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 with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

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

Forum Home
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

anti_supernaturalist: on 7/10/10 at 19:31pm UTC, wrote SSR fails Kuhn’s failed ideology captures sociology of religion, not...

Joe: on 2/8/10 at 0:20am UTC, wrote Bill, Another insight into the mystery is offered at...

William Foehringer: on 1/25/10 at 16:26pm UTC, wrote Information is conserved like energy is conserved. Steps to destroy...

STEVE JEFFREY: on 1/15/10 at 8:32am UTC, wrote Why is 2+2=4 NOT SO. Why can't we add E=MC^2 2+2=4.? Why can't we add the...

Joseph S. Johnson: on 11/22/09 at 4:00am UTC, wrote End of the Quantum Road? What does the “End of the Quantum Road” tell...

reasonmclucus: on 9/7/09 at 6:27am UTC, wrote Most of physics involves dualities. Positive and negative charges, north...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/9/09 at 8:06am UTC, wrote Hello all, I think it's a very interesting work about these pair photons...

Anonymous: on 7/4/09 at 19:02pm UTC, wrote So information theory is the ultimate reality?

March 27, 2017

ARTICLE: Readers' Choice: End of the Quantum Road? [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 4, 2009 @ 19:02 GMT
So information theory is the ultimate reality?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 9, 2009 @ 08:06 GMT
Hello all,

I think it's a very interesting work about these pair photons and the potential of cryptography thus the codes of communication .

report post as inappropriate

reasonmclucus wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 06:27 GMT
Most of physics involves dualities. Positive and negative charges, north and south poles in magnets, matter and anti-matter, etc.

In a broader context quantum physics may represent disorganized behavior as the opposite of the organized behavior of classical physics.

report post as inappropriate

Joseph S. Johnson wrote on Nov. 22, 2009 @ 04:00 GMT
End of the Quantum Road?

What does the “End of the Quantum Road” tell us other than perhaps we are somehow missing the point of science.

Stuart Kauffman’s “At Home in the Universe” describes a self-organizing universe, the indefinite evolution of system complexity (IESC), as though it were a cosmic process imperative. Biological systems seem nothing less than an essential and integral agency of the IESC. The human agent has fixated upon the objective means of sustaining the process but will soon become extinct if the subjective essentials do not direct constructive application of objective means.

But how does the agent find and recognize subjective essentials in nature? It’s easy. The agent merely looks back upstream of the process of emergence for the deeper natural order of which “things” are merely the expression. Emergent biological properties are sustained at a deeper level by emergent properties of chemical processes which are sustained at a deeper level by emergent properties of physical processes. Physicists dismiss this Reductionism, assuming that the objective structure ‘bottoms’ at physics, adding no new information. But Gödel reminds us that

“If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent.

“Therefore, in order to establish the consistency of a system S, one needs to utilize some other more powerful system T, but a proof in T is not completely convincing unless T's consistency has already been established without using S.” [Wikipedia]

But if objective physics is system S, what is system T?

“Although the theory of everything still eludes us, the language has been learned – whatever new answers are found, and deeper questions spawned, about the universe or its mathematical fabric, at the center will be symmetry.”[Lederman & Hill (2004) “Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe,” Prometheus Books, N.Y. p. 289]

And if symmetry is now system S, what is system T if not aesthetics? Why do we know this? We know this because millions of years of natural selection rewards emergence of the neural faculties essential to understand, and feelings to motivate, choices relevant to sustaining more complex subjective systems essential to the IESC. Why should we be surprised that virtually all the monotheistic religions (i.e. human intuition) support the symmetry, the reciprocity of the Golden Rule? When will science get serious about the essential aesthetics of civil order? Without it, we won’t survive.


report post as inappropriate

STEVE JEFFREY wrote on Jan. 15, 2010 @ 08:32 GMT
Why is 2+2=4 NOT SO.

Why can't we add E=MC^2 2+2=4.?

Why can't we add the standard equation to Einsteins gravity 2+2=4.?

Why can't we get one equation instead of two by adding in 1/3s.


This means adding two equations together in 1/3s to get one equation for both.

Why doesn't this work with Einsteins thoery and quantum emchanics.

How can we make it work.?


report post as inappropriate

William h Foehringer wrote on Jan. 25, 2010 @ 16:26 GMT
Information is conserved like energy is conserved. Steps to destroy information will simply create more information in the form of those steps. However, is this concept of information obscuring a deeper concept? Is there a substrata of existence? Is there any reason to think that such a strata is the ultimate? The answers to these questions will be found when we can rid ourselves of the blinders imposed by 'the beginning'. Even the concept of muliverses acts as a blinder to understanding existence. The multiverse concept is just saying that there are many beginnings, many big bangs, many Creations, but not describing anything new. Our long cultural immersion in beginnings theology colors our thinking about reality. We have to let go. The idea of information is a step away from our physical reality but does not go far enough because it is ultimately still just referring to (information about) existing systems. We are catching glimpses through dark matter that there was no 'formless void' into which our universe ermerged. Something existed before and continues to exist today to which our existence is connected in a subtle way.


report post as inappropriate

Joe replied on Feb. 8, 2010 @ 00:20 GMT

Another insight into the mystery is offered at where the fractal structure of natural order, i.e. the self-similarity of expression at all scales is implied, there being three major scales in which nearly all mass is concentrated; atomic, stellar and galactic. In other words, the big bang history from our perspective might be early in an expanding supernova moment from the next larger stellar scale perspective. Any adjacent set of three such scales would likely support a life-form (such as ourselves) and a total body of accessible knowledge confined to just such 3-scale set by Plank limits at the small end, and c at the larger scale. As suggested earlier, Godel’s second incompleteness theorem suggests that Physics must reduce beyond the physical to the more fundamental subjective constraint through symmetry into aesthetic principles for which our most evolved neural faculties were naturally selected, for a reason. The objective world seems to exist for no other reason than a basis for the (subjective) experience of novelty which is not possible without perceived differences made possible by imposed limits. Our neural associative faculties give us objective means for survival, such as our sciences and technology, but without paying attention to both social and ecological harmony, reciprocity, etc (essentials of aesthetics; remember the Golden Rule?) we will soon become extinct. Indeed, atmospheric oxygen is at about 20.95 percent and has begun rapidly decreasing, while we require 19.5 percent to survive in good health.


report post as inappropriate

anti_supernaturalist wrote on Jul. 10, 2010 @ 19:31 GMT
SSR fails

Kuhn’s failed ideology captures sociology of religion, not science

Philosophers place Kuhn among useless historians of science. Historians of science place Kuhn among useless philosopher of science. Physicists misunderstand the philosophy of science. They also ignore good history of science. Each know that Kuhn couldn’t have been right in their niche, but being niche...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'D' and 'F':

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