified folks have the time for something like an FQXi contest - even with compensation? From what I've seen, most professional scientists have a lot of work already, and they work very hard to make progress happen. This may make your suggestion impractical.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 02:35 GMT
In the current setting..

It would be very difficult to match up all of the essays entered, with reviewers qualified to respond to the content offered fairly. I am seeing a lot of very low scores being given, for essays that are decently well-written. I won't automatically punish an author for views I don't believe in. So while I might give well-written but deficient papers a 4 or 5 at a minimum; I have seen rounds of 1 scores being awarded to large numbers of papers in rapid fashion.

I guess I'm saying I would not want one of the people giving out 1 scores as one of my assigned reviewers. And it would be hard to make it fair, the way you describe it.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Saibal Mitra replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 22:26 GMT
I agree that it would require some effort, but it would be much better compared to the way things work now. Also, consider the fact that you can see the current score. If I want to rate an essay that I think deserves an 8 and I see that it is currently rated at 6 with one vote, then this puts pressure on me to vote 10 to "set the score right", but this would be an improper thing to do, because the person who voted 6 should have just as influence as I.

If I vote 10 because I think it should be at 8, I'm effectively casting two votes, one vote is mine and the other is changing the 6 of the previous voter into an 8. So, the current vote average should not be made visible, and perhaps the rating choices should be reduced to only 0 = "poor", 1 = "mediocre", and 2 = "good" at least in the first round. There will be far more consensus about essays rated as good being good, and essays that are rated poor indeed being poor than about ratings like 7 or 9.

report post as inappropriate


Bishal Banjara wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:07 GMT
hello to everyone!!

anyone help me to take my essay out from this contest but I want to shift it to thread discussion...please!!

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 21:14 GMT
Hi Bishal, email Brendan Foster (see contact tab on FQXi main site home page) explaining your decision. You will be able to put your essay as a link or attachment on the Alternative models page ( inside Ultimate reality) on the Forums part of the site.

report post as inappropriate


Bishal Banjara wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 05:54 GMT
hi Georgina,

thank you for your suggestion

report post as inappropriate


Ajay Pokhrel wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:53 GMT
Hello everyone,

I was curious to ask one question:

DO the founder of the FQXI visit FQXI and read the essays of the contest? thouh, it is not a very relevant but I asked because I was curious that if Professor Tegmark or Guth visit the FQXI or not...

Best regards to everyone

Ajay

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 20:41 GMT
Hi Ajay,

Max weighs in from time to time, mainly where his work is being discussed. I have not seen Alan post on the forum, but Anthony Aguirre often makes an appearance, to set the record straight about some point or other. Other FQXi members have been known to post on the forum, and other scientists every so often.

There are no guarantees they will read what you say, but chances are good that someone well-informed will comment - and the experts will appear from time to time.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Neil Bates wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 02:15 GMT
My essay for this contest is now on the board at Is Quantum Magic Behind Life, Mind, and Rational Machinery? I normally wouldn't come here to simply announce it's there, but I want to make the point that my essay this time is only half the usual full length, and it should be easier to read than most of my previous efforts. No spectacular revelations claimed either, just a rundown of how I think QM enables complex life and thinking. Also I am determined to be more laid back this year and to minimize fretting or griping about the voting system per se (although I do have a basic constructive suggestion about it, and reserve the right to decry bad practice) - and especially stay away from who is or isn't getting noticed or should be, etc. Cheers.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 03:42 GMT
Brendan,

My Mozilla Firefox browser was updated today to the latest version, and now when I try to login to FQXi, I get a “a grey lock icon with a red strike-through in the address bar” , and the following message: “This connection is not secure. Logins entered here could be compromised”. !!!

It further says that “Firefox will display a grey lock icon with a red strike-through in the address bar, when a login page you’re viewing does not have a secure connection. This is to inform you that if you enter your password it could be stolen by eavesdroppers and attackers.” !!!

Brendan, could you please make sure that our FQXi connections are secure, and that our logins cannot be compromised?

report post as inappropriate


Neil Bates wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 14:32 GMT
Some anonymous coward just "1-bombed" me (known from previous rating being a 5.0 and then going to 3.0 after one more vote) without leaving any feedback about how in Earth I could deserve that low a rating. Yeah I wasn't going to fret much about the voting method ... but this hurts everyone and is bad practice by those using their voting privilege so I will ask this: first a plea to everyone that you should be willing to explain bad votes. You can still be anonymous but at least leave a credible explanation. Also, is anything being done about 1-bombers, to at least limit the damage they can do? Sigh.

report post as inappropriate

Rene Ahn replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 21:40 GMT
Hi Neil,

If it is any consolation, you are not the only one.

A similar thing happened to a lot of people here, also to me, twice even, I wouldn't expect that in place like this, but I guess there are some participants still wearing diapers.

Good luck anyways,

Rene

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Ajay Pokhrel replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 07:45 GMT
Hello Neil,

My essay has also less rating because I am just a high school student but once a brilliant mind told me this"hmmm,keep this in mind...some can read the book "War and Peace " and think it's just an adventure story,and some can read the ingredients on a gum wrapper and unravel the secrets of the universe." Rating doesnot show the talent as well.

Best Regards

Ajay

report post as inappropriate

Neil Bates replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 02:26 GMT
Ajay, I think it's great that a High School student entered the contest - until recently I was teaching in High Schools, a favorite course was Chemistry. I'll read your essay in awhile.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 17:33 GMT
Neil,

Don't worry it's not just you, trolling is as rife as ever. I've had at least four 1's so far. I prefer to not score than mark down. I'll make a point of reading yours (I think I was too late doing so last year as I was behind with those who'd read mine, so I owe you!)

I hope you may get to & comment on mine too,

Best

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Bauch wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 22:06 GMT
With more prize money this year and all the one-bombing this contest reminds me of a Wal-Mart riot.

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 04:03 GMT
I've done a little 10 bombing to deny the one bombers an advantage ... it looks like they've changed tactics at least on new essays ... I've gotten 3 ones and 2 twos though.

report post as inappropriate


William L Stubbs wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 13:55 GMT
Concerning the ratings, perhaps it is expecting too much to have people give a composite rating between 1 and 10. There are several factors to consider and weigh which can lead to identical ratings for different merits. In future competitions, one way to move toward alleviating this problem may be to break the rating into three categories: 1) how relevant is the essay, 2) how though provoking is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 03:33 GMT
William,

I think maybe you are missing something ... people don't one bomb because they disagree with some aspect of an essay. They one bomb because it pushes other peoples' scores lower and thereby elevates their own essay. If the contestants are allowed to vote then that will always be the case to some extent.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 04:05 GMT
A greater concern for me is this..

The possibility exists to create an artificial identity, and even to create a machine generated essay to allow for multiple voting privileges. Heck; I have more than one e-mail account, so I could probably get away with public voting two or three times (which I'm pretty sure some folks have done), but I have not worked this angle. On the other hand; I have seen some pretty weird shit as a viXra administrator, including a few instances of fictitious authorship. And this is in addition to folks posting someone else's work under their name, or claiming affiliations and collaborators illegitimately. We have actually seen instances of papers posted by people who do not exist!

I've been wondering if arXiv will catch the paper by Hannah Arendt on moving neighborhoods and Peterson graphs. I think it's highly likely the author is fictitious and the content is machine generated. There it is; arXiv:1203.1900. It was probably uploaded as part of a study, and so far the admins have not discovered it may be bogus, or connects to other bogosity. I've been tracking it since the viXra admins were alerted about another paper of similar authorship, when it was submitted for publication - or so I recall.

It can't happen here, of course.

All the Best,

Jonathan

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 04:12 GMT
As I recall..

Hannah Arendt was a WW2 era philosopher, political analyst, and journalist who wrote about some of the atrocities of the Nazis.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 11:39 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

what a world :).I am understanding you.You know I have remarked that indeed some people thought that because they knew the computing, they knew sciences and its generalities.Like if the cyber criminality for example was gratifying.It is ironical these hormons and this vanity and pride if I can say.Like if the frustration implied these comportments of some persons.Sad reality.If them they understand what is the entropical eternal infinite principle, me I am the queen of England Jonathan lol.Don't attach some importance with these things.It exists real universalists and persons understanding what is this universal love.Others no simply .This explains that after all.The relativity is about these social and human comportments.Sad reality of our global earth, this sphere turning around a sphere Inside the sphere ....take care Jonathan and still good luck in this contest also.I liked your papper.

Best

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 14:21 GMT
Thanks Steve..

While we are debating what is universal in the greater reality, we must not forget about the pull of our humanity - and that the limitations of being human motivate some to do what is unethical, in order to gain an advantage. So while good people are obligated to assume good faith, in the absence of other evidence, some others take advantage of this to do harm or gain benefit unfairly. We can only be more mindful while hoping that the FQXi folks have done due diligence to authenticate each author.

Thanks for the reminder there are still people of good faith, and people worthy of being treated that way. I hope there are more of those, in this contest, and fewer of the other guys. From what I have seen; the good guys hold the field here.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 22:19 GMT
Because of the “one bombers”, I have changed my mind about the possibility of the FQXi essay voting system being fair. Clearly, voting is a game to be strategically played.

report post as inappropriate

James Arnold replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 01:13 GMT
Well, 'tis a game for some, to be unethically played.

I hope the system is smart enough that the '1 bombers' can be tracked down, erased, and disqualified....

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 01:52 GMT
Dear Lorraine Ford,

There are fair minded participants who do vote according to the vote guidelines. One who is consistently representative of that practice is Georgina Woodward. I have found it difficult to meet her standard. I think that most experienced participants know that vote downing not only occurs throughout the contest, but, it accelerates very near the end, especially for top...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 12:14 GMT
Folks,

You can either accept the one-bombing and take no action, or you can respond in some way. If you disapprove of one-bombing and wish to take action then you need a method to deny the one-bombers any advantage. You can accomplish that by 10 bombing those who have been one-bombed or by an across the board one-bomb ... or perhaps a bit of both. In truth, if your objective is to win the contest and you get to vote, then why would anyone ever give anyone else a score of anything other than a one? Of course, if you objective is to advance knowledge then your voting strategy would probably be very different.

The real problem is that contestants get to vote and that is because FQXi does not have the resources to judge fairly 200+ entries. I don't see any likely solution to that problem.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 13:09 GMT
The simple fix is to treat ratings as complex...

Those who approach ratings solely as a measure of quality for essays treat the value given as a Real number, which could (at least in theory) be calculated by using a checklist and enumerating the successes and failures in ideas presented, logical arguments, compelling storytelling, clarity of message, and so on. This is most in keeping with the instructions given by FQXi.

Those who approach ratings solely as a tool to elevate or demote other people's work, regardless of the relative quality, or in order to influence or control the final rankings, treat the value given as a pure Imaginary. By this I mean that the rating these people give is employed to create variations, to push scores up or down at will, that relates more to the desired outcome than any measure at all.

The healthy response, in this case, is to view the ratings as an opportunity to reward people for their good work or strong efforts, but also be willing to use some of the points we are given to adjust for prior unfairness. If I see that a well-written essay is way down in the rankings, I may give that person an extra point or two - beyond what they have earned from quality writing alone. This treats the rating as a Complex number, a strict measure of quality with a push added.

Food for thought!

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 13:28 GMT
Of course, there is a robust solution..

Allow free choice for all the middle range scores, but require a comment or reason be given whenever a rating below 3 or above 7 is given. If, in order to give an essay a 10, one needed to state something you like about it, and if, in order to give out a 1, people needed to state reasons why they dislike it; this would eliminate ALL usage of ratings as pure Imaginary quantities. That is; punitive voting and unearned rewards given to friends could be ELIMINATED if it was required that reasons be given for all low-ball and high-ball votes.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 17:19 GMT
Is it now time to apply the 'suicide bombs' to the 1 bombers discussed last year; Any 1 or 2 without a post (evidence of reading) gets taken off and applied to the bombers own score.

Just an additional rule stating this would be enough to stop it in the first place. I suggest that's done for next year, though just applying it in the next few weeks should be a bigger punishment for cheating!

Mines now had 10 or 11 '1 bombs' so each time it's moves up a few places it moves back down more!(Gary please do 10 bomb mine if you haven't!) Many also judge by how much they agree, which is NOT a criteria! I haven't given any score below 4 (even if I've considered a hypothesis to be wholly wrong).

I'd also agree with Jonathan's alternative for next year. A simple additional rule would remove the problem, so as well as the cheats it seems also somewhat a result of administrative shortcoming!

BRENDAN!! - Response please - any reason why not?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 16:54 GMT
On the topic of 1 votes, there are essays that deserve a score of one. There are some essays that are for lack of better words simply abysmal. Given that this should be about I have given out a number of them. Also generally I do not comment why I gave a one, for I am opening myself up for a similar response. As I see it an essay that really deserves a one should get it.

On the other hand I have seen a few days where in looking at essays a whole lot of them have gotten a one. From the top scoring essays on down they have lost total score points or vote average. This happens of course with the introduction of a bunch of new essays, and clearly somebody has carpet bombed with 1-votes. This is not ethical of course, but I have no idea what to do about that. This is one reason why the top essay now, as with past contests, has a score average of around 6.5.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Neil Bates replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 17:04 GMT
Lawrence,

Anonymous commenting could be set up for the specific purpose of explaining a low vote. In any case, I still think that rationing of lower votes is the only way to keep things from being a swamp.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 18:51 GMT
The choice for anonymous commenting is a good idea. A person scoring less than 3 might be required to give a reason for their vote, but if they can do it anonymously that prevents "revenge voting."

LC

report post as inappropriate


Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 17:21 GMT
Dear Brendan,

The contest guidelines state:

"Voting collusion or bartering, mass down-voting, and other such forms of 'voter fraud' will not be tolerated, and participants in such will have (all) their votes discarded or in extreme cases their essays disqualified. Entrants should alert FQXi with information if they witness such activities."

My impression is that large-scale down voting is being carried out by some participants, and as suggested in the guidelines, I wish to bring this to your attention. The last four ratings that I have received are 1, 1, 1, 2. This seems deliberate and motivated; there are no comments/posts on my essay to indicate why such low ratings should have been given.

In the posts above, many other participants have reported similar down-voting of their essays. I feel this calls for an investigation and disciplinary action.

My thanks and regards,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 18:40 GMT
I'm with you Tejinder..

At this point I'm ranked equal with you, down in the 20s or 5.1, when only a week ago both our essays were in the top 10 and I had a score of 6.1. I suspect that at least some of the carpet bombers are fictitious entrants, or folks who entered on a pretense to serve as a proxy for another contestant. As I said above; I've tracked papers by fictitious people on arXiv, after being alerted to a few on viXra, so I have a hard time believing that sort of thing can't happen here.

Arguably; some action should be taken by FQXi.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 18:49 GMT
This goes with other threads along these lines. As with Tejinder I went through a run of low votes. I also noticed that the whole of the upper echelon essays, those with scores of 5 or more, were all down voted on the same day. They all dropped in a single day. This appears to reflect a sort of mass carpet bombing by a single person. This also happened about 3 times as well. Is suspect since there are no more new entries these things may become less prevalent.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 07:55 GMT
Everybody in the top 50 at least has been repeatedly 1-bombed. It affects everyone the same so the scores still reflect a reasonable ranking. The best defense is for as many people as possible to use their scoring fairly on merit so that the tactical low scoring is washed out. Don't try to compensate where you see low scoring. That only makes the situation worse. Post a comment on your essay encouraging others to use their votes and to vote fairly. Scoring so far is slow compared to other contests.

I think the scoring system as it is now is as good as it can be in practice. I like the openness even if it makes tactical voting more likely. The early contests were less open and that was much worse. There are always a few good essays that don't make the cut but the judges now have discretion to include up to ten extras, which is good.

This contest is a unique opportunity for people of all backgrounds to exchange ideas. The open mutual scoring encourages positive and polite commenting. I participate because the feedback helps me improve my ideas. It does not bother me at all when I do not make the final cut. Let's enjoy the contest for what it is and let the sponsors know that what they are doing is appreciated.

report post as inappropriate


white smith wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 12:11 GMT
I have gone through your article and came to know about the theme of your essay competition. I had participated in many similar competitions before and this topic seems to be very different and interesting. Thanks for share this.rent an ipad monthly

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'S' and 'U':


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