Search FQXi


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Zeeya Merali: "Earlier this month, astronomers announced the discovery of water in the..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Professor Arkani-Hamed, and Jason Mark Wolfe, Today’s Closer To..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Georgina, It is difficult for me to give you any meaningful advice, since..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "You would think that quantum mechanics would be proof of free will." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Sydney Grimm: "Lorraine, Equations are part of the scientific communication. That means..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Georgina Woodward: "Sorry... Imperfections and single bit information, as you say." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "You do believe the large Hadron collider has been slamming protons into..." in First Things First: The...

excel usps: "I thought you would answer the question "What Is Fundamental?" in this..." in What Is Fundamental? –...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXI ARTICLE
September 20, 2019

Bookmark and Share

Comment on this Article

Please read the important Introduction that governs your participation in this community. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated and posts containing such language will be deleted. Otherwise, this is a free speech Forum and all are welcome!
  • Please enter the text of your post, then click the "Submit New Post" button below. You may also optionally add file attachments below before submitting your edits.

  • HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page.

  • You may use superscript (10100) and subscript (A2) using [sup]...[/sup] and [sub]...[/sub] tags.

  • You may use bold (important) and italics (emphasize) using [b]...[/b] and [i]...[/i] tags.

  • You may also include LateX equations into your post.

Insert LaTeX Equation [hide]

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

For more help on LaTeX, please see the LaTeX Project Home Page.

LaTeX Equation Preview



preview equation
clear equation
insert equation into post at cursor


Your name: (optional)






Recent Comments


When his paper regarding mathematical formulas creating reality was submitted to a scientific journal and rejected as being too speculative, U.S. cosmologist Max Tegmark showed the rejection letter to his friend John Wheeler (1911-2008), a Princeton theoretical physicist. Wheeler rejected the rejection and said, "Extremely speculative? Bah!" Then he reminded Tegmark that some of the original papers on quantum mechanics were also considered extremely speculative. (p.2 of "Is the Universe Actually...


The power of Godels Incompleteness Theorem is only in the world of axiomatic systems that are based off of classic Number Theory (specifically the work of Russell in his Mathematica Principia), i.e fomral systems. Not all systems that have number theory as their root or even as part of their foundation are nessecerily formal. It states not that a finite system of axioms does not completely represent the theory. It is a problem that came from the (mathematical) logical structure of arithmatic. It...


instead of "Dalton board" it should read "Galton"

read all article comments

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.