Search FQXi


Lorraine Ford: "Thanks Zeeya, for keeping things nice." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Lorraine Ford: "A “contentious question” exists only in the minds of those who have..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

mono joli: "I am very much pleased with the contents you have mentioned. I wanted to..." in Quantum Dream Time

mono joli: "I am very much pleased with the contents you have mentioned. I wanted to..." in Whose Physics Is It...

Lorraine Ford: "Sydney, So this is what I'm saying: We can't assume that change is a just..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Eckard Blumschein: "Steve, I guess, Joe (Joseph?) will ignore your advice how to comport..." in First Things First: The...

dinda rahmadani: "try to visit and see the view here:" in Sounding the Drums to...

dinda rahmadani: "good job. you can try to" in Thermo-Demonics

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.

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.

September 17, 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

The problem I have with virtual reality/computer simulation hypotheses is that, to me, they inevitably lead, almost paradoxically, to an infinite regress of simulator/programmer. By this I mean that, if we say it is possible for a sufficiently powerful computer/virtual reality machine to run *our* simulated reality so that there is no way we could falsify it, then how could the "simulators" falsify their own "reality" being a higher level simulation? And so on up the heirarchy? It's a bit like,...

The subjective reality that we all inhabit is created by each individuals brain from the input it has received and processed. Everything that is seen is generated internally by the organism and sent to the conscious mind, with the information that it exists externally.

Since the reality we inhabit is already a biologically generated simulation,if the input is good enough the virtual reality is experienced as real and therefore is real.

The reality could be said to be an...

The article comments on our not being able to prove we are not in a simulation, but don’t really talk about looking evidence that we might be.

There is a comments about drifts of fundamental constants - but really, so what.

But it never really ask the question,

“If we were simulating a universe, and machine resource was an issue, then what sort of computational tricks would we use and how might their effect be observable?”

The first thing we...

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.