Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

james akerlund: on 4/10/17 at 2:48am UTC, wrote Hi Jim. Yee of little imagination. I quote part of your last sentence in...

James Stanfield: on 4/7/17 at 23:49pm UTC, wrote Stefan Weckback, I greatly enjoyed your well-written article. You make so...

James Stanfield: on 4/7/17 at 23:33pm UTC, wrote George Gantz, Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay, and I...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/7/17 at 5:03am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...

James Stanfield: on 4/7/17 at 0:02am UTC, wrote James Akerlund, Thank you so much for leaving a comment on my essay...

George Gantz: on 4/5/17 at 12:42pm UTC, wrote Jim - I enjoyed your far ranging and discursive essay, but I have a few...

Jonathan Dickau: on 4/5/17 at 2:24am UTC, wrote Thank you for your lovely comment.. I am touched by your comments on my...

Jonathan Dickau: on 3/28/17 at 20:49pm UTC, wrote For what it's worth.. I admire your being able to encapsulate so nicely...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Thomas Ray: "Peter, Bravo!" in Manipulating the Quantum...

Joe Fisher: "Dearn Steve, There am no such a thing as a humanly contrived abstract..." in Watching the Observers

Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for this answer,It is well said. I consider in my model, the theory..." in Manipulating the Quantum...

Steve Agnew: "Please understand that an infinite anything is unknowable and unmeasurable..." in Watching the Observers

kurt stocklmeir: "spring constant of time and space is not linear - this influences a lot of..." in Alternative Models of...

Kevin Adams: "Very interesting theme! Thanks a lot for this information. I just going to..." in Multiversal Journeys —...

Lorraine Ford: "Dear Rajiv, I have already addressed your 3 points, but I will put it to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

munized ward: "Variety exists inside all populaces of life forms. This happens somewhat in..." in Natural Selection in...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

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

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


FQXi FORUM
June 25, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: The Reasonable Effectiveness of Math Gets Us From Non-being to Consciousness by James Gordon Stanfield [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author James Gordon Stanfield wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:35 GMT
Essay Abstract

The effectiveness of math is reasonable only to the extent that the assumption that math is taken to be a discovery is reasonable. Starting with the metaphysical assumption that the Abstract Realm of Mathematics (ARM) ‘predates’ the beginning of the physical universe, this leads to a logical progression from abstract logical supervenience and emergence through physical supervenience and emergence. Starting from the premise that space and time are as discrete as mass and energy, it would naturally follow that these building blocks of nature would follow the mathematical logic of all that is countable. The universe did not spring from nothing. It had an infinite number of steps to develop its potential configurations. Teleological bias enters as the conjugate attribute of existential threat experienced by any critically self-organized complex adaptive system with skin in the game.

Author Bio

Jim Stanfield: Associate Engineer - Mechanical Designer - Retired from SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Formerly Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Download Essay PDF File




Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 20:20 GMT
Very interesting James,

I like what you are saying very much. You went off the rails a couple of times, but I would be disingenuous not to give you a high rating, as you make some of the same points I make in my own essay. I also talk about the abstract realm of Math as pre-existing wrt the physical universe and its laws. As it turns out; I mention the idea that unifying matter and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 21:07 GMT
Sorry Jim,

It looks like immediately after I boosted your score, someone came by and gave you a zinger. The worst part is; they probably never even read your essay.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author James Gordon Stanfield replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 23:56 GMT
Jonathan,

Thank you so much for your constructively critical review and apologize for the length of time it took me to get back to you. I was also unaware of the "zinger" technique of discrediting essays and now fear that my resultant low score will discourage readership. Thank you for pointing that out. Otherwise I would have been even more discouraged by it.

You make...

view entire post




Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:40 GMT
Thanks for your thoughtful reply Jim..

You have some cool ideas, and maybe there are more links to mainstream authors than you imagine. I have seen folks make presentations at conferences, citing only their prior work, later to be told they duplicated something once explored by Dirac or Bohr, then it's off to the races again - with a new twist.

On the one hand, it gives you a sense that your work is more credible, to discover prior work in that vein, and on the other hand it gives you an incentive to distinguish what you are doing from older work. Sometimes; Physics people have developed a new formalism, only to find it was already discovered by the Math dept. folks. I think part of the reason Einstein's Relativity theory has the flavor it does is that Tensors had become popular, as a tool, during the time he was working on it.

So keep working, but be aware of how some of what you are working on could have already been done by someone somewhere before.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 03:59 GMT
Dear Jim Stanfield,

interesting essay, although with some leaps of faith in it in my opinion. I like your description of the rubber sheet, which shows that spacetime, if continous, must be very twisted at the lower scales because all that has mass contributes to its shape.

I am not entirely sure whether you take mathematics as a platonic realm or as something that was created (surely...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 15:28 GMT
I now begin to rate the essays i read so far. Since yours is - in my opinion - underrated, i will give it a more realistic rating, compared to the other contributions. Although i think that my critizism holds, i should give you something like a 6. I do not compensate the zinger you received, if Jonathan is right with his comment above, because this would confuse the whole ranking system and obscure the comparison to other essays. So with a 6 you should arrive at something like 4.3 according to 4 votings. Anyways, your attempt is sensible, but i think not sufficient to prove some teleological bias.

report post as inappropriate

Author James Gordon Stanfield replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 23:49 GMT
Stefan Weckback,

I greatly enjoyed your well-written article. You make so many solid points for arguments in favor of free will. I will happily fold them into my own advocacy of its existence. Right from the beginning of your essay you see the problem of the objectification of science. Reductionistic science concentrates solely on the object of study without regard for the necessity of...

view entire post





james r. akerlund wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 00:56 GMT
Hi Jim,

I read your interesting submission and if I had excepted its premise (math predates universe) I would give it high marks. But I don't except its premise because I was working on the very same idea years ago and I found out where the idea fails. If you disagree on my conclusion, please tell me where I went wrong.

The stumbling block for me concerning the idea that math...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author James Gordon Stanfield replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 00:02 GMT
James Akerlund,

Thank you so much for leaving a comment on my essay thread. It brought to light a distinction between mathematics and information I had not fully communicated. I take them as separate entities. Certainly the number of abstract objects and their relationships are extensive and indeed infinite. However I consider information as something physical; contained within the...

view entire post




james r. akerlund replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 02:48 GMT
Hi Jim.

Yee of little imagination. I quote part of your last sentence in your reply. "it would be hard to give an example anywhere in nature were set theory does not apply."

I suggest you look up in the sky and try applying set theory to the clouds. Good luck in counting them. If you can do this, I would very much like to read the math paper that results in your research.

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear James Gordon Stanfield,

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


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 06:01 GMT
Nice essay Stanfield,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent like…

The effectiveness of math is reasonable only to the extent that the assumption that math is taken to be a discovery is reasonable. Starting with the metaphysical assumption that the Abstract Realm of Mathematics (ARM) ‘predates’ the beginning of the physical universe

You are considering expanding...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 02:24 GMT
Thank you for your lovely comment..

I am touched by your comments on my essay page, Jim. I appreciate the understanding of what it is I am trying to say on a root level. There is a more extensive reply on my page which I have appended below.

Warm Regards, JJD

Thank you very much Jim!

As I recall; I am preaching to the choir for you, because your essay strongly...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


George Gantz wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 12:42 GMT
Jim -

I enjoyed your far ranging and discursive essay, but I have a few questions for you. The first is in regards to your term "teleological bias". Are you saying that sentient beings are biased to see aims and goals wherever they look, even if there are none? Or are you saying that the sentient being is able to see and understand aims and goals - and to act on their own aims and goals?

Second, you make the statement "Now we jump from particles to living things. The science between these two ranges of phenomena is well explored territory." I'd love to hear a little more explanation about how you see this jump working. It seems to me that man of the essays are struggling with this jump. A few (myself included) do not see this jump as discontinuous, but as part of the same dynamic process. For example, galaxies form spirals - just as living things (e.g. the head of the sunflower) form spirals.

May your essay continue to rise in the scoring - George Gantz (The How and The Why of Emergence and Intention)

report post as inappropriate

Author James Gordon Stanfield replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 23:33 GMT
George Gantz,

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay, and I would particularly like to thank you for the question about teleological bias (T-bias). This is a term that I am not altogether satisfied with. First off, the word teleological carries a certain amount of religious or spiritual baggage I wish to avoid. In its most basic definition, I intend it to convey the subjective...

view entire post





Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 05:03 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


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.