Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

David Brown: on 4/11/17 at 11:00am UTC, wrote Consider 2 questions: Is there a unified theory of mathematics and...

David Brown: on 4/8/17 at 14:27pm UTC, wrote According to a 2016 publication by Verlinde, on page 13 “We like to...

David Brown: on 4/7/17 at 15:10pm UTC, wrote From your essay, 'Decoding the "Intelligence" of the Universe' (page 2),...

David Brown: on 4/6/17 at 11:18am UTC, wrote Consider some speculators on pole masses, running masses, the string...

Alfredo Oliveira: on 4/6/17 at 1:56am UTC, wrote David, the precedent commentary was made by me, but I was not logged in,...

Anonymous: on 4/6/17 at 1:50am UTC, wrote Dear David Well, indeed an interesting reading! Your essay is a defy, a...

Peter Jackson: on 4/5/17 at 17:05pm UTC, wrote David, I agree we have inadequate evidence for most assumptions we DO make...

David Brown: on 3/21/17 at 11:42am UTC, wrote Consider 4 hypotheses: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology....


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Anonymous: "So, Ginger, What is your thinking on whether Planck's yet to be..." in Purifying Physics: The...

Ginger Grey: "When we studied Physics at Central Washington University, we used to hire..." in Purifying Physics: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Jonathan, Your reasoning is relevant.Let's try to do it Jonathan with..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Jonathan Dickau: "As it turns out... My personal philosophy specifically treats the notion..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Quantum Antigravity: "EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity —..." in The Myth of Gravity

Pentcho Valev: "Money for teleology and silly songs only? The teleology contest is a..." in Towards a Goal — Two...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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)


FQXi FORUM
April 26, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Milgromian Cosmology, Wolframian Computing, and Primate Consciousness by David Brown [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author David Brown wrote on Jan. 12, 2017 @ 21:10 GMT
Essay Abstract

This brief essay raises questions concerning consciousness and its possible relations to the foundations of physics. A few quotations and speculations concerning cosmology, automata, and primate consciousness accompany the questions.

Author Bio

David Brown has an M.A. in mathematics from Princeton University and was for a number of years a computer programmer.

Download Essay PDF File




John Edward LaMuth wrote on Jan. 13, 2017 @ 23:18 GMT
Mr Brown

I greatly appreciate your conclusions concerning primate consc...

Best

John L

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 15, 2017 @ 19:57 GMT
Hello Mr Brown,

It is beautiful general work.I asked if you knew the works of Oparine creating amino acids with a kind of soap mimating the primordial soap billions years ago on earth.I am remembering that he has created arginin with a mix with HCN H2C2 CH4 H20 HN3... more add of E like uv, hv,heat,electricity....That shows us that HCNO is like gravitationally coded and that emergence due to complexification of matter is an evolutive reality.The mass increases even.Consciousness is of course correlated like our brains.The number of interactions and particles imply an emergent consciousness.It is fascinating in fact.Thanks for sharing and congratulations, good luck also for this contest.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author David Brown replied on Jan. 16, 2017 @ 04:48 GMT
Thank you for pointing out Oparin's research — his theory seems to have been on the correct path.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Oparin

https://e
n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron–sulfur_world_hypothesis



Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 16, 2017 @ 09:22 GMT
You are welcome.I liked his works.I rank a little of all.It is in ranking that I found my theory of spherisation.I was facinated by these encodings and increasing mass.We see that in fact the informations, gravitational permit this increasing mass and complexification.Thanks for sharing the iron sulfur hypothesis.ine ase + - .....gravitation electromagnetism.It is a simplistic vue but the universal generality seems working on this road.Even the man and the woman.We encode,we evolve, we sort, superimpose,syunchronise,these informations of evolution.Fascinating is a weak word.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 16, 2017 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear Brown,

Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings such as the ones you effortlessly indulge in. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are. All primates have a complete surface that blends in with the surface that surrounds them.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 09:58 GMT
Dear Mr Brown,

The AI seems a specific rational mathematical method.We can with the automata indeed mimâte.The consciousness that said is an other story considering this Arrow of time, entropical.We are a result of encodings due to this evolution of mass.The complexification of matters is a reality and our consciousness is appeared with this increasing mass and correlated brains.We arrive at a point where we must rank so these informations.The computing utilises the binar informations,the universe utilises informations photonic and of gravitation also.These informations are different.If now the quantum computing converges with these quantum informations in utilising the 3D and that these binar informations are extrapolated and synchronized.That becomes intriguing considering the number of interactions of a hard drive mimating the synaps and brains like biology.We arrive at an important deontological question in fact.It is really intriguing considering this gravitation and the main gravitational codes.In logic the singularitiesz,personal considering our soul cannot be touched or approached ,but it is intriguing.The AI is a new era in fact where our consciousness to us the humans must be universal and altruist because these kinds of Tools need a good universal governance and good Securities.Our World W Web is a new tool and this tool changes our social interactions and its is revolutionary.We have created a tool and this tool is going to embark us towards a new era of sharing of informations.The future convergences are fascinating.Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 10:04 GMT
Sorry when I would say deontological I have bad translated I have said like in french,the good word is ethical.Sorry for my English.

report post as inappropriate


Joseph J. Jean-Claude wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 14:21 GMT
The question at hand: mathematical basis to aims and intention. The author does a good job at putting on the table all the elements that might contribute an answer to the question in one way or another. He does not provide however any particular answer or solution of his own to the problem. An essay generally well written.

report post as inappropriate


Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 14:38 GMT
Your brilliant essay is actually a future research program and scientific compilation for a physics of consciousness, Mr. Brown. Concerning your questions at the end of the text, I would like to point to the Hebrew sages which imply that the 'ten sayings of creation' (the Memra in Aramaic) were 10 vibrations which comes close to 'cosmic music'. Rashi pointed to the fact that Bereshit starts with a decisive grammatical part missing, i.e. we are not being told of which beginning we learn. Consequently, the physics of the (human-animal) mind is indeed a new frontier of science. Best: stephen i. ternyik

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 19:50 GMT
Hello Mr Ternyik,

Fascinating these cosmic music, they turn so they are these sphères :) could you tell us more please ,I am passionated by this infinite entropy above our physicality.God does not play at dices like said Einstein.What are the ten sayings of creation?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 21:45 GMT
Mr. Dufourny, please look for my responde at your LinkedIn account. Best: S.Ternyik

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 17:47 GMT
Thanks Mr Ternyik

all the best

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 10:19 GMT
A cornucopia of interesting-ness. I too think Wolfram's cellular automata have interesting things to show and "tell".

report post as inappropriate


Don C Foster wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 23:05 GMT
Hi David,

I felt like a boxer’s speed-bag while reading your essay. You raise so many good questions and the quotations were sharp edged. There seemed to be a deeper current in your piece, but it felt as though it was meant for someone other than myself. Would like to have had more of your own thoughts made explicit.

Best, Don

report post as inappropriate

Author David Brown replied on Feb. 5, 2017 @ 14:39 GMT
Most of my thoughts are errors or minor extrapolations of other people's thoughts. My guess is that Ray Kurzweil is the world's greatest living genius. (Google "ray kurzweil" for more information.) My guess is that the world's 3 greatest living scientists are James D. Watson, Sydney Brenner, and M. Milgrom. For my thoughts on Milgrom's MOND, google "vixra david brown".

Can anyone think of a physical meaning for the following?

196883^(8 + 1/(4 *5) + 1/(32 * 125) + 1/(256 * 3125)) = 4.165875883 * 10^42 (approximately)?

From my publication "Einstein's Field Equations: 3 Criticisms" (vixra.org): "...

I suggest that there might be 3 possible modifications of Einstein’s field equations. Consider Einstein’s field equations: R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R = - κ * T(mu,nu) - Λ * g(mu,nu) — what might be wrong? Consider the possible correction R(mu,nu) + (-1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant) * g(mu,nu) * R * (1 - (R(min) / R)^2)^(1/2) = - κ * (T(mu,nu) / equivalence-principle-failure-factor) - Λ * g(mu,nu), where equivalence-principle-failure-factor = (1 - (T(mu,nu)/T(max))^2)^(1/2) — if dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, R(min) = 0, and T(max) = +∞ then Einstein’s field equations are recovered. …. Our universe was born 13.82 billion years ago. It would have expanded forever in the dark energy and inflationary mode of Newton and Einstein, but for the fact, noticed by Milgrom, that Newton and Einstein were not quite right. Gravitons, unlike photons, gluons, and all other fundamental particles, can sometimes escape from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse. This process of escape, appearing as dark energy, causes a slight excess of gravitational red shift known as dark matter and a slight excess of flattening in spacetime known as Milgromian inflation. Thus our universe expands, collapses in one Planck time interval and is reborn every 81.6 ± 1.7 billion years."



Author David Brown replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 03:25 GMT
Does deterministic string theory work because the monster group represents bosonic string theory and because the interactions of the monster group with the 6 pariah groups allow the interactions of bosons, leptons, and quarks to be modeled?

Are there 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups?

Can anyone think of a physical meaning for the following?

196883^(8 + 1/(4 * 5) + 1/(32 * 125) + 1/(256 * 3125)) = 4.165875883 * 10^42 (approximately)

(coulomb's constant) * (electron charge)^2 / ((newton's constant) * (electron mass)^2) =

4.166 * 10^42 (approximately)

196883^8 = 2.25769747 * 10^42 (approximately)

Hypothesis:

196833 is related to a Lie group representation of the monster group. The factor 8 arises because the eight 3-tuples (u,u,u), (u,u,d), (u,d,u), (d,u,u), (d,d,d), (d,d,u), (d,u,d), (u,d,d) represent up quarks and down quarks interacting with bosonic string theory.

Google "monstrous moonshine" for more information.




James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 20:19 GMT
David,

Seems to reveal a script of the inscrutable, the unfathomable, the mysterious: The universe: something from nothing; Life from non-life and mindfulness arising from mindless mathematical laws. Not sure about the relevance of Milgromian Cosmology accounting for no dark matter in your mix. Wolframian computing and universal meaning?

Your essay does make one think though. I have some of the same script.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author David Brown replied on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 20:33 GMT
For more information, google "mcgaugh dark matter", "mcgaugh dark matter youtube", "kroupa dark matter", "kroupa dark matter youtube", "wolfram automaton", and "david brown vixra".



James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 18:19 GMT
David,

Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND( could offer a viable explanation. Physicists are found of inventing something new rather than modifying the old -- makes one think of obsolescence. My essay does get into a speculation about DM created by the multitudinous forces of normal matter and motion. I'll have to follow the discussion of MOND more.

Check mine out and see what you think.

Jim

report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 18:00 GMT
Dear Brown,

You have written a fine essay.

As you mentioned Milgromian Cosmology in the title of your essay (though I did not find any discussion about it), I want to say few words about it before we go further into your essay. This Milgromian cosmology uses different types of formulae just to explain Galaxy rotation curves. These formulae cannot be used anywhere else. The main problem they faced is Dark matter was not detected experimentally.

Just for comparison sake let me tell you about Dynamic Universe Model. This uses its SAME set of singularity free equations at Micro particle level, Solar system level, Milky way level or Universe level… No change. This model predicted that there is no Dark matter and came true after 9 years. This model says no Dark energy, no Blackholes, No Bigbang etc… This model’s prediction of existence of blue shifted Galaxies came true after 10 years through HST. There were many results including VLBI, Pioneer anomaly etc. For your information Bigbang based cosmologies use 40 percent of Galaxies in the Universe. Remaining are neglected.

Your discussions on popular science books is very good. The Wolframian Computing did not become popular somehow. It is probably non availability of higher level popular programs ,

You raised the real good question of experimental Consciousness…

Thank you for the nice essay…

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 22:26 GMT
Dear David Brown

I have some observations….

You said in your foundations of Physics section of your essay, “Experimental Physics trumps”

You may probably know…….the MOND or Milgrom Cosmology faces big problem of Dark matter. Dark matter was not found experimentally.

Dynamic Universe Model predicted “No Dark Matter” 10 years back, Now that is came true experimentally

See the papers on…

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/10-feb-20
1-6-all-my-published-papers.html

Best

=snp.gupta

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 09:53 GMT
Dear David Brown,

I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at the essay…...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 08:55 GMT
I predict that Milgrom will win the Nobel Prize within 5 years.

I say that my 3 most important ideas are:

(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology, and MOND will provided the basis for the empirically valid interpretation of string theory.

(2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

(3) Lestone's heuristic string theory is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

Is gravitational energy conserved in terms of the Newtonian approximation? It might or might not be conserved — physicists should study the empirical evidence.

Crick's "What Mad Pursuit" is the best book that I have ever read. On page 107 of that book, Crick wrote, "What makes people really appreciate the connection between two fields is some new and striking result that obviously connects them in a dramatic way." I believe that the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect is just such a striking result. I believe that Milgrom's MOND will connect astrophysics and string theory in a profound way.

Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos suggested that astronomical time might be different from atomic time. I suggest that astronomical time is definitely different from atomic time. I suggest that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Am I merely a crackpot? Am I wrong in suggesting that the Gravity Probe B science team misinterpreted their own experiment? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology?



Author David Brown replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 11:02 GMT
There is a typo in the previous position — "MOND will provided" should be "MOND will provide".

If MOND, were empirically invalid then there is no way whatsoever that Milgrom could have convinced McGaugh and Kroupa.

http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/burn1.html "Why Consider MOND?" by S. McGaugh

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/kroupa_cosmology.htm
l "Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress"



Author David Brown replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 14:07 GMT
One possibility that might prove that I am a crackpot is the existence of MOND-chameleon particles — these hypothetical particles would have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration. Another fatal blow could be the success of a Bekenstein-type theory that could explain MOND but still maintain conservation of gravitational energy in terms of the Newtonian approximation.

I believe that contemporary physicists suffer from the belief that gravitational energy is conserved in terms of the Newtonian approximation. It might or might not be conserved — the empirical evidence determines scientific truth.

Crick's "What Mad Pursuit" is the best book that I have ever read. On page 107 of that book, Crick wrote, "What makes people really appreciate the connection between two fields is some new and striking result that obviously connects them in a dramatic way." I believe that the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect is just such a striking result. I believe that Milgrom's MOND will connect astrophysics and string theory in a profound way.

Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos suggested that astronomical time might be different from atomic time. I suggest that astronomical time is definitely different from atomic time and that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy. Am I merely a crackpot? Am I wrong in suggesting that the Gravity Probe B science team misinterpreted their own experiment? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology?

I conjecture that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and no MOND, while string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no supersymmetry.




Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 14:31 GMT
Sorry about repetition in preceding post.

If dark energy obeys the equivalence principle, then does dark energy have negative inertial mass-energy?

Consider the following 2 conjectures:

(1) Dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy.

(2) Dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy.

Can physicists site empirical evidence that disconfirms the preceding 2 conjectures?

Consider 4 more conjectures (A), (B), (C), and (D):

(A) The equivalence principle fails at the Planck scale if and only if leptons and quarks have structure at the Planck scale.

(B) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies that the equivalence principle fails at the Planck scale.

(C) If the universe expands forever, then string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is false, and, consequently, 't Hooft's deterministic string theory is likely to be false.

(D) If the universe does not expand forever, then a scaling factor involving R should be incorporated into Einstein's field equations.

Should physicists think carefully about the preceding 6 conjectures?




Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 12:49 GMT
Why might the Koide formula be essential for understanding the foundations of physics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

According to the conventional wisdom, dark matter certainly has positive gravitational mass-energy and positive inertial mass-energy and obeys the equivalence principle — presumably because Einstein's field equations are true. However, note that I have suggested 3 corrections to Einstein's field equations: one for MOND, one for the Koide formula, and one for Lestone's heuristic string theory. Consider this idea: mass-energy can be converted into space-time. Write square-root(mass) = Koide-constant * area. What might this mean? Mass-energy of big bang = (Koide-Constant)^2 * (volume of spacetime at time of maximum expansion of the universe) * (81.6 ± 1.7 billion years) *c, where c is the speed of light in vacuo. Can astrophysicists explain the space roar? Does the space roar suggest the validity of the Koide formula (as NOT merely a coincidence)?

Does Milgrom's MOND suggest a modification to Einstein's field equations?

My idea is that dark matter has positive gravitational energy and zero inertial mass energy — this means replace the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein's field equations by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant.

How many astrophysicists have looked at the following?

http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0186 "Where Are the Dark Matter Particles?"

Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology?




Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 14:09 GMT
David

Great essay. Certainly one of the best here. Well set out, written and argued, though it helps that I agree most of your arguments and (though more limited!) conclusions. A few specifics.

1. I like & agree your 4 trumps, (though I suspect we'll find one Trump may be enough!)

2. Thanks for the Crick quote. I'll get the book. I certainly agree in my own essay; All approaches at a higher level are suspect until confirmed at the molecular level indeed I suggest the next step or even two below molecular level.

3. I also than answer YES, that; consciousness reduces to molecular psychology reduces to molecular biology reduces to chemistry reduces to physics if not quite to present doctrines of physics!

I'm not a mathematician, so it's a pleasant surprise to find so much agreement. However from the observational cosmology view I seem to have identified apparently slightly more logically complete options than I understand (maybe only a little) Milgromian cosmology gives. Consistent derivations of dark matter, energy, gravity and cosmic redshift (without needing accelerating expansion) emerge (I've published papers if you're interested).

I'd like to go into that further but best stick to the essays for now. I'd love a mathematicians view or even promise of input into my own logic.

Best of luck in the contest.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author David Brown replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 17:37 GMT
Peter Jackson: Your essay's abstract begins with "Artificial intelligence can already learn..." and ends with "No conclusion is possible as to whether or not a cosmic architect created our own or any universe." I doubt the existence of miracles, immortal souls, and/or supernatural entities — but do we really have convincing evidence that miracles do not occur in the Andromeda Galaxy? Can we really be sure that human consciousness is not merely a simulation in a higher being's computer game? As to AI learning, where might it end?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

F
rom the following list of physicists, I would vote for Steven Weinberg as the best role model for aspiring theoretical physicists.

http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/who_to
days_einstein_exercise_ranking_scientists-75928

— D. Brown



Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 17:05 GMT
David,

I agree we have inadequate evidence for most assumptions we DO make let alone for any others.

I tend to agree with Gates, Hawking (for a change) and Musk that AI is increasingly dangerous to mankind, probably lethal. That's one reason we need to self-evolve our OWN intelligence somewhat. Look how few have even comprehended the classical derivation of QM in my essay and video! (did you?) It doesn't bode well for us.

Nonetheless I feel your score is way too low and I'm applying mine now to correct it somewhat.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 07:43 GMT
I want to elaborate on some of my conjectures. Consider 7 conjectures:

(1) Time exists because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group, i.e., time exists because of the symmetries associated with the embedding of the Sylow 2-subgroup of the monster group.

(2) Space exists because 3^20 divides he order of the monster group, i.e., space exists because of the symmetries associated with the embedding of the Sylow 3-subgroup of the monster group.

(3) There are 3 generations of fermions because 13^3 divides the order of the monster group.

(4) Time and antimatter-time exist because 11^2 divides the order of the monster group, thus allowing Witten's 11-dimenstional model to govern the interactions of bosons, leptons, and quarks; these interactions can be mathematically described by the interactions of the monster group and the 6 pariah groups.

(5) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups.

(6) If G is a finite group, then define Lie-group(G) to be the Lie group associated with the minimal Lie group representation of G. There exists a system of information transfer associated with Lie-group(monster group), and Lie-group(5-Sylow subgroup of the monster group) and the Lie-group (...) associated with the 6 pariah groups and their associated 5-Sylow subgroups.

(7) The reason that 7^6 divides the order of the monster group is that each of the 6 basic quarks has a 3-dimensional linear momentum, a 3-dimensional angular momentum, and quantum spin.

Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Google "witten milgrom" and "kroupa milgrom" for more information.



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 12:47 GMT
Hello,

It is relevant considering the ranking of groups.Have you already thought about the padics numbers and the groups and the morphisms.I beleive that an extension of quaternions could be relevant inj superimposing the vectors, scalrs in converging with the spherical volumes.If the quantum BHs and BHs are correlated with this matter not baryonic implying gravitation with the cold so we have a road to better understand the scales and correlated laws.The works of Clifford or Hopf also could help.I beleive strongly that the spherical volumes are essential.The points are well but we can imrpove the détails with the 3 motions of these spherical volumes.The sortings and synchros appear when we consider also the senses of rotations and angles.The good reccurent method can be found.The aim being to understand better this infinite gravitational potential energy and this kinetic énergies distributed if In can say in a simplistic point of vue.I beleive that the groups can be found,me I am a nursery manI have not the skillings for simulations,but if somebody can try several methods by simulations, it could be very relevant.They turn so they are after all these sphères.Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author David Brown replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 13:22 GMT
Steve Dufourny: "... an extension of quaternions could be relevant ..." It seems plausible that both quaternions and octonions could be relevant — if there are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups ... (not yet well-formulated).

https://books.google.com/books?id=irt7nOFaR
3sC "Quaternionic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Fields" by Stephen L. Adler, 1995

Sepunaru, Daniel. "On Hypercomplex Extensions of Quantum Theory." arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.05853 (2015).

In my previous post there is the typo "... 3^20 divides he order ..."



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 09:19 GMT
Thanks for sharing.It is relevant all this for the fractalisation of our scales.

All the best.

report post as inappropriate


Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 09:10 GMT
I would like to try to explain some of the backstory of my essay. In Tahiti, Paul Gauguin painted his famous masterpiece (oil on canvas) now known as "D'où Venons Nous/Que Sommes Nous/Où Allons Nous" (Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?). Gauguin's 3 questions are indeed important. There might be a kind of fatal paradox in science — to fully answer many scientific questions, superhuman intelligence might be required. Thus, the ongoing progress of science and technology might entail the downfall of the human species — what Ray Kurzweil, a supreme optimist, calls the "Singularity". Is Darwinian evolution brutal, extravagant, wasteful, relentless, and inevitable? Will superhuman beings treat human beings with benevolence and solicitude? What is the fundamental Darwinian trend of consciousness? What is consciousness? Specifically, what might be a mathematical model or computer simulation of visual consciousness in primates? Would a full answer to the preceding question require superhuman intelligence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXGZ3euhq4g History of Neuroscience: Francis Crick, YouTube, 2012

Is the science of human consciousness necessary for understanding who we are? Where are we going? Where is our universe going? Where did the big bang come from? My guess is that the empirically valid answers to the 2 preceding questions require 3 distinct modifications to Einstein's field equations. (Google "einstein's field equations 3 criticisms" for more information on my guesses.




Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 17:00 GMT
"The development of science, from ancient times to the present, has been a series of nearly unbroken steps where one concept after another has moved out of the shadows of doubt and uncertainty and into the light of accepted scientific fact. The atomic hypothesis, whether matter is made up of atoms, is only one of many atomic hypotheses. So far every such question, discrete versus continuous, about...

view entire post





Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 14:01 GMT
Do the predictive successes of Milgrom’s MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) constitute physical evidence that a multiverse exists?

In the standard form of Einstein's field equations, replace the -1/2 by

-1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant.

Replace F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 by F = ((1 – 2 * D-M-C-C)^–1) * G * m1 * m2 / r^2 , where

D-M-C-C = dark-matter-compensation-constant = sqrt((60±10)/4) * 10^–5 (approximately). Let m1 be the mass of a galaxy and let m2 represent the mass of a star in the galaxy.

F = ((1 – 2 * D-M-C-C)^–1) * G * m1 * m2 / r^2 =

m2 * (gravitational-acceleration-of-m2-with-respect-to-m1).

F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 =

m2 * ( (gravitational-acceleration-of-m2-with-respect-to-m1) * (1 – 2 * D-M-C-C) ). If we break up the zones of gravitational-acceleration into sub-zones of approximately constant gravitational-acceleration then we approximately recover the MONDian law of acceleration.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/42133
8/meta McGaugh, Stacy S. "The mass discrepancy-acceleration relation: disk mass and the dark matter distribution." The Astrophysical Journal 609, no. 2 (2004): 652.




Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
Is Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections essential for the development of Milgromian cosmology?

John P. Lestone of Los Alamos National Laboratory wrote,

“Introduction to my idea

Before Hawking’s work (and others) black-holes were believed to be point objects with only mass, spin, and charge. This is why Einstein (1930s) and others have previously considered the...

view entire post





Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 15:00 GMT
I conjecture that paradigm-breaking photons caused by inverse Compton scattering from relativist jets explain the GZK paradox.

http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Greisen–Zatsepin–Ku
zmin_limit

Consider Einstein’s field equations: R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) * g(mu,nu) * R = - κ * T(mu,nu) - Λ * g(mu,nu) — what might be wrong? Consider the possible correction R(mu,nu) + (-1/2) *...

view entire post





Author David Brown wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 20:54 GMT
In my essay for this fqxi contest, I noticed an error in my quotation from Charles Jennings in "Nature Neuroscience" (2000)

" ... it is impressive that so much agreement has been reached on how Where to proceed ..."



Author David Brown replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 21:24 GMT
Replace the error by "... it is impressive that so much agreement has been reached on how to proceed ..."

Also, I have mentioned in comments in this comments section several mathematical structures, i.e., monster group, pariah groups, Leech lattice, and Clebsch diagonal cubic surface, in connection with my speculations on Milgromian cosmology.

If my speculations on Milgromian cosmology are not examples of self-delusion, then my guess is that the hypergeometric series highlighted by Hosono in equation (1.1) of the following publication

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0404043v4.pdf “Central charges, symplectic forms, and hypergeometric series in local mirror symmetric” by Shinobu Hosono, 2005

might also play an essential role in Milgromian cosmology and the foundations of physics.




Author David Brown wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 13:04 GMT
I have conjectured the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. I have 2 main guesses: (1) String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies supersymmetry and no MOND. (2) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies MOND and no supersymmetry. Can string theory...

view entire post





Author David Brown wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 09:23 GMT
Criticisms from some physicists suggest that they misunderstand my analysis of the Koide formula. For me, the point is NOT that the Koide formula predicts some particular range of values for lepton masses — the WHOLE POINT is that square-root(mass) has some kind of profound meaning in terms of physics. Conventional wisdom says that there exists a Planck time and a Planck length. Does there exist...

view entire post





Author David Brown wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 09:36 GMT
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9129 "Can the Laws of Physics be Unified?"

https://www.quora.com/What-was-Lubos-Motls-greatest
-contribution-to-physics

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-h
ope-of-reformulating-String-Theory-without-supersymmetry

http
s://www.quora.com/Does-string-theory-require-supersymmetry-W
hy

It seems to me that I have...

view entire post





Author David Brown wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 06:12 GMT
Is Bell’s theorem true? Joseph Polchinski wrote, “The second superstring revolution began in 1995. Over a period four years, we discovered dualities of quantum field theories, dualities of string theories, duality between quantum field theories and string theories (that is, AdS/CFT), D-branes, Matrix theory, and quantitative understanding of black hole...

view entire post





Author David Brown wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 16:17 GMT
Google "kroupa dark matter" for problems that Kroupa and other astrophysics have identified concerning theories of dark matter particles that obey Newtonian-Einsteinan dynamics. It seems to me that there might be MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon the nearby gravitational acceleration. I have conjectured the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis: The main problem with string theory is that string theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. Is the Milgrom Denial Hypothesis wrong? Can string theory predict both supersymmetry and MOND-chameleon particles? Suppose that there are two Higgs fields: one Higgs field for ordinary matter and another Higgs field (the MOND-chameleon-Higgs field) for the superpartners of the ordinary particles. Does M-theory rule out a MOND-chameleon-Higgs field? The MOND-chameleon-Higgs field might have some bizarre, unknown correlation with Einstein's curvature scalar R allowing some superpartners to act as MOND-chameleon particles.




Author David Brown wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 09:44 GMT
Is it possible that Milgrom’s acceleration law is wrong? No, because Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, and Pawlowski have elaborated too much empirical evidence in its favor. There are only 2 possibilities: (1) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is 100% correct but appears to be significantly wrong for some unknown reason. (2) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational really is slightly wrong. How...

view entire post





Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 23:58 GMT
Hi David,

You do go on and on....Not that this is not an interesting shotgun approach to what is the most interesting stuff. And I like it a lot. Thus my boosting your score. Please allow me to add a pellet to your shotgun blast.

I have a theory that is related to MOND and comes to the conclusion that Newtonian gravity and a modified idea of what constitutes a graviton can explain curved space-time and dark energy-dark matter (and not directly contradict GR). Yah, Yah, me and every crackpot on the planet. But, do check out my website, and the paper "A Quantum Mechanical View of the Precession of Mercury’s Orbit".

e-mail me at don.limuti@gmail.com and I'll forward a copy.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author David Brown replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 10:47 GMT
Consider 2 ideas: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) Any empirically valid explanation of dark matter should derive MOND.

Pavel Kroupa - The vast polar structures around the Milky Way and Andromeda, YouTube, 2013

Consider 5 conjectures: (1) Time exists because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group. (2) Space exists because 3^20 divides the order of the monster group. (3) Witten's 11-dimensional model is essential for understanding the physical reason that 11^2 divides the order of the monster group. (4) There are 6 basic quarks because there are 6 pariah groups. (5) If the Gravity Probe science team is correct about the malfunction of their 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes then David Brown is a crackpot.

Should string theorists consider the following possibility? String theory might consist of 2 different forms of strings: ordinary strings and MOND-chameleon strings. The MOND-chameleon strings might be involved in maintaining the structure of the string landscape and might have superpositions among alternate universes.




Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 03:31 GMT
Hi David,

I enjoyed your essay. I appreciate that you seem to have a great reverence for questions, as opposed to just answers:)

If you're interested in Fredkin and Wolfram's work, please check out my essay, but more importantly, please check out my film "Digital Physics", which is available on iTunes, Amazon Prime, and Vimeo. I'm trying to get the film seen by a wider audience than just friends and family, so any support you can offer is very appreciated:) Thanks!

Jon

report post as inappropriate

Author David Brown replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 12:04 GMT
My guess is that Fredkin is correct in conjecturing that nature contains neither complete infinities nor potential infinities. My guess is that Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science" is one of the greatest books ever written — however, it might not be. My guess is that nature is finite and digital if and only if string theory with the finite nature hypothesis can prove itself superior to string...

view entire post





Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 06:41 GMT
Dear David Brown!

I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic

I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.

The concept of moving space-matter helped me: The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter; Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter; Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz; Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe; To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in essay I risked give «The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural” - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space.

Do not let New Cartesian Physic get away into obscurity! I am waiting your post.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Author David Brown replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 18:04 GMT
Я уверен в одном. Милгром - Кеплер современной космологии.

Модифицированная ньютоновская динамика, ru.wikipedia.org




Author David Brown wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 16:08 GMT
What does dark energy imply for the foundations of physics? I want to make a few more points concerning string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis versus string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I have conjectured that dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy, while dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial...

view entire post





Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 21:22 GMT
David,

It is said that the most important word in poetry is "like". Your essay is the closest thing to a poem I have seen in this contest. This work is a complex network of similes. I hope you do well in the contest and it was interesting and enjoyable reading your work.

Sincerely,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Author David Brown replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 16:02 GMT
Thank you for your interest in my ideas. Your remark "... Those MOND-chameleon particles sound fun and I hope you are correct about them ..." from the thread on your essay is not really a good hope from my viewpoint. My basic theory is an interpretation of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. I say that the 3 main predictions of my theory are: the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect, the...

view entire post




Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 05:19 GMT
David,

Wow, you referenced my response to your thread! Your work is a complex work of art. I like to start simple and not travel far afield. If you think of time as a function of entropy then things get simple. Take the Coriolis force, it is non-conservative, but only exists because one is unknowingly in a rotating reference frame. A point charge in a magnetic field is in such rotating reference frame. Charge is gage invariant, but magnetic field is not, so your magnetic mono-pole would disappear in some reference frames. The spin of an electron, which is related to magnetic fields is invariant. If we look at type I superconductors, they produce a magnetic field due to current flow, yet do not have heat flow due to electrons. If we think of a state that is not changing in entropy as being undefined in time (because time is a function of entropy) then we can have momentum and the magnetic field due to momentum without the particles "moving". A spin state could be the same non-moving, time undefined, angular momentum.

Jeff

report post as inappropriate


Willy K wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 05:01 GMT
Hi David

There were a number of aha moments for me when I read your essay - hierarchy of experimental physics trumping all other fields going all the way down to philosophy, as well as the delightful quotes from distinguished people like Witten, Wolfram and Crick. I must confess I have a real soft spot for quotes since I too have used them extensively in my essay. The reading list was quite a nice touch too. I have rated your essay accordingly.

I would also include in the reading list some titles from the fields of Constitutional Law and Economics. This is because I think the intelligence of systems can be understood from the extrinsic side (Constitutional nation state) as well, if the direct route to it through consciousness should prove too arduous. Admittedly, the concept of consciousness cannot even begin to be compared to the phenomenon of Constitutional Government, but we may be able to make progress on understanding some other aspects of the mind (like intelligence) by approaching it from the extrinsic side. At least, my essay is premised on it.

Looking forward to read some of the titles in your list!

Regards, Willy

report post as inappropriate

Author David Brown replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 13:09 GMT
"... soft spot for quotes ..." Many quotations are valuable guides that point out the good way to follow and/or the bad way to avoid. Consider the following quote from Crick's "What Mad Pursuit":

"Theorists almost always become too fond of their own ideas, often simply by living with them for so long."

"What Mad Pursuit" by Francis Crick, page 141




Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 18:51 GMT
Dear Mr. Brown

About your ideas:

(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology, and MOND will provide the basis for the empirically valid interpretation of string theory.

I think that MOND is better aproach than solution with dark matter. But, Milgrom will be Kepler of the of contemporary cosmology when he find some predictive formulas in Cosmology.

(2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics.

About The Koide formula you can find solution here: viXra:1509.0135 or here: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View
/5605

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate


Author David Brown wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 11:42 GMT
Consider 4 hypotheses: (1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. (2) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (3) Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (4) My “dark-matter-compensation-constant” idea is wrong. If my basic theory is wrong, then how would I guess? Given the empirical...

view entire post





Anonymous wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 01:50 GMT
Dear David

Well, indeed an interesting reading! Your essay is a defy, a program for lifetime research. As they say, putting the correct questions is halfway to the solution; and you are very good on doing it.

There is a question I do not even try to answer: what is consciousness? The feeling of oneself, where does it come from? Of course that I wander about it, I collect information, experiences, data, but what I have now is far from enough to even try an answer. Trying to put it as a consequence of evolution, or of the size of the brain, is irrelevant – or of the size of a program… although indeed sometimes I think that my computers with windows do have consciousness… free will… and a bad temper too…

You say that complex functions are obtainable by simple programs; and I do agree with you! Indeed, it’s because of it that I think that we can understand the universe, because all its apparent complexity has always shown to be the result of processes as simple as possible – and that is my line of research, always to look for the simplest explanations, no matter how unlike they may seem at first. Complex, transcendental explanations and theories are mostly the fruit of our ignorance, although usually a necessary step in the discovery process – so I think.

My essay presents answers; indeed, no other essay in this contest presents so many answers – in this aspect we complement each other: your essay holds the record of questions (good questions, not whatever question) and mine the record of answers (sound answers, not speculative ones). I think that you would like to see it – at least I would like to know your opinion.

I have seen many essays but so far only a few captured my interest and yours is one of them – this does not mean that they are bad, it is just a matter of fields of interests and of style. I am not a judge, but as I have to vote, I vote in accordance with the interest an essay in me arouses.

All the best,

Alfredo

report post as inappropriate

Author David Brown replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 15:10 GMT
From your essay, 'Decoding the "Intelligence" of the Universe' (page 2), "Our knowledge is grounded in deduction; however, the process leading to the solution is usually not deduction." Let us suppose that we are confronted with an array of problems and some hypotheses or suggestions for possible solutions to the array of problems. Specifically, consider problems related to investing money. According to Warren Buffett, "Draw a circle around the businesses you understand and then eliminate those that fail to qualify on the basis of value, good management and limited exposure to hard times. … Buy into a company because you want to own it, not because you want the stock to go up."

Warren Buffett, Wikiquote

Is good decision-making more likely to result from intuition, common-sense, and experience rather than rules, high IQ, and deduction? If you are confronted with an alleged fact, should you always ask yourself, "What do people with ulterior motives have to gain or lose from my belief in this alleged fact?"




Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 01:56 GMT
David, the precedent commentary was made by me, but I was not logged in, sorry

Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira

report post as inappropriate


Author David Brown wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 11:18 GMT
Consider some speculators on pole masses, running masses, the string landscape, and Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections.

Depending on the renormalization scheme, running masses differ from pole masses. I say that my 3 most important ideas are:

(1) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology.

“The failures of the standard model of cosmology require a new...

view entire post





Author David Brown wrote on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 14:27 GMT
According to a 2016 publication by Verlinde, on page 13 “We like to emphasize that we have not derived the theory of modified Newtonian dynamics as proposed by Milgrom.” On page 43, “In order to explain the observed phenomena we did not postulate the existence of a dark matter particle, nor did we modify the gravitational laws in an adhoc way. Instead we have tried to understand their origin...

view entire post





Author David Brown wrote on Apr. 11, 2017 @ 11:00 GMT
Consider 2 questions: Is there a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics? Is there a unified theory of mathematics, theoretical physics, and theoretical computer science?

According to Sheldon Glashow, “String theory has had an impact on modern mathematics. ... But in and of itself, it has failed in its primary goal, which is to incorporate what we already know into a...

view entire post





Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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