Search FQXi

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 Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

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

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

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

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

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 9:49am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Hoang Hai: on 10/3/12 at 4:28am UTC, wrote DEAR TO Joe Fisher as well as ALL THE AUTHORS AND READERS WAS INTEREST. ...

Georgina Woodward: on 10/2/12 at 8:51am UTC, wrote Dear Joe, sorry it has taken so long for me to get to your essay. I...

Hoang Hai: on 10/1/12 at 5:12am UTC, wrote Dear Joe Fisher Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us...

Yuri Danoyan: on 9/10/12 at 15:10pm UTC, wrote Joe Fisher Have you read my first essay? ...

George Rajna: on 9/8/12 at 19:23pm UTC, wrote This is my community rating on your essay.

Joe Fisher: on 9/8/12 at 14:36pm UTC, wrote Thank You.

George Rajna: on 9/8/12 at 14:01pm UTC, wrote Excellent!

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "Many years ago, I learned a difficult truth to practice. I learned that..." in The Nature of Time

Jason Wolfe: "The speed of light is both a clock and a ruler. Speed of light c=..." in The Nature of Time

Zeeya Merali: "You're invited to a special free film screening and panel discussion event,..." in Film Screening: "Infinite...

Georgina Woodward: "How we identified brain patterns of consciousness,the conversation.com" in Searching for Physical...

jim hughes: "I'm not a mathematician, so the math part is mostly lost on me. And I'm..." in Structure Invention by...

Charles Harrow: "The AI only works really well in the "comfort zone", i.e. under test..." in Is Causality Fundamental?

Jason Wolfe: "In all honesty, I'm not even sure what intelligent and educated people..." in Generalised Integrated...

Jason Wolfe: "It would be nice to imagine that the Germans are working on gravity..." in Generalised Integrated...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

Outside the Box
A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.

FQXi FORUM
July 15, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Sequence Consequence by Joe Fisher [refresh]

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 12:23 GMT
Essay Abstract

ABSTRACT OF SEQUENCE CONSEQUENCE The most flawed basic physical assumption concerns time. This essay delineates the fact that all real natural sequences of real events such as snowfalls and eye blinks are random, irregular and unrepeatable. The scientists insist that by using a standardized, regular repeatable time measuring methodology, the accurate sequential chronology of the Universe from its commencement to the present can be reliably established.

Author Bio

Self taut.

Sridattadev wrote on Jun. 19, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
Dear Joe,

Your self if also my self (universal i) and it is absolutely here and now.

There is no space unless one chooses to measure and there is no time until one chooses to count, there is no space and time besides that one absolute self or singularity (here and now).

I posted an essay in this contest,

Conscience is the cosmological constant.

Love,

report post as inappropriate

J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 12:40 GMT
Hi Joe,

You've offered some interesting observations here. Thank you for that. It's obvious that you've done considerably more thinking about all this than a good many of our fellow humans.

Many of the points you make are hard to argue with. That said, I'll go out on a limb and argue with one of your points. You wrote "One cannot make any alterations of any kind to here and now. One has to like it and lump it."

At first glance, that sounds plausible and reasonable enough. But then I got to thinking about it, and what I came up with is this: I seem to be making alterations to the here and now all the time. Just a minute ago I didn't have a cup of coffee in my hand, but now I do. How did that happen, Joe? A few months ago, you hadn't written this essay, and I hadn't read it, but now you have and I have. How did that happen? This here and now seems quite different from that here and now, and you appear to have been responsible for at least some small part of that difference. At least sufficiently responsible that you probably could be convicted in a court of law; your finger prints are all over this essay, so to speak.

Regarding your thoughts on the nature of time and clocks, I flatter myself to think that you might enjoy reading one of my earlier essays, 'Time: Illusion and Reality,' which offers some additional thoughts on those topics.

But you don't have to like it, and you don't have to lump it. It's up to you, Joe. Regardless, thanks again for sharing your ideas.

jcns

report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear J.C.

Thank you so much for taking the time to post your erudite observation. I think that the answer to your probing questions “Just a minute ago I didn't have a cup of coffee in my hand, but now I do. How did that happen, Joe? A few months ago, you hadn't written this essay, and I hadn't read it, but now you have and I have. How did that happen? This here and now seems quite different from that here and now…” might be that the expression “a minute ago” clearly means that the action took place in the there and then. The term, “A few months ago” also identifies a past action. While it might seem that thinking whatever is taking place here and now has to be conditional on whatever took place in some sort of there and then might be rational, it would not necessarily be real. The problem is with the language. As I tried to explain in my essay, there is no way to actually tell the extent of where here is and for how long of a duration now lasts. All five of our senses only operate in the immediacy of here and now.

report post as inappropriate

J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 20:35 GMT
Hi Joe,

"All five of our senses only operate in the immediacy of here and now."

I certainly can't and won't argue with that. All I'd add is the (not even remotely original) observation that the things we're sensing in the here and now originated in some there and then which is different from the here and now in which we're sensing/experiencing it. The magnitude of the difference is a function of the distance between us and the origins of the data we're sensing. We're always behind the power curve and operating with a built-in time delay. The things we're sensing are always history, so to speak; whether ancient history or recent history depends on relative positions in space. Out of necessity, we've grown accustomed to it and take it all for granted. Still, I can't help wondering how different our experience of the universe would be if the speed of light were infinite.

None of this contradicts what you wrote, so far as I can see; your essay just got me thinking about it again is all, so I toss it out as fodder for speculation, idle or otherwise. Thanks for stirring up the neurons . . . all two or three of them.

jcns

report post as inappropriate

james r. akerlund wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 22:50 GMT
Hi Mr. Fisher

Your posts on my essay lead me to put your essay on a higher priority to read, and I have now done that. You have written a very good essay. You get your point across that I myself would have had difficulty to define. On an unrelated aspect of your essay, I was struck by both your being informed about science and your fundamental issues with it.

Now for my take on your essay, other then the goodness of it. One of the examples you use to describe, what I will call, the differentness of events in this universe, is the snowflake and how each one is different. But you do not mention why they are different. As I am sure you know, each snowflake is different because of the history each snowflake encountered in it's growth from a nucleaus to a full fledged snowflake (humidity, temperature, etc.). That history can never be repeated.

In your first sentence you say; "Human reality can only take place here and now,...". My issue with that statement is that it also requires a memory. You were taught what a snowflake is and when you see one again it is your memory that tells you in the here and now that here and now you see a snowflake. The here and now combined with a memory creates a human map of their reality. I submit that each human map of reality is different from all the rest. Some human maps of reality conclude that the Big Bang occurred, other human maps of reality conclude that the universe was created in six days as mentioned in the Bible. All of that brings me to your last sentence; "This self evident fact about reality more than any other assertion proves that all of the physical assumptions of man are wrong because they can only pertain to an abstract there and then.". Your last sentence tries to turn all of the different "human maps of reality" into the same one. It is like trying to turn all of the snowflakes, past present and future, into the same shape.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 13:20 GMT
Dear Mr. Ekerlund,

I wish to thank you for taking the time to read my essay, and for taking the trouble to make the extremely fair relevant comments you have contributed about it. I did mention in my essay that the reason each snowflake is different is because each snowflake is formed under minute differing atmospheric conditions than every other snowflake has been formed by. Although it could be construed as you sagely pointed out that I am trying to imply that all physical change is the same, I think the difficulty is with the tense construction of the English language. The language does not comport in any way with our senses. We see whatever we look at instantly. There is never a need for any of us to say, “I am seeing” at anytime we are looking at something. The trouble comes later when we have to explain to ourselves what it was we might have seen. There is no way we could tell ourselves what we have actually seen after we have seen it because we can only actually see something while we are watching it.

Dirk Pons wrote on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 10:33 GMT
Joe

Interesting. So as I understand it, the central idea is that time is only a present experience, that the present reality is all that exists, in a set of unrepeatable sequences. There may be something in that.

This has obvious implications for the past, present, and future. Particularly how we should make sense of them.

There may also be some tentative connections with our own work, the cordus conjecture. That model suggests that time is locally generated. The problem we found with a such a model is explaining the very obvious interaction between the self and the external environment of things, people, and cause-and-effect. We stretch out our arm to shake the hand of someone else, and there really is a someone else there with whom we can interact. We found we could explain this as due to the interconnectedness of matter (via its fields), thereby creating a 3D patchwork of temporal cause-and-effect. So what happens in my little region of space causes effects in other neighbouring regions. The arrow of time arises because the interactions are irreversibile for decoherent bodies. We covered this in our own essay, but only briefly. More...

So we probably both agree that human perceptions of time are a construct, not necessarily a physical reality.

Thank you

Dirk

report post as inappropriate
Joel levinson replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 11:46 GMT
BAsed on your comments, you may find relevant my entry into the contest. Just enter my name in the search window.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 16:25 GMT
I'll drink to that! Thank you for your extremely inciteful comment Steve.

report post as inappropriate

Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 13:55 GMT
Hi Joe,

It´s me again (only here, not in my thread), I am the guy of the fable.

I just re-read your essay and something very funny happened -and I don´t mean your essay is not serious.

In the part where you describe that maps at malls usually have an ever useful and true statement saying: "YOU ARE HERE", I could not stop from thinking "where else could I be? if not here". I laughed like a child for about an hour.

I might be crazy, but that happened.

Back to business, the essays:

I find your essay extremely true. The only problem with a fully relativistic/personal point of view - which I share greatly - is that is not always practical.

The assumption of no assumptions is great to start with, but we always start building new assumptions in order to get into something.

report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 13:30 GMT
Dear Juan,

I am so glad you got a good laugh out of my essay and I do thank you for your very positive comment.

Joe

Anonymous replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 20:55 GMT
Joe, it's Tom again; I did finally get to read your essay, although not as slowly as I believe it deserves to be read. The least I can say about it is that I am impressed with it and with the agility of mind you possess, as well as with your level of objectivity. The best I can say about it is that it makes your point very well, as I understand it.

Your premise is that the present is so fleeting we have no time to change it. Correct me if that's wrong or inaccurate, please. You seem to argue time does not move at the present time, which I agree with as the definition of "the present," or as you put it, the here and now. I assume you mean, in saying "time does not move," that in the present, it does not move. If so, you seem to be saying time is indeed particulate and does not pass as a fluid.

The chronon is said to be the particle of the time "field," just like the Higgs boson is of the Higgs field and the graviton is of the gravitational field. Of course, that could be true only if time exists in particulate form, or in discrete instants. The ancients argued that point long ago without any logical conclusion.

At this time, we cannot measure the precise rate of the passage of time, but we can construct equations to compare the speeds of objects just like we do now with other measurements. Yet we know time passes because things age. I think we must agree that when we speak of time as "moving," we refer to the rate of its passing.

So long as we believe time rates are the same for everything, we cannot think "outside the box." You say there can be no simultaniety of time at different locations, but I balk at that because of my position that objects moving at the same speed at different locations anywhere in the universe will have the same time rate. Also, does not the recently confirmed theory of "entanglement" tends to support my viewpoint?

You make a number of excellent points that cannot be refuted. I think you can work to refute any other non-agreements that come up here, like mine, so that you can disagree in return or else find the way to resolve them, or else, like I've had to do numerous times, change your mind. Your long hard work has helped me tremendously by confirming some of my beliefs and forcing me to think more about some others. I thank you for that.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 14:53 GMT
Dear Tom,

I do not have a premise. Thank you for taking the time to read my essay. I wish you well in the contest, please let me know when your essay is published.

Joe

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 23:51 GMT
Joe,

I have read your essay, and I can conclude that your "You are here" location is different from my "You are here" location and each of our "You are here" locations will be different from those of any past, current or future person.

The silly part is how man attempts to identify a metric to determine how long a person stays in a "You are here" location. One thing I have observed that seems relevant is that a duration for "You are here" is always in the presence of energy, thus without energy there is no need for an event duration.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 16:51 GMT
Mr. Makinson, thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to read my essay. Thank you also for making such sagacious comments about my essay's content.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 09:45 GMT
Joe

I have no problem with close to infinitely many 'here and now's', relating to each observer. My own essay takes this theme to it's logical conclusions, where each interacting mass is representative of a 'here and now' as a discrete inertial frame and non zero space. I shall take it upon me to boost your score as 1 is less than it's noble effort worth.

I hope you may also glean something of value from mine.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 14:54 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for taking the time to read my essay and for your very positive comment about it. The main value I have gleaned from reading your essay and posts is the increase in my awed respect for the superior writer and thinker you undoubtedly are.

report post as inappropriate

re castel wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 14:33 GMT
Joe,

We are forever in the living present; that is true. But you muddle the issue a bit by denying certain realities that make the present the present.

Consequential reality predicates justice. If reality is not consequential there'd be total anarchy...

Castel

report post as inappropriate

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear Joe,

I read your essay and found it interesting and well written. I appreciate your viewpoint.

All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach.

You are also requested to read my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Kindly do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate

George Rajna wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 14:01 GMT
Excellent!

report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 14:36 GMT
Thank You.

report post as inappropriate

George Rajna replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 19:23 GMT
This is my community rating on your essay.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 05:12 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 08:51 GMT
Dear Joe,

sorry it has taken so long for me to get to your essay. I really enjoyed reading your thoughts about sequence, uniqueness and time. A few more breaks in the text would have made it easier for me. There are places where I could debate what you have written but overall I think you have picked some interesting and important ideas and have developed them into a thought provoking essay. Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 04:28 GMT
DEAR TO Joe Fisher

as well as ALL THE AUTHORS AND READERS WAS INTEREST.

Today, I am finished reading all of the essays in this topic.

First of all, thanks again to FQXi and the donors has facilitated for us to have the opportunity get contribute to science.

Next, would like to express to other author by the thanks for the comments that you have contributed to give me, and sincere apologies to those of you that I do not have specific feedback for your essay.The reason that is because:

The placing for issues and measures to solve for the problems of your offer is completely different from mine, so I can not comment when we do not have the same views on one matter, the purpose is to avoid the discussion became conflict of ideologies,it is will not be able to solve the problem which we are interested.

The end, I hope that : we ( who want the human to put their faith in science) will have the same fear: to someday,every people told each other that:

WAIITING FOR SCIENCE HELPS IS VERY LONGTIME,

LET PRAY TO GOD OR A CERTAIN DEITY SOMETIMES EVEN FASTER !

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:49 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.