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


Previous Contests

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

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Rajiv Singh: on 4/12/17 at 12:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Cristi, Now that rating system and formal evaluation are out of...

Jonathan Dickau: on 4/8/17 at 17:16pm UTC, wrote Thanks greatly Cristi! I was blithely unaware of Calcagni, but not...

Cristinel Stoica: on 4/8/17 at 8:00am UTC, wrote Jonathan, thank you for your comments and the connections you make with the...

Jonathan Dickau: on 4/8/17 at 0:17am UTC, wrote A specific comment.. One feature in the Mandelbrot Set which sets it apart...

Jonathan Dickau: on 4/8/17 at 0:08am UTC, wrote An excellent essay Cristi! There are several points of interest I'll want...

Cristinel Stoica: on 4/7/17 at 23:04pm UTC, wrote Hi Peter, Thank you for the comments. We both agree that we still have to...

Cristinel Stoica: on 4/7/17 at 18:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Torsten, Thank you for coming back and for your kind comments. Good...

Cristinel Stoica: on 4/7/17 at 18:32pm UTC, wrote Thomas, Good to see you again and thank you for the feedback, and for...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

mono joli: "thanks a lot for such a great topic. Scary Maze Games Basketball Legends..." in The Race to Replace the...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Brendan Foster, Of course: “We Are All Connected .” My..." in We Are All Connected

Caroline v: "Thanks for informing us about FQXi-sponsored workshop which aim was to..." in Schrödinger’s Cat...

Caroline v: "thanks" in Schrödinger’s Cat...

Yelena Hopper: "Training is the way toward encouraging learning, or the procurement of..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Yelena Hopper: "This article is such a pleasant and intriguing one, I'm exceptionally happy..." in We Are All Connected

Yelena Hopper: "Pushing the points of confinement of hypothesis and creative energy in..." in Review of “A Big Bang...

George Manner: "This is very interesting thing to know about Comment on hand" in Multiversal Journeys'...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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.


FQXi FORUM
October 16, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: The Tablet of the Metalaw by Cristinel Stoica [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 19:20 GMT
Essay Abstract

Reality presents to us in multiple forms, as a multiple level pyramid. Physics is the foundation, and should be made as solid and complete as possible. Suppose we will find the unified theory of the fundamental physical laws. Then what? Will we be able to deduce the higher levels, or they have their own life, not completely depending on the foundations? At the higher levels arise goals, life, and even consciousness, which seem to be more than mere constructs of the fundamental constituents. Are all these high level structures completely reducible to the basis, or by contrary, they also affect the lower levels? Are mathematics and logic enough to solve these puzzles? Are there questions objective science can't even define rigorously? Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the world made of?

Author Bio

Theoretical physicist. Research interests: foundations of physics, gauge theory, foundations of quantum mechanics, singularities in general relativity. Interested especially in the geometric aspects of the physical laws. ArXiv: http://arxiv.org/a/stoica_o_1 Blog: http://www.unitaryflow.com/

Download Essay PDF File




Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 20:00 GMT
Dear Christi,

welcome back! I have to read your essay, it sounds very interesting. My essay used quantum gravitational methods to get a qualitative model of our brain.

More later

Good to hear from you

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 17:45 GMT
Dear Torsten,

Thank you for the welcome! I am glad to see your essay here, and I look forward to read it!

Best wishes,

Cristi




Stefan Weckbach wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 07:38 GMT
Dear Cristinel Stoica,

the content and the writing style of your essay are very appealing to me. You present the problems in a very understandable language, show pros and cons and come to a conclusion. You take into account many of the relevant fields of investigation and many aspects of reality. And you have a well balanced judgement about different / possible answers to the questions...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 18:37 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Thank you for your annotations, they bring some useful alternatives.

> "Even if mathematics would be the bottom layer of ultimate reality, i doubt that mathematics would be able to explain why this set of mathematical laws should be reserved to correlate with some physical stuff, or stated more precisely, be that physical stuff."

It is true that there is no...

view entire post





Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 19:12 GMT
Dear Christinel,

Your paper is interesting. It reminds me of an idea I had years ago of their being this levels or a hierarchy of being. I also thought is had some basis with the Godel-Turing thesis. I am not quite so concerned with these questions any more. It is not clear to me how something like Tegmarks mathematical universe hypothesis can ever be tested.

I do delve into issues of Godel's theorem in my essay. I used this essay contest as a way of displaying something I had worked on. This does involve spacetime singularities, but as you see the singularity is physically a monodromy more than anything. I remember you were quite concerned about showing that spacetime singularities do not exist as such.

Anyway, good job here. Your paper is better than most. I will score this to raise it out of the doldrums.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 17:47 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for your comment. I look forward to read your essay, I think it contains some stuff that I am interested in.

Best wishes,

Cristi



Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 19:08 GMT
I am pleased that you liked it. I know that you have worked to dethrone spacetime singularities. Of course in my essay they are really physically relevant of monodromies, which have topological consequences. This is in some ways a part of a program I have for understanding how we might renormalize quantum gravity.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 08:52 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for your comment.

You said "I know that you have worked to dethrone spacetime singularities."

Yes, I worked a lot in spacetime singularities in (classical) general relativity, but not to dethrone them. I actually love them and wanted to understand them. They exist (if no quantum or other kind of effect doesn't remove them), but I provided a description of them which is free of infinities, while still making geometrical and physical sense. They are still singular, and I think this may be useful, because they have dimensional reduction effects which may be useful in quantum gravity.

Bet regards,

Cristi




Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 18:12 GMT
Dear Christi;

Good to meet again here and thank you for a very understandable and informing piece of work, I have read it with great pleasure.

You say : "The universe knows how to build atoms", if atoms a constructions of an architect, this why you mention perhaps that "Because of our limitations (compared to the architect), it is possible that some phenomena are not comprehensible to us".

Of course he title architect is aiming at a power outside of ourselves, in my perception I argue that this is not a "power" or "personality" but a timeless and spaceless Hilbert space that I call Total Simultaneity.

I very agree with you that "The tablet of the metalaw includes emergence, metatheorems, the relative interdependence and independence of various levels of reality"

So I hope that you will find some time to read and comment on my "subjective experience" The Purpose of Life. I should be glad if gave it also the rating you think it deserves.(yours deserves for me an 8)

best regards and good luck

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 19:12 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Thank you for your feedback. I didn't have in mind an architect when I wrote that "The universe knows how to build atoms", rather that the universe behaves like doing difficult calculations, which we are unable to do. And if we want to say the universe has a purpose, then the purpose seems to be that of behaving according to its own physical laws. If we want to see this as something like a primitive form of information processing or even thinking, this is also what builds us. Maybe there are no fundamental differences, even if you look at it as physical law or following a goal in a primitive way. I think what you said about the spaceless and timeless Hilbert space captures something very interesting, and I look forward to read your essay.

Best wishes,

Cristi




Member Rick Searle wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 00:50 GMT
Dear Cristinel,

I always look forward to your entries and greatly enjoyed your latest.

I especially liked the section comparing physics to negative theology:

“We can only find out what the laws are not, through the no-go theorems – similar to apophatic theology..”

Please be so kind to check out my own much more literary essay entitled "From Athena to AI" when you get the chance.

Best of luck,

Rick Searle

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 11:05 GMT
Dear Rick,

I am glad to meet you again at this contest, and that you liked my essay. I plan to read your essay as soon as possible, it seems very appealing judging by the title and abstract.

Best wishes,

Cristi




Natesh Ganesh wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 06:22 GMT
Dear Cristinel,

Thanks for a very nice essay. It was enjoyable to read and understand. I was hoping to clarify a few things.

"Science is by definition objective – all definitions and inferences are objective, and the experiments have to be reproducible by anyone who follows the specifications. All easy problems of consciousness fall within the objective nature of science. But the very notion of subjective experience seems to escape any objective definition."

I was curious if you have come across John Searle talking about the fallacy of ambiguity and what you think about it. He contends that it is possible to have an epistemically objective science of something that is ontologically subjective, like conscious experience. Here is a youtube link to a talk he gave at google discussing these ideas in greater detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg&t=1393s

"M
aybe subjective experience emerges from the organization of matter, or as a property of information, like integration. Then, since matter is always structured and always processes information, we arrive at a kind of panpsychism reducible to the structure and information of matter."

Do you think it is possible to avoid this type of panpsychism, if there is good reason that constrains the type of matter organization and external conditions, under which the matter might have a subjective experience.

Looking forward to your thoughts and comments on this.

Cheers

Natesh

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 12:44 GMT
Dear Natesh,

Thank you for the comments, and for the interesting questions.

I didn't come across John Searle talking about the fallacy of ambiguity. I just started watching the video you sent me and I watched so far 30', and I like the idea of having an epistemically objective science of something that is ontologically subjective. It definitely is something to think about, thank yopu for sending me the link. Regarding the question about panpsychism, I think that if there is a way to see what is the level where subjective experience emerges, we may be able to decide it. I am not sure if this would be possible. I will read your essay, I feel there may be some connections.

Best regards,

Cristi



Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear Natesh,

I finished watching John Searles' video. I like it, and there are many points in which I agree with him. I hoped that I can cast my arguments for a subjective science in terms of Searles' epistemically objective science of ontologically subjective things like consciousness, but I think it doesn't improve them. His idea of epistemic/ontological subjective/objective fit well with his view that what is something special about subjective experience is reducible to the biology (idea which I don't think is enough to explain subjective experience).

Best regards,

Cristi




Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 09:37 GMT
Hi Christi ,

Happy also to see you again on FQXI.

I liked also your papper like the papper of Don Limuti.The free will and this determinism.How can we rank the importance of informations.How to consider this determinism and antideterminism and the encodings.It is about the reductionism also and the roads towards our singumlarities after all.Hilbert indeed was very relevant and Nother also.The works of Mr Van Leunen are interesting also.The AI could appear with determinism.

Good luck in this contest

Best from Belgium

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 12:51 GMT
Hi Steve,

I'm glad to see you too again. Thanks for the comments and the recommended lectures. Hilbert and Noether rock! Have fun at this contest!

Best regards,

Cristi




Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear Cristi,

Very profound essay and ideas that show the real direction of the output from the crisis of understanding in the fundamental science.

This is strong: «The Tablet of the Metalaw»!

I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I am glad you liked the essay. I am looking forward to read your essay, which I think is interesting judging by the title and the provocative abstract.

Best wishes,

Cristi




James Arnold wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 18:49 GMT
Hello Cristi

Your essay reveals an open and inquisitive mind, which is most enjoyable to read.

To the question about “nothing” I don’t think you go far enough. Any sort of universe is a "something." Vacuum fluctuations, the string landscape, etc., are all something. Nothing = no universe. No universe = no mathematics.

I believe you were on track when considering how profound subjectivity is than with “we are just substructures of ... a mathematical structure.”

You may be interested in my essay "Quantum spontaneity and the development of consciousness" where I try to validate our subjective experience without reducing it to matter or mathematics, or vice versa.

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 19:47 GMT
Hi James,

I appreciate your comments.

> Any sort of universe is a "something." Vacuum fluctuations, the string landscape, etc., are all something.

This is exactly what I said.

> Nothing = no universe. No universe = no mathematics.

I take it that you refer to mathematics as a tool discovered/invented by humans. To see what I understand by mathematical structure, you can read my previous essay, and then read again my argument about something rather than nothing, and see if your syllogism still holds. In that essay I explained in more detail the logic behind the omnipresence of mathematical structures. This also answers the part related to mathematics from your other two comments. Of course, even then, you don't have to agree with me.

> where I try to validate our subjective experience without reducing it to matter or mathematics, or vice versa

To me, matter is nothing like classical physics matter, mathematical structures are nothing like a set of axioms and proof that fit in a human brain, and I don't think I try to reduce subjective experience to these or vice-versa. I compare different possible positions, including that there is only one stuff which is all three at the same time. I am satisfied without knowing the answers to unanswerable questions and without reducing things that we don't understand to other things that we also don't understand :)

Best regards,

Cristi




Robin Berjon wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 21:32 GMT
Hi Cristi,

I very much enjoyed your essay, and I have a couple of questions.

The first is that you mention free will as being possibly "compatible with the determinism of the Schrödinger equation". This is an issue that I wish I had touched on more than the short paragraph it got in my essay, so I can't resist expanding a little bit here. Simply: I wonder if looking at free will in...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 10:33 GMT
Hi Robin,

Thank you for the comments and the very interesting questions.

As you know, there is a position that tries to reconcile free-will with determinism, called compatibilism, which perhaps is just what you refer to by "it would not be more fruitful to define it in terms of the specific nature of the determinism that is involved". The position that I mentioned in the essay is...

view entire post





Gavin William Rowland wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 03:28 GMT
Dear Christi

I found your essay very thought provoking. I like your open-mindedness, posing more questions than you provide answers to: "I am satisfied without knowing the answers to unanswerable questions and without reducing things that we don't understand to other things that we also don't understand." I also appreciate your point that mathematics as a tool may leave us short of a unified explanation of reality: "The lowest level of the pyramid of physics seems to be imperfectly rooted in the ground of mathematics" - and your use of the Hawking quote along similar lines.

The view, a la Tegmark, that mathematics can describe all would seem to lead us astray from the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing. I say this because I think that the question is better posed as "why do we have THIS universe rather than nothing", and this universe has a set of laws which seem to be finely tuned to complexity. As the Hawking quote points out, why the universe would be inclined to create complexity is likely a question beyond maths. In my essay "From nothingness to value ethics" I try to explain why this tendency should be a fundamental consequence of existence from nothing - to create not only a when and a where, but also a WHAT. I would be interested in your opinion of this.

Best regards

Gavin

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 11:19 GMT
Dear Gavin,

Thank you for reading my essay and providing interesting comments and questions.

I agree with you that "why do we have THIS universe rather than nothing" is indeed a better question. But maybe if we break it into smaller questions, we increase or chances to advance. The smaller questions may be (1) "why do we have THIS universe rather than something else" and (2) "why do we have something rather than nothing". Then, what I did was to break (2) into (2') "what can't not exist?" and (2'') "what else do we need for what can't not exist to make up a world?". I think that the answer to (2') is "mathematical structures". MUH states that the answer to (2'') is "this is enough", but not everyone is satisfied. Also, Tegmark can be understood as proposing to reformulate (1) as (1') "why is this particular mathematical structure our universe rather than any other structure", and to addressing it by anthropic reasoning. I think the latter part is subject to some critical remarks based on computational equivalence which I described in And the math will set you free.

You made me curious about your essay "From nothingness to value ethics", and I am looking forward to read it.

Best regards,

Cristi




James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 06:02 GMT
Christinel,

The tablet of the law is the theory of everything, something you suggest is fundamentally simple, but your tablet of metalaw sounds like metalegal principles applying to all intelligent creatures of the universe, relating to Kant's Categorical Imperative based on natural law theory. Critics say it depends on subjective or relative concepts of good and bad. Does that relate to your tablet of metalaw?

My essay surveys the zoom-dependent nature of the universe and entropy as an independent law of nature, citing the Jeremy England flavor. I find the issue we are exploring somewhat difficult to scrutinize.

Enjoyed exploring your ideas and views.

Regards,

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 13:05 GMT
Hi James,

Thank you for the comments. Yes, the table of the law contains the fundamental laws. In the essay I try to not use the words "theory of everything" about this, since it would be about the fundamental laws only. It is not evident at all that the higher level of organizations can be reduced to the fundamental laws, and I gave several reasons about this. Of course the table of the law underlies them, but there are limits of computability, logical completeness (by finite length proof) etc. In addition, the higher level may do stuff that is not visible in the low level ones, and may even constrain them (as I argue it happens in quantum mechanics). The table of the metalaw include no-go theorems, emergent laws that are independent on the fundamental ones, like entropy for instance, etc. I did not discuss ethics, but I think it should be connected to the metalaw too. I agree, these are all difficult, some problems may be impossible to even define.

Best regards,

Cristi



James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 18:04 GMT
Christinel,

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" A good question.



Is so-called empty space the cusp of reality, alternatively something then nothing?

How do you make this physics foundation solid ? of the pyramid?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 19:35 GMT
Hi James,

> Is so-called empty space the cusp of reality, alternatively something then nothing?

No, I didn't say this.

> How do you make this physics foundation solid ? of the pyramid?

I am not sure what you mean. If you refer to the universe as a mathematical structure, maybe consistency is enough. I am not sure what is "solid", since there is no such thing in reality. Solid objects only appear to be so. Or "solid" as a thing that can't be destroyed? What can destroy a mathematical structure? Or perhaps I am missing what you mean.

Best regards,

Cristi




Vladimir Rodin wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 12:45 GMT
Dear Cristinel Stoica,

I highly appreciate and completely support thoughts and the approach, stated in your essay. It’s magnificent and very topical material. I hope that you will find concrete attempts of transition to the following level of physical laws in my work.

Best Regards,

Vladimir A. Rodin

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 13:17 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rodin,

Thank you for the comments, and I am interested to see your attempts of transition to the following level of physical laws.

Best regards,

Cristi




William L Stubbs wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 18:30 GMT
Cristi Stoica,

You wrote a very interesting essay that touches on a number of thought provoking points and questions. However, I do not see where you addressed the supposed theme of the essay, ‘How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?’ Can you summarize in a few sentences or a couple of paragraphs how your essay addresses this theme?

There are several ideas discussed that certainly seem to relate to the theme, but I do not see where you pulled them all together to respond to the question posed by the theme. Now, that does not mean that you did not do this, it may just be beyond me. But, I felt that I pretty much understood most of what you discussed, and, in the end, just did not come away with a good feel for your position on the matter.

Obviously, based on the posts and ratings, others are more in tuned with your approach, which further points to my probable lacking. You can tell from my essay that I approached the theme in a more rudimentary way. I attempted to lay out how the evolution from subatomic particles, that are at the will of physics, to a living cell, that has a will of its own, might have occurred. Still, I want to know your point; so please bear with me. Thanks.

Best regards,

Bill Stubbs.

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 19:34 GMT
Dear Bill,

Thanks for reading my essay and for the comments and questions.

You said "I do not see where you addressed the supposed theme of the essay, ‘How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?’ Can you summarize in a few sentences or a couple of paragraphs how your essay addresses this theme?".

To answer this, please allow me to point you to section 8 for goals, 9,11 for consciousness, to section 12 for a conclusion, and to sections 1-7,10 for the mindless mathematical laws, on which I build the other sections, and which contain elements that I used there. I gave more attention to principles than to specific models of goals and agents for the following reasons: (1) agents with goals are pretty much understood in older results that I mention in section 8. By contrast, (2) I think that consciousness is very little understood, and I personally am not satisfied with the current models, and also I don't have a better one. I think this is due to the lack of understanding of fundamental principles, which I divide into "laws" and "metalaws". I think for the theme of the contest metalaws are most relevant, but at the same time, since fundamental science works by reductionism, I had to show the relations between laws and metalaws, and the strengths and limits of reductionism. To the perspective I intended to present with respect to the theme, I think this was the best approach. There is a long way to answer properly these questions, and without knowing what physical laws allow us to do, I think that there is little hope to answer them.

You said you "did not come away with a good feel for your position on the matter", which means that I don't rush to conclusions, which I consider would be premature.

You said "based on the posts and ratings, others are more in tuned with your approach, which further points to my probable lacking". I think that the comments I receive are self-explanatory of what others saw in my essay, good or bad, and the ones that gave very small ratings probably didn't comment, so perhaps it's impossible to learn from their feedback.

Best regards,

Cristi




Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 04:41 GMT
Here is a short story I wrote, Quantum God.

Cristi



Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 06:10 GMT
P.S. If you read it and want to comment, please avoid spoilers!




Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 19:35 GMT
Dear Cristinel Stoica

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 09:20 GMT
Hi Cristi,

I send you my congrats not only for this new, intriguing Essay, but also for your recent remarkable results in general relativity, particle physics and quantum mechanics.

Concerning your Essay, you wrote "Suppose we will find the unified theory of the fundamental physical laws. Then what?". This is a fundamental question. Your statement that "if the wave-function is real rather than mere probability, causality as we know it has to be reconsidered" is intriguing and opens various doors. Finally you wrote: "A bottom-up approach may never lead to the understanding of the higher levels, and a top-down approach is not enough." This shows how small we are with respect to the gigantic Nature.

Your Essay is a remarkable contribution which deserves the highest score that I am going to give you. Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 11:57 GMT
Hi Christian,

Thank you for your kind comments, I am very honored. I hope this essay contest will catalyse the rigorous research of the connections between the fundamental laws and the emergent systems. While I too dedicate most of my time to researching the fundamental law, in this essay I wanted to emphasize the necessity to also consider the metalaws. I wish you good luck with the contest!

Cheers,

Cristi



Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear Cristinel Stoica,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 17:16 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

I could not agree more with the quote from Einstein, and with your remarks on simplicity. I am a modest seeker of simplicity myself, and I hope that the laws of the universe fit on a small tablet. Maybe some are more blessed with the ability to see the simplicity without simplifying too much, and others are more involved or sometimes lost in complexity. As a realist, you definitely know that the same simple unique reality includes all kinds. I added your essay to my planned readings. Good luck with the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi




Stefan Keppeler wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 23:15 GMT
Dear Cristi,

that was interesting to read. I have some praise and some criticism -- and maybe a funny final observation! But let's begin from the start. I like the early sections of your essay, in particular |5> Floating levels of the pyramid -- I fervently support your conclusions in that section.

I also agree with what you say about quantum field theory in |6>, but I fear we wouldn't easily reach consensus on several things you say about quantum mechanics in |6> and |7> (e.g. the non-locality implied by the violation of Bell's inequalities isn't at variance with causality and there are interpretations of quantum mechanics which avoid the problems caused by the collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation).

You lose me somewhat in |8> and |9>. In sections |10> and |11> you develop some special version of Platonism, with which one may or may not want to agree.

Interestingly, however, I essentially agree again with your section |12>. Given that there were a couple of points in between, which I'd challenge, this might be surprising. Looking once more at it, I think you could have almost jumped straight from |5> to |12>! I'd be curious about your views on my essay, which, I think, partially parallels those parts of your essay leading me to similar conclusions.

Cheers, Stefan

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 06:28 GMT
Dear Stefan,

I very much appreciate your comments, including your criticism. My comments about Bell's and especially KS theorems vs. (what we used to know as) causality refers only to realistic interpretations. In particular, in KS, a realistic state has to know in advance the measurement. I don't see this as a problem, since I advocate a realistic interpretation based only on the Schrodinger equation, without collapse. But I proved here that if the measurement takes place without collapse, the initial conditions have to be special. And KS shows that whatever variables you add, hidden or not, this can't be avoided. I think that in all directions we go, we have to give up what causality used to be (past elements of reality influencing/determining future elements of reality but not vice-versa). "In sections |10> and |11> you develop some special version of Platonism, with which one may or may not want to agree." I completely agree to disagree with parts of what I wrote, in particular with these ones. I used the opportunity of this essay contest to include along with things on which science agrees also discussions of some speculative proposals, and even to propose some. I hoped I made it clear enough whenever I wrote about such things that they are possibilities rather than established truths on which we can objectively agree, possibilities which I found interesting and definitory for some underlying philosophies of nature. Thanks for the careful analysis and insightful comments, and even if we don't agree on of my entire essay, I find your remarks very useful. I am looking forward to read your essay!

Cheers,

Cristi




Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 01:22 GMT
Hi Christinel,

“If sentience is either reducible or related to physical structure and information, then one should expect it to be present in primitive forms at each level of reality, since structure and information are also present there.“ C. Stoica, 2017

Sentience can be related to physical structure and information without being present in the lower levels constituents. It...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 08:23 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I enjoyed very much reading your comments, and I am happy to see in them your keen eye for identifying the most critical parts of an argument. And if I was reading only the fragments you quoted I would most likely agree with you. In them I tried to summarize things I wrote earlier in the essay, in which in turn I tried to summarize some of my thoughts about this. You rightfully say that there are things that emerge at higher level which are not visible in lower levels (and the first half of my essay is just about this). So I think the meaning of what I mean is neither reducible nor included in the parts you quoted, it is just summarized, and perhaps I could summarize them better. If I didn't succeed, is my complete fault, I should not try to fit to much into a short essay. I plan to write what I meant in a more detailed form, in which to consider your counterarguments and others that I have myself. Maybe the conclusion I will reach will be different from this and other possibilities I mentioned in the essay. Nevertheless, it would be helpful to appeal to your keen eye after I'll finish it, so if you will still be interested I will send it to you (and also if you are not sure already it's a dead end). Thanks for your comments, and good luck with the essay, which I am looking forward to read!

Best wishes,

Cristi



Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 08:55 GMT
Dear Georgina,

The main thing I had in mind when writing that part of the essay was to attempt to strip consciousness from what are "easy problems", to see what ultimately remains, if remains anything. I tried to explain briefly both possibilities: it remains nothing, or what remains is some primitive, bare, essence of subjective experience and goals. In the former possibility, only the form, the patterns to use your example, are relevant for this level. In the latter possibility, it should be something irreducible that remains. And I asked what would be the level where these appear, in both options, and I think the level is much lower than we expect in both cases. I try not to be committed to any of the possibilities, since I think that objective science can only describe functionality, the "as if", while our subjective experience seems to tell us that there is something irreducible beyond the "as if". For this reason I suggested to use a sort of subjective science. If there is a chance that subjective science can add something on top of the objective science, something irreducible, I can't prove objectively, and I not only stated that it is impossible to prove, but perhaps impossible to even formulate the question in an objectively rigorous way. I will see where this will lead me, but I think it is essential in both cases to strip to the bare bones as much as possible the definitions and questions about consciousness, and to go as deep as possible.

Best wishes,

Cristi



Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 09:49 GMT
Hi Christinel,

I appreciate your replies and explanation of the thinking behind your writing. I understand, from my own experience, how hard it is to say precisely what one wants within a strict character count. My comments were meant as constructive criticism of just those specific parts. I'd be happy to read more of your writing. Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate


Miles Mutka wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 13:44 GMT
Hello Cristi,

Thank you for this coherently written and informative essay.

I was wondering on your choice of the pyramid shape for the

different levels of modeling. Is it just an intuition that the

lower strata must be bigger in order to be more "foundational",

or is there some other point to the pyramid shape that I missed?

Miles Mutka

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 13:56 GMT
Hello Miles,

Thank you for the comments and the good question! I was oscillating between a pyramid and a tower, and perhaps the better choice is a tower. A pyramid has to end somewhere (maybe a final "purpose"?), but a tower can go on forever, so maybe this is better. However, it came handier to me to make it pyramid, and didn't give much thought of what may this convey, maybe I chose it like this because it is more stable. Good question!

Best regards,

Cristi




Rajiv K Singh wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear Ms Stoica,

"The highest levels appear from the lowest level by ignoring details, resulting in a coarse graining of the state space." You identify it is as a process of abstraction. In a long time, I find a person that agrees on this. Thank you. Yet, its potential is far greater.

You take this example to defend the emergence of indeterministic statistical laws from deterministic...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 16:01 GMT
Dear Rajiv,

I like very much your detailed and well thought observations. I see that the agreement between our views is far from being total, and I am glad for this.

> You take this example to defend the emergence of indeterministic statistical laws from deterministic processes at the most fundamental level.

This is kind of the standard way to derive statistical mechanics, and works whether or not is determinism at the lowest level (possibility which I allowed, see |2>). In addition, there is a way to have both deterministic evolution and free choice, by delayed initial conditions (which appears in the QM interpretation I prefer, see this and this).

> indeterminism may arise only if at the fundamental level also many to one, and one to many mapping occur in the state space

This is interesting. I am curious how can it be done. The closest thing to this I can imagine is in the links I gave above.

I liked your remarks about information, especially being relational, semantic, and not having to be discrete. Relation is what matters, and relation also means mathematical structure, so I think there is much agreement between what (I think) you say and my previous essay.

I only replied to a part of your comments, but thank you for all of them, and I'm looking forward to read your essay.

Best regards,

Cristi



Rajiv K Singh replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 17:45 GMT
Cristi, Hi !

While following your pointers I learned just now that I made a mistake in addressing you in my comment to your essay. It certainly shows that I did not know about you, and did not try to find out who you were. I am sorry about my ignorance ! Ah! but I am also a bit disappointed, as I was appreciating such 'sharp' reasoning from some one else !

Life isn't always fair !

Rajiv

P.S. Be fair, and let me know if others also make this mistake often?

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 18:33 GMT
Hi Rajiv,

Don't worry, it is not the first time this happened to me, I was even told once that this confusion brought me a job offer :)

Best regards,

Cristi




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 18:50 GMT
Nice essay Prof Stoica,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent some quotes below….

1. This optimism is fueled by the foundation of the entire physics on a few laws we know, of general relativity and gravity, quantum theory, and the Standard Model of particles, which indeed fit on a tablet. This makes us hope that the solutions of puzzles like dark matter, dark energy, and quantum...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 20:33 GMT
Dear Prof SNP Gupta,

Thank you for the comments and the information about your essay, which I am looking forward to read.

Best wishes,

Cristi (no Professor)




adel sadeq wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 21:35 GMT
Dear Christinel,

I read your papers and I like your style of writing in a clear and concise manner. I don't know why I have not commented on your paper in the last contest. Generally I have given up on FQXI as being the right platform for discussing my idea(actually a theory:)) although I did manage to get some people like Gibbs and Torsten to comment. However, probably you and maybe Crowell(who always seem to be busy!) will be my only hope for some comment on my idea. I hope you browse my last year essay, it is short and the results are easy to check. This year( it is short because of last minute and not feeling well) I show that my simulations are very very close to a potential of the Helmann type , which is a combination of coulomb's potential and Yukawa's but with a different interpretation. Also from the same system that generates all the quantum mechanical results I generate Newton's gravity law(just check it out if you don't believe it)

last year essay

this year essay

Note for gravity only P2 should be considered

gravity

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 11:21 GMT
Dear Adel,

Thank you for the comments, and for suggesting me to read your essay. I intend to read it before the end of the contest, but perhaps you will want more detailed comments. Right now I have to prepare for a travel and make lots of slides, so maybe my answer will not come very soon, but please feel free to remind me. Good luck!

Best regards,

Cristi



adel sadeq replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 11:35 GMT
OK, Thanks, and good luck on your presentation.

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 23:45 GMT
Dear Cristinel,

I found your essay to be well written and easy to read, but I was unconvinced by what seems to be the main point of the essay:

We arrive at the conclusion that the only necessary existence is mathematical existence. Physical universes don't exist with necessity, so it is legitimate to ask why they exist. But mathematical structures exist with necessity, in mathematical sense, and they are a priori truths.

The question “why is there something rather than nothing?” can be answered by: “because there are structures that can't not exist - mathematical structures”.

Seemingly you are saying that every possible mathematical structure must exist. In fact, it is not necessary that every possible mathematical structure must exist: such an idea is completely overblown and excessive! What is necessary is that the universe has the ability to generate its “mathematical structures” (e.g. law-of-nature rules).

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 01:01 GMT
P.S.

The Aeon essay “Parallel worlds” by Andrew Crumey, a novelist with a PhD in physics, discusses the writings of German literary critic and philosopher Walter Benjamin. Benjamin asserts that the idea that reality is configured so that every possible outcome exists is dehumanising, a damning reflection on the society that produces such an idea, and that such dehumanisation led to the rise of fascism:

For Benjamin, however, the multiverse is not an intellectual parlour game, but a damning reflection of the society that produces it.

In a proposed introduction to The Arcades Project, Benjamin compares Blanqui’s multiverse to Baudelaire’s poem ‘Les sept vieillards’ (‘The Seven Old Men’, 1857), which takes a succession of identical old men and imagines them as a single man multiplied in some ‘infamous plot’. This, says Benjamin, is an image of modernity itself. An eventual consequence of such dehumanisation was the rise of fascism.


[ https://aeon.co/essays/can-the-multiverse-explain-the-course
-of-history ].

Reality is not “an intellectual parlour game”. Shouldn’t physicists (and others) think a bit harder about what it is they are saying?

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 13:36 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, more or less related to my essay. Just to clarify: the conclusion you quote from my essay is derived from what I wrote earlier, "let’s try to see what constituents of the universe could very well not exist". If that would be the main conclusion of the essay, then you should expect to find it in the concluding section, but it is not there. In fact, in the concluding section I wrote "At the top of the pyramid are life and consciousness, and they should be the center of science too". I advocated more for placing humanity at the core of science here.

Re. your P.S., I think dehumanization is the tendency to reduce others and their words to carefully chosen caricatures. These days so many attempt to prove their righteousness by simply calling the views different from their own nazist, communist, or fascist. Is there a unique right way which everyone, and even the universe, should adopt? If some physicist found reasons to think that quantum mechanics implies many-worlds, or sum-over-histories, or that inflation leads to multiverse, should we reject them because we think this is dehumanizing, rather than on the ground of reason? Should a vast 13.7 billion years old universe comply to what some decades old locals think it is morally right? Some considered classical physics, by its determinism, dehumanizing by the apparent lack of free-will, while others like Sam Harris think that the belief in free-will itself is dehumanizing, by making us hate others (like "they can behave well, but they don't want to, so they deserve my hate"). Evolution is still considered by many dehumanizing, as it is science itself. The duty of scientists is to listen to the story the universe has to tell us, and avoid their own philosophical or religious biases. But at the same time, as I said, people have to be at the center of the entire scientific activity.

Best wishes,

Cristi



Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 01:25 GMT
Dear Cristi,

If mathematical structures exist anyway, and if the universe is isomorphic to a mathematical structure (Stoica, 2015b, 2016d), do we need something more to explain why there is something rather than nothing? This leads us straight to Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis (Tegmark, 2008, 1998, 2014), which posits that physical existence equals mathematical existence - in other words, logical possibility equals reality. Accordingly, we are just substructures of such a mathematical structure, we observe the structure as it appears to us, and ask questions like the one in the title17. One can object to the identification of physical existence with mathematical existence by claiming that the latter is imaginary. But I think this is a different kind of imaginary, since it is consistent.

Re the above-mentioned hypothesis that the universe is isomorphic to a mathematical structure which you say “leads us straight to Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis”:

You claim that “people have to be at the center of the entire scientific activity”. But how could people be at the centre of the entire scientific activity if we live in a multiverse where just as many universes exist where people are not the centre of the entire scientific activity? Tegmark’s multiverse implies that every good work that I personally do is countered by a universe in which I do just as many bad works: this view of reality IS dehumanising. Physicists’ views of reality influence people’s attitudes towards reality: ideas spread quickly and far and wide. How can physicists disclaim responsibility for the effects that their views have on people’s attitudes towards reality, and on people’s attitudes towards themselves and their good works?

Regards,

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 13:26 GMT
Dear Cristinel,

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high praise.

I share your dream

«Many physicists share the dream that sooner or later we will know the fundamental physical laws, the equations describing them, and that they will be unified in a single theory which fits on a t-shirt, or perhaps on a stone tablet – the tablet of the law.»

In my opinion, the task is how to gradually abandon the use of abstract concepts and ideal (supernatural) properties of matter and fields.

Because you are right «most scientists seem to agree that materialism won».

Since you «Interested especially in the geometric aspects of the physical laws»

consider: «The alternative seems to be to give up the very hope of having a realistic description, and admit as real only the probabilities.»

«Why does the world appears classical to our direct experience, rather than being populated by Schr ̈odinger cats? The classical level seems to defeat the quantum level.»


Therefore, perhaps my essay will complement your understanding of the determinism and causes of quantum and physical processes that begin with the geometric fractal structure of matter.

Can my ideas serve as an intermediate and connecting link between Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and quantum mechanics?

I have no illusions, but I will not hide, I would like to receive an answer - why it is not, as I believe, more likely by mail and perhaps not now.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 04:02 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I appreciate your comments, as well as your connections you make between my essay and yours, which from what you wrote seems interesting, especially by proposing a connection between Einstein's general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Best regards,

Criti




David Pinyana wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 10:47 GMT
Another interesting article that deals with the different spatial scales and emerging concepts.

It is clear that these concepts are the future and now the first steps (from a conceptual form) are being presented and should be adequately demonstrated and verified,

Please read my article that deals with these concepts but focuses on Cosmology. THE SCALE LANDSCAPES OF THE UNIVERSE ( http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2925 ),

Congratulations !

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 03:42 GMT
Hi David,

Thank you for the comments and for suggesting your essay. Congratulations and good luck in the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi




Klee Irwin wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 19:02 GMT
Cristi,

Your essay is fantastic. Good Luck in the contest!

Warm Regards,

Klee

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 19:31 GMT
Hi Klee,

Thanks, I enjoyed yours too! Good luck in the contest!

Best wishes,

Cristi




peter cameron wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 18:57 GMT
Cristi,

Happy to see the Standard Model Algebra paper on your author page. Would like to understand more, see how to connect it with the work Michaele Suisse and I have been doing on the same subject Suisse FQXi essay

Best regards,

Pete

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 09:33 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for the comments. Indeed, Clifford algebras seem to be present everywhere in physics.

Best regards,

Cristi




Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 00:11 GMT
Dear Cristinel,

I appreciate your essay, which manages to be wide-ranging, coherent, and intelligible, all at the same time. One question that occurs to me concerns the relationship between the scale of values and the structure of reality as a multilevel pyramid. In section 12 you seem to indicate that life and consciousness are more important and more valuable than entities and processes at lower levels. Do life and consciousness have this distinction because they are at the top of the pyramid, and the pyramidal structure itself inherently requires that items at each level be more important and more valuable than items at lower levels? Or does this steady increase of importance and value with rise in levels not obtain? Then, in that case there would be some other reason why the items at the apex are of the highest importance.

Thanks for a thought-provoking essay. Best wishes.

Laurence Hitterdale

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 10:09 GMT
Dear Laurence,

I appreciate your comments, and the very good question:

"In section 12 you seem to indicate that life and consciousness are more important and more valuable than entities and processes at lower levels. Do life and consciousness have this distinction because they are at the top of the pyramid, and the pyramidal structure itself inherently requires that items at each level be more important and more valuable than items at lower levels? Or does this steady increase of importance and value with rise in levels not obtain? Then, in that case there would be some other reason why the items at the apex are of the highest importance."

The fundamental low-level laws seem not to be concerned about life and consciousness. But also the notions of value and importance themselves are apparently not present at the fundamental level, they seem to appear at the top level. So the worst case scenario is that only consciousness considers itself to be important. Value and importance are somehow self-referential. So at least from this point of view they are most important. Let's just say that at least to consciousness itself, life and consciousness are most important.

Best regards,

Cristi



Laurence Hitterdale replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 17:37 GMT
Dear Cristi

“Value and importance are somehow self-referential. So at least from this point of view they are most important. Let's just say that at least to consciousness itself, life and consciousness are most important.”

That is logical, and I understand it. Thanks for clarifying.

Best wishes.

Laurence Hitterdale

report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 02:02 GMT
Hi Cristinel,

Powerful essay! Inspiring to be in another contest with you.

Checkout my essay for something a little fluffier.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 06:17 GMT
Hi Don,

Thank you, and I'm happy to meet you again! I look forward to read your essay!

Best regards,

Cristi




Jochen Szangolies wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear Christinel,

thank you for an interesting essay. I like your depiction of the pyramid of higher levels of description, one emerging from the other, yet to a certain extent being independent---in such a way that one can have a meaningful chemistry, or biology, or even sociology, without needing to fix the fundamental level completely.

Also, I got a little excited at your mentioning von Neumann's universal replicators, which play a prominent role in my own essay, which tries to attack the problem of meaning and goal-directedness in the somewhat less 'universal' context of a toy model.

I'm not really on board with the whole 'mathematical universe'-idea, however; to me, it seems like a textbook example of mistaking the map for the territory. In terms of more popular philosophical terminology, I think Tegmark's idea is essentially a variant of ontic structural realism, and as such, has to deal with the famed Newman objection that any given structure really doesn't contain more information than simply the cardinality of the set it supervenes on; but that seems too little information to build a world from.

Nevertheless, I wish you good luck in the contest!

Cheers,

Jochen

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 01:49 GMT
Dear Jochen,

I'm glad to see you at this contest, and thank you for the comments. Interesting objection to Tegmark's MUH. Well, I see it as a matter of personal taste, but I think that it is not as simple to object. In my previous essay I took more space to explain why I think the universe is mathematical, which here I didn't want to do again. I would say that what we think so far is the mathematical description of the universe is indeed a map, as you said.

Best regards,

Cristi




Yehuda Atai wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 19:29 GMT
Hi Cristinel,

I liked your essay and it seems that you are puzzling the topic-subject from the proper and right questions.

You state: "Maybe subjective experience emerges from the organization of matter, or as a property of information, like integration. Then, since matter is always structured and always processes information, we arrive at a kind of panpsychism reducible to the structure and information of matter."

I see the phenomena in space the same way. It is all subjective information even in the experience of two existents relating to each other, whether it's a sub particle or a waive.

All phenomena are: unique, in unity, in plurality (though there are Hevert and Vaidman that think that there is multiple worlds and as such can be a single movement alone in its lonely universe) and have an End as a self-organization phenomenon from a grain of sand to galaxis.

Causality principle is working within our physical laws as a special case in the occurrence of phenomena.(see my essay :"we are together, therefore I am)

Maybe (reality is possible and Not pre determine), your mathematical approach could find the sub-strata of the natural language of movements that I call for.

I thank you again,

Yehuda Atai

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 18:34 GMT
Hi Yehuda,

Thank you for your remarks. I see we have some common points, but also some differences, which is great. Causality is a very deep topic that still surprises us. Good luck with the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi




Avtar Singh wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 15:12 GMT
Dear Cristi Stoica:

I enjoyed reading your paper and agree completely with your statement – “There is a fundamental level of reality, but there are also higher levels, each with its own life, and not so rooted in the lower levels and reducible to them as one may want to think. At the top of the pyramid are life and consciousness, and they should be the center of science too. ….. No...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 17:04 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh,

Thank you for the comments, which are very interesting. I think science indeed is very cautious, and as we slowly clarify the picture of the universe using at least for the moment matter building blocks without life, we may still get to realize what parts of the puzzle may be missing, and add them when we will be forced. At least I hope that we will not stop inquiring. For instance, although in this essay I allowed myself to speculate more than usually, in general I try to use as much as possible what we know for sure, and hope that at the end it will be clear what properties and things we need to add. The rule would be: use reductionism as much as possible, and when stuck, introduce new entities. One should never say that something reduces to something, like consciousness reduces to matter, if one can't prove it. One can say that one expects or hopes to reduce it, but until proven, one should not treat the problem as solved. Thanks again for your comments.

Best regards,

Cristi




Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 11:34 GMT
Dear Cristinel Stoica

When I started reading your essay, my first though was: “another essay that goes around around and does not get anywhere”. Well, I couldn’t stop reading! Indeed, it does not give a pragmatic contribution to the theme of the contest – in this aspect, it is totally different of mine – but it gives a lot of important contributions for those that are committed to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 17:11 GMT
Dear Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira,

Thank you for your comments, you made some interesting observations. In particular I like the idea of starting from the question "if I was God, how would I make this universe?", which may lead to many interesting results and is a good personal/philosophical question. I like that you are attracted to solving problems that other seem to consider unsolvable, I think I try to do the same. For instance, finding a finite description of general relativistic singularities, or a non-collapse description of quantum mechanics, or a compact unification of the standard model without predicting new particles or forces. I wish you good luck in the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi




Member Marc Séguin wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 01:55 GMT
Dear Cristi,

Good to see you again in this contest. Very interesting essay, as always! In section 4, I liked the way you explained the disconnect between different levels of description with the analogy of the floating levels of the pyramid, to get the point across that “mindless” mathematical laws and “goals and intention” need not be incompatible, since they live at different...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Marc,

Thank you very much for the comments and for pointing out the things you liked at my essay. I enjoyed very much your previous essay, which won a well-deserved prize, and I look forward to read your last essay. It is on my todo list and I hope to get to it soon, especially now, when you gave me a taste of it by your comments. Especially the co-emergence hypothesis makes me want to learn more. Thank you very much for the wishes, and I hope your essay will do at least as good as last time!

Best wishes,

Cristi




Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 10:55 GMT
Hello Cristinel nice to see you back here and to read your comprehensive essay on the contest question. From a possible set of laws that describe all physics to human consciousness and beyond.

One of the things you mention is Cellular Automata and indeed the pyramid illustration seems to indicate the possibility of a physics such as Wolfram dreamed of. It you think about it a CA is local, causal, linear and has no time dimension - it hardly allows the emergence of the pillars of modern physics such as general relativity of quantum mechanics. Recently however Gerard 't Hooft has shown that CA can lead to QM. I was happy about that because my own Beautiful Universe Model is one type of CA. But proposing a fundamental model is not enough, To give it room to be developed existing theories have to be vetted and stripped of their unnatural premises and incompatible modii operandi. I tried to do that in my fqxi essay. I will be honored if you have a look.

Best wishes,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 00:23 GMT
Hello Vladimir,

Thank you for your comments and I'm happy to see you back here too. You are right, CA's are very rich structures, despite the simplicity of their rules, some of them are after all Turing complete. So 't Hooft is right that this may describe quantum behavior. I look forward to read your essay.

Best regards,

Cristi




David Pinyana wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 04:53 GMT
Cristinel,

You say:

"Many physicists share the dream that sooner or later we will know the fundamental physical laws, the equations describing them, and that they will be unified in a single theory which fits on a t-shirt, or perhaps on a stone tablet – the tablet of the law.

I know this dream is just a matter of belief. There is no reason to be true – why would the universe be fundamentally simple, completely describable by a finite set of laws? "

I say in my essay:

"ToEs are just theories that try to cover a wider range of dimensional scales of the Whole Universe spectrum. But each time this spectrum is enlarged, new laws and concepts will emerge (new Landscapes).

If we discover new scale spectra (landscapes), there also will appear (emerge) new concepts and physical laws (unexpected and difficult to predict), and we will require the development of new models and patterns to understand these new physical landscapes/spectra.

May we believe that there will be some basic and elementary objects (and laws), since which there will be nothing smaller? Only if this were so, then we could think on getting a TOE based on these elementary and basic objects and laws."

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 22:32 GMT
David,

> "ToEs are just theories that try to cover a wider range of dimensional scales of the Whole Universe spectrum. But each time this spectrum is enlarged, new laws and concepts will emerge (new Landscapes)."

I agree that most likely we will never have a definite reason to believe that a theory is final, and this can be seen in my essay soon after the first page from which you quoted.

> May we believe that there will be some basic and elementary objects (and laws), since which there will be nothing smaller? Only if this were so, then we could think on getting a TOE based on these elementary and basic objects and laws."

Not necessarily. Positive integers are made of a smallest unit, yet the completeness of their theory can't be proven. Euclidean geometry doesn't have a smallest unit, but can you find in it new laws or objects?




Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 16:46 GMT
Dear Cristi,

I must say I’m baffled that you can be so daring and so level-headed at the same time. Also, your writing style is serves you very well. For example, “Zoom-dependent reality… On the same canvas there are multiple paintings, each of them visible at different scales." Altogether this is excellent work, though you deal with so many interesting topics that I sometimes...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 22:59 GMT
Dear Conrad,

Thank you for your comments.

> Any mathematical structure, and in particular any useful equation in physics, can represent an infinite number of particular cases, only some of which are physically instantiated in any particular part of spacetime. Even if we assume the universe is infinite and contains all possible cases somewhere, a mathematical structure can be “isomorphic” to it only in a very partial and limited sense, that abstracts from every local viewpoint. [...] Yet isn’t the existence of distinct instances at particular times and places a basic feature of the physical world? What do our equations refer to, if not to the dynamic relationships between these instances?

The statement "the universe is isomorphic to a mathematical structure" doesn't mean that it is to all solutions of an equation. Each initial condition gives a different solution, and maybe only one of them is a universe (ours), or maybe each of them is a different universe.

> In my current essay I’ve tried to show how quantum measurement can be treated as a form of natural selection ...

Maybe you will like quantum darwinism.

> My sense is that we conflate “having a particular point of view on the world” – which is something we can reasonably ascribe to atoms, or anything else that’s localized in space and time – with the kind of reflective self-awareness we humans have.

Indeed, I think this conflation is common but unsupported yet.

Best regards,

Cristi




adel sadeq wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 21:05 GMT
Hi Cristinel,

Thank you for your comment on my thread. The gravity in my system seems to have a flavor of Verlinde's via a paper by Joakim Munkhammar which I think it is an interesting read in itself

Is Holographic Entropy and Gravity the result of

Quantum Mechanics?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.1262.pdf

Thanks again

report post as inappropriate


Robert Groess wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 03:39 GMT
Dear Cristinel Stoica,

Thank you very much for your lucid and fulfilling essay. There are many perspectives you describe that have helped me enjoy a different viewpoint on sometimes established subjects, such as for example your section on thermodynamics. So to keep it brief, I have two comments to share with you - not too sure how useful they may turn out to be. Firstly your diagram representing "Multiple levels of a dynamical system." reminds me of the topology of Voronoi Tessellation. This is interestingly brought up in a book by A. P. Fairall on the large scale structure of the universe. It just strikes me as curious that what you describe and what we see on the largest scales, may share some conceptual architectures. Which brings me to my second comment, and that is I enjoyed how you tie everything in to "tablet of the metalaw", which is in its entirety accommodated by the universe as we know it.

Thank you again for a great read, and I have in the meantime also rated your essay.

Regards,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 23:14 GMT
Dear Robert,

Thank you for your comments. Yes, I think the coarse grain partition looks similar to a Voronoi diagram. Indeed, the interior sets of any Voronoi tessellation define a relation of equivalence, and I think that for any relation of equivalence one can define a distance and select some representatives which make it into a Voronoi diagram. Interesting connection.

Best regards,

Cristi




George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 03:31 GMT
Dear Cristinel

You have presented your next attractive essay. I no need tell you that it is amazing - provocative as per many people already saying this in their comments. On this I can tell only that your work deserves to highest rate that I'm going to do right now.

Let me just tell you one point only; you dare to put clearly formulated natural questions "What is the world made of?" for example. Meantime many high-advanced scientists just look on such questions as "immodest" and just inappropriate for "serious" scientists! I see this as a big tragedy in the natural science and I think now that you can be with me. I will simply ask you to open my work and go to end (to look on Refs too) because I am very hopeful you can find there some useful things.

I wish you future success!

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 23:18 GMT
Dear George,

Thank you very much for the comments. You said

> "you dare to put clearly formulated natural questions "What is the world made of?" for example. Meantime many high-advanced scientists just look on such questions as "immodest" and just inappropriate for "serious" scientists!"

You are right. In fact, I also try to avoid such questions in physics papers. But I like the FQXi platform because encourages such questions, and this is the right place for me to discuss them. If I would be able to suggest a clearly scientific answer to such questions, no doubt I would discuss them in scientific papers too. Thank you for pointing me to your essay, and I wish you success!

Best regards,

Cristi



George Kirakosyan replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 05:53 GMT
Dear Cristi (on your post in my page)

Many thanks for your attention and kindly words.

You are right - I have some alternative approach and own explanations to many of basic problems hoping somebody can show interest to this.

Many thanks again and good wishes to you!

report post as inappropriate


Gavin William Rowland wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 08:47 GMT
Hi Christi

Did you get a chance to look at my essay From Nothingness to Value Ethics[link/]? Near the bottom of my chat I am also talking about some current controversies in cosmology. I would be interested in your thoughts on my essay and/or these cosmological issues, if you think they are within your scope as a theoretical physicist.

Best wishes

Gavin

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 23:28 GMT
Hi Gavin,

Not yet, but thanks for pointing your essay to me.

Best regards,

Cristi




Graham Walker Cookson wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 14:54 GMT
Dr. Cristi Stoica

Great essay and I voted accordingly.

Your key points of interest to me are:

1) Science of the subjective vs science of the objective

2) If sentience is irreducible then it must (still) be associated with structure and matter.

3) The question “why is there something rather than nothing?" can be answered by:

Because there are structures that can't not exist.” {mathematical structures}

4) (Hawking, 1988) Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

5) Additionally, one may feel that physics and mathematics are not enough to build consciousness. But almost all features of consciousness are conceivably reducible to information processing of one sort or another. If something resists, this is subjective experience.

In the absence of an absolute ground to rely on, I think what we really know is that we are, and that there are mathematical truths.

6) The tablet of the metalaw includes emergence, metatheorems, the relative interdependence and independence of various levels of reality. It takes into account both the bottom-up and the top-down constraints. It may even include a subjective science of the subjective experience.

All that is missing is a philosophical structure tying your ideas together. I would be interested in your reaction to my proposed structure…Binary Reflective Field Theory. It is suggested in my essay, Our Emergent Universe. Again, thank you for your essay, Graham

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 23:34 GMT
Dear Graham,

Thank you for your comments, pointing out the key points of interest to you, and a philosophical structure you propose which you think may help tying them together.

Best regards,

Cristi




Anonymous wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 00:38 GMT
Christi Stoica,

This was an enjoyable, thought-provoking article, just as the few others of yours I have read over the years have been. (Do you remember me from the collection of essays on time?)

I was glad that I could find at least a few points to disagree with which prompted this response. Please take these remarks for whatever you might extract from them.

|7> What is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 15:00 GMT
Jim,

Thank you for your comments, I will not comment them, except to say that they are brilliant. You said "I was glad that I could find at least a few points to disagree with which prompted this response.", but I don't disagree with most of your comments, perhaps maybe that my definition of sentient is different from the one you used, hence the conclusions.

Best regards,

Cristi




Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 08:09 GMT
Dear Cristinel Stoica

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 inform all the participants that use the online translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this 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. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same in your theme

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris,

> "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 don't think space(-time) and matter are independent, actually I think they are faces of the same thing. My guess is that a geometric structure, and geometry seems so far to be the best description of relativity and particles.

Best regards,

Cristi



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 07:04 GMT
Dear Cristinel Stoica,

My rating dropped. If you did not take part in it, you can raise the prestige of the New Cartesian Physic and continue our communication.

In philosophy I was looking for an answer to the question: "What is the matter?" The answer I not found. Instead, there was the assertion that matter exists in time and space that exist separately from it. This statement I criticized. Matter does not exist, and creates time and space. Identity of space and matter lay in the basis of the New Cartesian Physic, which explained the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of which force on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck''s constant to the speed of light.

This and other achievements make me turn to you to help me to develop it further

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 21:23 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris,

I have a list of essays which I read, and yours I didn't read yet, hence didn't rate it yet. When and if I will do it, it will be according to my own evaluation, and not in order to raise or lower your ratings. About your statement you criticized, I don't think I said this about physics. It may be true about some theories, which are only approximations. Trust me, I know what I think and what I don't think about physics :) Good luck!

Best regards,

Cristi




Janko Kokosar wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 11:28 GMT
Dear Cristi

There are nicely presented problems on the way to physically explain consciousness. It seems that you are not sure, what is the answer. For instance Dawkins is almost sure, what the answers are. :)

As a detail:

You wrote about down-top causation, how details of quantum physics are un-important in classical physics. But if we assume that quantum consciousness exists this is something from quantum level, what remain in classical level. There are still some physical experiments, like interference, which show quantum physics on macro level.

But in my old essay I wrote one sentence and now you and Ellis write a similar sentence:

Kokosar: Let us assume that there is a woman Desiree who is never awake and only dreams. As a consequence, her ego would be weaker. Thus, this is one hint that differentiation and integration are important only because of memorizing of qualia.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1832

Stoica: If one would dream his entire life, and the dream would be consistent, then wouldn’t that person experience imaginary as real?

More in my essay and in other my links.

Best regards, Janko Kokošar

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 17:19 GMT
Dear Janko,

Thanks for the comments, and for the links between our essays, the differences and the parallels, in particular about the role of consciousness in quantum, and the difference between the dream state and the awake state. Good luck in the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi




Michael Alexeevich Popov wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 12:54 GMT
Dear Cristi,

There is remarkable correspondence between my " Kantian answers " essay and your neo - Kantian passages when you suggest that:

1." Only necessary existence is mathematical existence"

2." Physical Universe don't exist with necessity "

3." Merely mathematical structures exist with necessity " ( because mathematical structures are Kant's synthetic a priori judgments based on necessity - correspondingly they cannot be analytical judgments ! )

4." They are a priori truths " ( it is correct, because they are synthetic a priori judgments ).

Hence, my transcendental Kantian answer for your conjecture :

Suppose we will find the Unified theory of the fundamental physical laws. Then what? My answer - we will find neo - Kantian transcendental physics as a realization of Kant's dream of so called " Pure Metaphysics ".

Some additional definitions could be found in my Kantian answers.

Thank you.

Respectfully

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 17:21 GMT
Dear Michael,

Interesting the connections with Kant's synthetic a priori judgments based on necessity. I like in principle your answer 'Suppose we will find the Unified theory of the fundamental physical laws. Then what? My answer - we will find neo - Kantian transcendental physics as a realization of Kant's dream of so called " Pure Metaphysics ".'

Best wishes,

Cristi




Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 04:07 GMT
Dear Cristi,

The structure of this essay is wonderful with brackets from quantum mechanics used for section numbers. The essay is clearly written with a sense of style. You artfully fold in the major bullet points of the contest and end with musings about the nature and existence of the universe.

I have seen a few of these essays with the idea of a multi-level system with one level being the microstates needed for the next level up. The largest jump in levels is between the quantum level and the thermodynamic level. If we think of entropy being the “arrow in time” than we need to be in the thermodynamic realm to experience the evolution of time (with time being undefined at the quantum level). We cannot see entropy in the ground state of a single atom. Bacteria exist near the border of the thermodynamic realm and more importantly they exist because they are near that border.

Intelligence is a simple, common, but important process that is misunderstood. Intelligence is not a better or more rapid calculation, but a different type of process with advantages and disadvantages.

Sincerely,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 17:23 GMT
Dear Jeff,

Thank you for the very interesting comments. Indeed, I agree with "The largest jump in levels is between the quantum level and the thermodynamic level. If we think of entropy being the “arrow in time” than we need to be in the thermodynamic realm to experience the evolution of time (with time being undefined at the quantum level). We cannot see entropy in the ground state of a single atom. Bacteria exist near the border of the thermodynamic realm and more importantly they exist because they are near that border.". Also, I agree with you about intelligence as not being "a better or more rapid calculation, but a different type of process with advantages and disadvantages."

Best regards,

Cristi



Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 16:20 GMT
Cristi,

I would like you to read my essay and give an honest review. My essay is a quick read, but it is doing poorly in the ranking and it would be helpful for me to understand why.

Thank you,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 03:54 GMT
Cristinel,

At the risk of mixing icons, I have an image of you walking up to the top of the pyramid, being struck by lightning, and then walking down the pyramid looking like Moses with a beard and carrying a tablet:-)

BTW, the use of bra-ket notation for subheading markers was a nice touch.

In |7> you mention placing constraints upon the system. This is a theme that appears in several of the essays with the same basic

I also see quite a bit of thematic similarity with your previous essay.

All in all, a very good effort.

Best regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 21:29 GMT
Gary,

Thank you for the kind comments. I shaved recently, I hope someday to visit the pyramids, and I will not carry coins to avoid lightning :) And I sometimes carry with me a tablet on which I have papers to read about the law and the metalaw, but nothing complete yet :) Thanks again, and good luck with your essay!

Cristi




Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 19:14 GMT
Cristi,

You are always thoughtful, provocative and fun to read.

I'm coming back to this later, leaving you now with my highest mark. I haven't been very engaged with this round of essays, but I always look forward to yours.

I agree that dynamics takes many forms-- my essay here

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 18:32 GMT
Thomas,

Good to see you again and thank you for the feedback, and for mentioning your essay to me.

Best regards,

Cristi




Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 19:41 GMT
Dear Cristi,

now as promised, some reamrks to your essay (including an upvoting with highest mark).

There is a lo to agree with (reminds on a letter of Pauli to Heisenberg: always boring agreement).

But there is at least one point of disagree: the indeterminism for large systems in statistical physics is not a kind of coarse graining in state space. Even my essay showed that for large system or strong interaction some qualitative change happens. In the case of brain networks you will get a transition from a graph to a tree (having a direction).

I suppose it also for other systems (and you don't need infinite limits...)

But it is only a small point

All the best and good luck for the contest

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 18:51 GMT
Dear Torsten,

Thank you for coming back and for your kind comments. Good to see that we have agreements but also apparently a disagreement :).

You said "the indeterminism for large systems in statistical physics is not a kind of coarse graining in state space.". Here is how I see it: I think what matters for coarse graining are the states. Two dynamical systems may live in the same state space, yet one of them be deterministic and the other indeterministic, so the coarse graining can be the same. They will evolve differently, of course. But any configuration can be reached by a deterministic evolution of one system or an indeterministic one of the second system. So I am not sure how something can emerge only in one and not the other, since it will still be one of the possible states. We can even approximate one with the other, considering nonlinear unstable deterministic evolution which depends on small state differences within the same region of the coarse graining, so the two will be indistinguishable from the higher level where only the coarse graining is perceived and not the low level details. As an example, the deterministic classical mechanics has a coarse graining which allows us to describe thermodynamics. When we realized it is quantum and this seems indeterministic, nothing was lost or gained in our understanding of thermodynamics as arising from classical statistical mechanics. Moreover, the same quantum mechanics admits both indeterministic and deterministic low-level descriptions/interpretations, and most representants of both sides agree that we can't distinguish them.

Best wishes and success in the contest,

Cristi




Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 20:19 GMT
Hi Christi,

I've just read your excellent review and analysis a 2nd time. I'd hoped you'd have read my essay before commenting to help understanding. But time is now short.

First I do like your pyramid architecture. I also invoke a layered structure, universally, as the quantum modal logic I discussed last year and also in the cortex deriving aims as higher level decisions served by feedback loops and a consequential cascade of lower level ones. Though that does need far more memory 'channel' capacity than we seem to have decoded.

However I'd like to discuss more your; "During a quantum measurement, if the observed quantum system is in a superposition of states distinguishable by the apparatus, Schrodinger's equation predicts a superposition of states of the apparatus, one for each of the possible states of the observed system. Because we never see such superpositions, physicists postulated that during the measurement a wavefunction collapse occurs. The wavefunction collapse has some serious problems, in particular it leads to violations of the conservation laws "

...which I find a very good analysis, a classical solution to which is what I build up to, so I do hope you'll look as critically as possible and comment as it seems as geometrically self apparent as your pyramid. May new discoveries in this area lead to a metalaw?

If you haven't read mine yet and wish to; don't try to speed-read it! All the value is in the dense fine structure and in building the ontology. Many thanks and very well done for yours yet again, so here we are close neighbours again!

Very best of luck in the judging

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 23:04 GMT
Hi Peter,

Thank you for the comments. We both agree that we still have to learn from what the quantum world is trying to tell us, maybe, as you said, new metalaws. I wish you good luck in the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi




Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 08:26 GMT
Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 00:08 GMT
An excellent essay Cristi!

There are several points of interest I'll want to return to when there is time, after the rush to read and rate the remaining essays. But I found myself several times wanting to point out analogies with the Mandelbrot Set, or even how it is a good candidate for the meta-law you seek. My GR21 presentation and Gravity Research Foundation essay both focus on what the Mandelbrot Set can tell us about Gravity. M mimics DGP gravity in a unique way, where (-0.75, 0i) is the 5-d black hole --> white hole in 4-d spacetime suggested by Pourhasan, Afshordi, and Mann.

Still a work in progress and more to tell, but the Mandelbrot Set and its formula would fit nicely on a T-Shirt! I think you'd enjoy my essay, if you have time. Your essay is a gem and deserves to be in the finals. I'll return and talk further about what I like when I can.

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 00:17 GMT
A specific comment..

One feature in the Mandelbrot Set which sets it apart is maximal asymmetry. It maps one to one with the logistic map, such that each bifurcation is a place where the boundary folds back on itself. But it contains many exact symmetries, at the branching Misiurewicz points. However; the figure and the bounding space of each symmetric structure is asymmetrical. So what we see is perfect local symmetries against a background of global asymmetry. I think this notion has much value to Physics.

More later,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Cristinel Stoica replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 08:00 GMT
Jonathan, thank you for your comments and the connections you make with the Mandelbrot set. In particular the connections with gravity, which you maybe already know that is used in some fractal spacetime approaches that aim to get a reduction of dimension as going to short length scales in order to make quantum gravity renormalizable (see e.g. Calcagni's work). (actually I've got the same dimensional reduction in the context of my approach to singularities, which perhaps suggests a fractality of the metric but not of the topology.) Of course, the relation with the Mandelbrot set and other fractal or self-similar object extends more than this.

Best regards,

Cristi



Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 17:16 GMT
Thanks greatly Cristi!

I was blithely unaware of Calcagni, but not anymore. Your linked paper looks like an intriguing approach to dimensional reduction. I'm glad I checked back! That's the great thing about this forum, where connections will pop out for somebody else, that even an esteemed author might never suspect exist. I guess I should compare notes further, after some time to digest.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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