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.

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

Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 5/14/09 at 3:42am UTC, wrote The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately...

Georgina Parry: on 3/24/09 at 22:01pm UTC, wrote Mathematical analysis of a physics problem requires data. If there is no...

Koen: on 2/20/08 at 13:25pm UTC, wrote Gödel Esher Bach and .... Heisenberg? Gödel's incompleteness theorem...

paul valletta: on 6/10/07 at 0:13am UTC, wrote In the beginning, theee came a simple thought, a lonely query about a local...



FQXi FORUM
March 23, 2017

ARTICLE: In Search of Uncertainty [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

paul valletta wrote on Jun. 10, 2007 @ 00:13 GMT
In the beginning, theee came a simple thought, a lonely query about a local oddity (local to the person that instigated the first thought!), thus one simple question needed one acceptable answer. Since that first question and answer, there have been a large "mega-input" of questions, but there has been a definate bias to the number of answers?

I think there will always be "more questions than answers"?..it appears to be a natural order.

To attain a theory of everything, you have to be confident that you first have a "theory of every possible question"..if you were that person of long past, who somehow created a simple rational query, and then answered it in the next thought, why bother to formulate another question?

A theory of everything may have existed, if you are satisfied with a single "ultimate" question.

report post as inappropriate


Koen wrote on Feb. 20, 2008 @ 13:25 GMT
Gödel Esher Bach and .... Heisenberg? Gödel's incompleteness theorem has nothing to do (does not even give a hint) with the "uncertainty" relations of Heisenberg, and has nothing to with the limited "constant" speed of TEM waves, bla bla bla ...

Gödel's theorem implies that mathematics is infinite (always possible to add new axioms to existing formal systems). Physics is more or less applied mathematics, so a subset of all math can be used to express physics laws. Since there is no way to determine which math is applicable or not, one cannot conclude that physics is never finished, because math is never finished !

Physics is never finished if one can proof one can always generate new emperical data that is not covered/explained by any theory, but this has nothting to do with math. Such a proof does not exist of course.

An interesting concept might be a "vanishing point" for the science of physics: the vedantic trinity knower = knowledge = all-that-is-known. This trinity transcends the modern scientific research methodology which presumes the distinction between observer, observation and observed world.

But since our understanding of the knower, knowledge and that-what-is-known is evolving, one might approach the vanishing point of the science of physics, but Gödel has nothing to do with it !!!

Maybe the "ultimate goal" of physics is this vedantic trinity, maybe it is not. The standard physics model does not provide any hope for such a trinity, but then this standard physics model can easily be wrong on many of its unproven assumptions.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 24, 2009 @ 22:01 GMT
Mathematical analysis of a physics problem requires data.

If there is no data there can be no analysis, and no solution.

Experimental observation supplies data. This requires activation of the biological senses or artificial detector. The sense organs or detector are at the Prime reality interface between objective and subjective reality.

If information crosses the interface so that it may be processed or analysed, then there may be knowledge derived from that information via external mathematical solutions or direct analysis via brain function.

If no information crosses because it does not reach a necessary threshold for detection or it is not the kind of information that those sensors are able to detect, then there can be no knowledge of that information, no mathematical analysis and no solution.

This is the real limit for the scientific method and mathematics. Science and mathematics can not explain or analyse the unknowable. This is a true boundary.

As I have mentioned elsewhere a photon is the disturbance needed to move a electron in space. This does not prove that there can not be lesser disturbances. Only no effect can be detected and therefore it is not incorporated into the subjective reality model.

Likewise the objective reality of the void or "vacuum" may supply no information across the Prime reality interface to inform the subjective reality, (that is formed from information processing and analysis.) That is not proof that there is no material substance to the void in objective reality.It only shows that no information has been detected and processed.

Any true theory of everything must acknowledge the unknowable and the limit of science. Subjective reality is just one side of the Prime reality interface. There may be even more on the objective side of the interface. This is because the subjective reality that is experienced, and in which scientific investigation is performed, is limited by the information received across the Prime Reality Interface.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 14, 2009 @ 03:42 GMT
The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense.

Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism). Moreover, dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. The dream is the fundamental unification of gravity and electromagnetism.

I trust that this was helpful to the discussion.

Frank Martin DiMeglio

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'V' and 'X':


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