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

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 3/27/17 at 13:43pm UTC, wrote Willy, Thank you for reading my essay. I am looking forward to reading...

Willy K: on 3/27/17 at 10:29am UTC, wrote Hi Jeff I found your idea of mistakes being mandatory for something to be...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 3/24/17 at 1:27am UTC, wrote Peter, Thank you for the great review. I just want people to read my essay...

Peter Jackson: on 3/23/17 at 15:26pm UTC, wrote Jeff, Lovely essay, with much sense, I do like your direct readable...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 3/23/17 at 4:01am UTC, wrote Jim, I did read your essay, I remembered when I saw the title. Your essay...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 3/22/17 at 22:43pm UTC, wrote Jim, Thank you for reading my essay. I am looking forward to reading your...

James Hoover: on 3/22/17 at 21:25pm UTC, wrote Jeff, Life is an intelligent system and is one of the most efficient...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 3/17/17 at 20:52pm UTC, wrote =snp. gupta (I do not know how you wished to be addressed), Thank you for...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Eckard Blumschein: "Gary Simpson, While PHALLUS is an abreviantion, a phallus is a Willy, a..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

jay grey: "Thanks for the link, I believe it will be very useful for personal..." in Santa Barbara Gravity...

Lorraine Ford: "Good one Gary! Regards, Lorraine" in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Joe Fisher: "Attempting to account for complex finite invisible particles will not help..." in Bohemian Reality:...

jany watson: "At we have a long list of similar http://www.essayhelperuk.co.uk/law-essay..." in Koalas, Quantum Mechanics...

James Putnam: ""The math time = 1/nu defines time ... " Nu is cycles/second. 1/nu is..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Agnew: "Your work has shown how normal physics like S&Z mass, length, and time have..." in Alternative Models of...

kab: "The word is enternal magic. Hope all secret never has answer will be out..." in Does Quantum Weirdness...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
March 28, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Watching the Construction of a New Wing by Jeffrey Michael Schmitz [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 4.6; Public = 1.0


Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 22:45 GMT
Essay Abstract

Intelligent creates ideas that did not exist before and finds order in chaos. Using metamathematics and thermodynamics this essay takes you through the steps to show that bases of life and intelligent systems are one and the same.

Author Bio

Jeffrey Schmitz has his Masters in Physics from the University of Tennessee. He has taught Astronomy, Physics and Physical Science as an adjunct instructor at eight different colleges in and around Chicago.

Download Essay PDF File




John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 04:33 GMT
Your 1st example. All he had to do was consider the tides as being Sun caused. Great strides in science follow slight changes of perspective as to what observations are part of the problem.

That, I maintain, is what i needed in this contest.

Hodge

report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 19:19 GMT
Hodge,

Thank you for reading my essay; I am looking forward to reading your essay.

An earth-centered system could still explain the tides due to the attraction of the sun as orbits the earth. Galileo’s sun-centered system did have a problem with tides, because he could only explain one tide a day in line with the sun. There are two tides a day mostly due to the moon; later mechanics could explain this observation.

I use examples to help explain my point, but sometimes can distract from the theme. My essay is about the nature of non-human intelligence.

Jeff




David Brown wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 15:23 GMT
"... about 95% of the universe is believed to be dark matter and dark energy (dark meaning known unknowns) ...." I have suggested that dark matter has positive gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy, while dark energy has negative gravitational mass-energy and zero inertial mass-energy, i.e. Einstein's equivalence principle is totally wrong for both dark matter and dark energy. If the preceding idea is wrong, then I personally would bet on MOND-chameleon particles. In any case, I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology — BASED UPON THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WHICH NOW EXISTS.

"Where Are the Dark Matter Particles?"

report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 19:34 GMT
David,

Thank you for reading my essay; I am looking forward to reading your essay. My essay has nothing to do with dark matter or dark energy. I used dark matter and dark matter as examples of things that exist, but cannot currently seen by telescopes (or felt, smelt or heard). Those MOND-chameleon particles sound fun and I hope you are correct about them.

Jeff




Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 19:41 GMT
To whom it may concern,

My essay might deserve a "1" and "2", but I would like some explanation as to why my essay scored so low. If my essay is just poorly written then just say that. If you disagree with some point I made, let me try to defend my work.

Sincerely,

Jeff



Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 15:53 GMT
Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz,

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 Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 20:52 GMT
Joe Fisher,

Thank you for your comment. I am looking forward to reading your essay. A one dimensional infinite surface sounds interesting and if true could help me lose weight and help my parallel parking skills.

Jeff




Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 20:12 GMT
Dear Jeffrey Michael Scmitz

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 usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 17:18 GMT
Dear Jeffrey,

FQXI Contests are first of all new ideas. You give important ideas and deep inference:

«The process of entropy does not need life, but life requires entropy. We can think of life as an intelligent system which enables lower energy macro ordered states that started at the moment the goal of reproduction was found.»

«…we are the true champions of entropy.Life itself is one of the most efficient agents of entropy.»

My high appreciation. I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas .

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 17:37 GMT
Jeffrey, I want to add: the title of your essay is magnificent - the deepest constructive life dialectic!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 20:57 GMT
Vladimir,

Thank you very much for the wonderful comments and thank you for reading my essay. I am looking forward to reading your essay.

Sincerely,

Jeff




Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 00:40 GMT
Hi Jeff,

This is a really good essay. I am very surprised it is not getting more attention.

Let me know if I got this right:

1. Mathematical models are incomplete. The map is not the territory!

2. The scientific method is incomplete because because it does not discuss how choices are made (see my essay).

3. We confuse intelligence with self-awareness and high rate data processing - intelligence is something separate. AI would be more accurately described as human augmentation (refer to Doug Engelbart at SRI).

Hey! Essay writers read and vote on this essay ... It is excellent!

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 03:21 GMT
Don,

Thank you for reading my essay and the wonderful review. I am looking forward to reading your essay.

The scientific method will never be complete (only after an infinite number of experiments), models that fit data from science will also never be complete. Science is a process, a true scientist knows this, accepts this and even enjoys the journey.

If given a goal that is not included in the instructions and the ability to rewrite some of the instructions then AI would be true intelligence. It might not be useful to make AI true intelligence because we want it to meet our goals and not its own. Some goals are forever outside the system like- predict tomorrow's weather.

Jeff




Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 07:48 GMT
Dear Jeffrey,

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

You are one of the few who directly answers the question put by the contest.

You are absolutely right that «If entropy requires heat to flow from hot to cold then a refrigerator would seem an impossible device.» You correctly put questions and find answers «A refrigerator works because on the inside entropy of the refrigerator is reduced, but outside entropy is increased more, so the overall entropy of the universe is increased.»

In my essay , is shown that if you do not use the mystical properties of matter and fields, then there is every reason to believe that the universe is much simpler than it is thought to be.

There is only one essence and the only universal quantum parametric mechanism in the universe that operates on the principle of the classical heat pump in solitons (attractors), and that functions both at the micro- and macro-level of fractal matter. This mechanism allows using a small fraction of the external energy to control in many times big fraction the energy of the system.

This mechanism is also the answer to the questions of this competition.

However, everyone loves their fiction and "magic", built by their "gods", so very few are able to see the rational grain in other people's ideas because of their illusions.

Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded people.

You might also like reading my essay .

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 20:32 GMT
Vladimir,

Thank you for reading my essay and thank you for the wonderful review. I am looking forward to reading your essay.

Sincerely,

Jeff




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 10:48 GMT
Nice essay Schmitz,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

Intelligence needs:

A goal.

A knowledge base.

A set of instructions, which do not contain the goal.

The ability to rewrite those instructions to conform to the knowledge base to help achieve the

goal.

A Good idea, I fully agree with you, probably...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 20:52 GMT
=snp. gupta (I do not know how you wished to be addressed),

Thank you for reading my essay. I am looking forward to reading your essay.

What I tried to state in my essay is that life (not the whole universe) is an intelligent system. Something can have intelligence and not be self aware. In some cases, self-awareness and consciousness can develop from intelligence.

Sincerely,

Jeff




James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 21:25 GMT
Jeff,

Life is an intelligent system and is one of the most efficient agents of entropy. When you say intent and purpose are clear and plentiful at the small scale, do you mean the quantum scale? The metamathematics and thermodynamics concepts do come together in the explanation and pigs still can't fly.

Your musings do seem to reflect the inscrutability of the topic. I had trouble getting a handle on it.

Adjunct teaching is not rewarding financially but is as you note interacting with students. I did it part time in several subjects.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate


Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 22:43 GMT
Jim,

Thank you for reading my essay. I am looking forward to reading your essay.

No, I did not mean the quantum scale, that is a little too small and I should of said that. I meant small concept scale (the quantum scale is smaller physically, but more complex as far as concepts). What a molecule is doing or what a single worker is doing is clearer than if a school really needs an addition or what is the meaning of life or the universe. My point was to keep concepts small as a key to understanding.

Jeff



Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 04:01 GMT
Jim,

I did read your essay, I remembered when I saw the title. Your essay was the best writing I have seen in this contest.

Jeff




Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 15:26 GMT
Jeff,

Lovely essay, with much sense, I do like your direct readable writing style. I also broadly agree your 'threshold' definition of intelligence and described almost the same thing, with imaginary scenario's, responses and 'feedback loops' informing decisions.

You also point out some very pertinent facts; "There are many wrong physical models that work perfectly well mathematically" and; "a toaster oven with a goal and the ability to change could be intelligent." (as the toaster in the UK TV series Red Dwarf', which also consistently reverts to it's primary goal!)

Regarding; "The Heisenberg uncertainty principle Is a known unknown, a limit to our knowledge of a particle" So true, but you may have seen I do identify a valid classical derivation of that probability distribution! Of course that may not pass the cognitive dissonance test for some years (the 1st part of the essay shows why) but nobody has yet falsified it as it's a self apparent (if initially seeming complex) mechanism.

I'm sorry my essay is (again!) so dense, but I had a lot to get in to support the compound hypothesis. Yes it does need 2 reads. I find most good essays and papers do, though I do invariably 'speed read' first to decide if it's worthwhile. Yours was an exception, clear and spot on, so I slowed down and just read it once.

I see you've been trolled. Mine has just received it's 11th '1', just after it went up a couple of places! Rest assured your score from me will be a deserved good one to compensate, in fact going on now. There's some discussion on the admin blog as trolling can be easily eliminated.

I do hope your second read of mine will reveal the often subtle connections of how quantum interactions DO contain adequate information and options to drive a multi choice multi layer 'yes/no switch' feedback and decision system, even with a 'random' mutation mechanism!

Very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 01:27 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for the great review. I just want people to read my essay and tell me what they think (good or bad). When an essay is ranked low nobody reads it. I did read the bottom ranked essay and whoever ranked that essay was correct, but I know there are a few lost gems near the bottom.

I will read your essay again and give it a more full review.

All the best,

Jeff




Willy K wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 10:29 GMT
Hi Jeff

I found your idea of mistakes being mandatory for something to be identified as intelligent quite fascinating. It is true that I have allowed for mistakes (flaws) in my own modeling of intelligence, but that was incidental, and I had not thought about it as explicitly as you have.

It is also interesting that you state that supercomputers might not be intelligent but the average toaster might be considered as intelligent. I am not sure but it is possible that the difference between the two might come down to their capability to self-regulate. Toasters can but supercomputers can’t. The biological mechanisms that you identified as being intelligent can also self-regulate. You correctly state that scientific method is ‘part’ of an intelligent system without being intelligent itself.

I liked your style of writing and wish you had written more on the subject. Nevertheless, I think this essay is way better than the average essay (I am rating it accordingly) because of your clear thought regarding mistakes being necessary for a system to be considered as intelligent.

Regards, Willy

report post as inappropriate


Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 13:43 GMT
Willy,

Thank you for reading my essay. I am looking forward to reading your essay.

The average toaster is (currently) not intelligent, but it would not take much to make an intelligent miro-processer and even less to make an intelligent supercomputer (I am sure there are such programs). You might not need or want an intelligent machine, as I point out mistakes will occur and a level of unpredictiblity. Intelligent does not mean better or more powerful, just different.

Intelligence requires not just self-regualtoin, but a goal that is outside of current instruction set. For a toaster, something that looks at the darkness of the toast is self-regulating, but to be intelligent you might have a ranking of the toast and each morning the toaster will change the setting to get a better toast ranking (some mornings the toast will be worst) and the toaster will remember and learn until "perfect" toast.

All the best,

Jeff




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'P' and 'R':


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