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.

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
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

Cristinel Stoica: on 10/6/12 at 16:06pm UTC, wrote Hi Joseph, Please check this link and find how five essays, including...

Anonymous: on 10/4/12 at 13:48pm UTC, wrote I’m certainly not the first person to point out that superdeterminism is...

Janko Kokosar: on 10/4/12 at 9:36am UTC, wrote Dear Joseph, I see that your essay is something what I was should to read....

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 8:30am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Vladimir Tamari: on 9/29/12 at 9:47am UTC, wrote Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest ...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 15:23pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

Yuri Danoyan: on 9/19/12 at 11:39am UTC, wrote Joseph wrote: "With all of space-time truly a unified whole, existing...

Don Limuti: on 9/4/12 at 3:25am UTC, wrote Joseph, I liked your essay and believe you got it right. The observer...


Steve Dufourny: "That implies that this gravitation is not about only the works of Newton..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...

Steve Dufourny: "Jonathan, I believe that I have understood all this puzzle . If we consider..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...

Steve Dufourny: "One of the important solution that I propose for the UN is ecological and..." in Global Collaboration

Amrit Ladhani : "My preprint "The Beginning to the End of the Universe and Eternal..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "It could be very relevant if FQXi make a kind of essay contest for this..." in Global Collaboration

Steve Dufourny: "I read my posts from the past on FQXi, my english which is not of course..." in Alternative Models of...

Ronnie Wassler: "DNA is the origin of the universe. We have 3 distinct brains, Left..." in Alternative Models of...

Michael Wade: "history dissertation help" in Causal Discovery in the...

click titles to read articles

Quanthoven's Fifth
A quantum computer composes chart-topping music, programmed by physicists striving to understand consciousness.

The Math of Consciousness: Q&A with Kobi Kremnitzer
A meditating mathematician is developing a theory of conscious experience to help understand the boundary between the quantum and classical world.

Can We Feel What It’s Like to Be Quantum?
Underground experiments in the heart of the Italian mountains are testing the links between consciousness and collapse theories of quantum physics.

The Thermodynamic Limits of Intelligence: Q&A with David Wolpert
Calculating the energy needed to acquire and compute information could help explain the (in)efficiency of human brains and guide the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

Gambling Against the Second Law
Using precision thermometry to make mini heat engines, that might, momentarily, bust through the thermodynamic limit.

August 14, 2022

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Questioning the Foundations: Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong? Experimenter’s Free Will by Joseph Bisognano [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Joseph Bisognano wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 12:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

Physics has long lived with a schizophrenia that desires determinism for measured systems while demanding that experimenters decide what to measure on a whim. This fundamental assumption under lies most of the no-go theorems that prevent a satisfactory answer to the measurement problem of quantum mechanics. If this experimenter’s free will assumption is wrong, then a door is open that may ultimately reconcile quantum mechanics with the definiteness of individual experiments.

Author Bio

Joseph Bisognano received his Ph. D. from Berkeley in 1975. His dissertation on von Neumann algebras proved the Bisognano-Wichmann Theorem. It established a direct relationship between the CPT transformation and a transformation of a local algebra to its commutant. Sewell later used this result to prove the Unruh effect for interacting fields. Bisognano moved his attention to accelerator physics, developing a theory of correlational effects in particle beams and providing analysis of limiting instabilities in superconducting accelerators and storage rings. He is currently a professor of engineering physics and director of a synchrotron radiation facility.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 22:47 GMT

" ... an alternate perspective might, for example, substitute global space time self-consistency rather than an initial condition conspiracy..."

Yes! Also, a topological initial condition is not only a global characteristic, it is orientable. Joy Christian used it to explain quantum correlations without invoking a probabilistic framework. (See my essay "The Perfect First Question.," esp. p. 6) I agree with you that a network formalism will restore determinism -- complex systems science has already opened the door.

It's becoming fast apparent that the number of us who are "crazy enough" is growing. Awesome job on your essay! -- good luck in the competition.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 23:06 GMT
Dear Joseph Bisognano,

You state, "The equations of quantum mechanics only described the evolution of the probabilities; the measurement act, which yields a definite result, is not described." You then wonder if there is some larger theory that would describe how a definite result is decided.

My essay explains how the Schrodinger equation describes the induced wave of the physical de Broglie-like particle-plus-wave system, and how one sums over such possible waves and normalizes to obtain the probability amplitude. This introduces a level of physical reality missing from the above description. That is, the physical wave solutions exist, from which probability amplitudes can be obtained. This differs from the Copenhagen interpretation that you seem to be describing [or the many-worlds alternative you mention].

You acknowledge the essential noise involved in measurement processes that prevent the measurement of definite values (except statistically), but are concerned about no-go theorems that proclaim that such values do not exist until measured. I address Bell's theorem as well.

Because my wave functions have the same form as the standard solution to Schrodinger's equations, they provide the same results, but they represent real local systems of the kind forbidden by such no-gos. On the other hand Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph recently derived their own no-go theorem that logically proves that the 'information-only' approach cannot produce quantum mechanical results. To understand quantum mechanics in the context of these competing no-go theorems, I invite you to read my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, and comment.

Thanks for laying out the problems as you see them, and a potential resolution.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 00:13 GMT
Joseph Bisognano,

The first sentence of your abstract uses the term "whim." I was an undergraduate at the Univ of Iowa when Van Allen was building the Explorer satellite packages, and I was provided with background information on some of Van Allen's high altitude measurement projects before Explorer. I was never told that the types of measurements his instrument packages recorded were based upon a whim. If what to measure is a whim, as a matter of scale, in comparison to the modest Explorer instrument packages, the measurements by the CERN LHC instrument could be considered a super-whim.

Personally, I don't believe that physicists make measurements on a whim.

I think physicists are frustrated by their inability to identify the mechanism that produces "superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance." You use the term "inference" as though the superluminal Newtonian gravity instantaneous influence-at-a-distance, which is required to keep our planetary orbits from become ever increasing spirals, doesn't exist.

It is an "assumption" to make the statement that superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance cannot be used for communications when physicists do not know the structure of the mechanism that creates that phenomenon. Are physicists making the assumption that the mechanism is unknowable? There is a simple explanation for the phenomenon, but it involves classical physics, which seems to have been marginalized by contemporary physicists.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Gary Simpson replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 22:26 GMT
One word ... aether:-)

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat wrote on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 04:02 GMT
It takes guts to tackle an assumption this thorny, and this argument needs to be heard. One assumption that I don't think we're ready to make, though, is that we have just yet "eliminated all which is impossible." I believe that answers lie outside of the realm of Kuhnian normal science, which rescue free will. In my essay I describe a possible way that free will might constrain a lab experiment, one that is best visualized using Bob Coecke's diagrammatic formalism. You are invited to read and comment...if you would freely choose to do so!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 11:58 GMT
Dear Professor Bisognano,

Congratulations on a superb essay which is extremely well written and accessible to the layperson like myself. You have a common sense approach which is much appreciated and your wording seems similar to my own at times. Phrases like "Such simplicity is, however, forbidden" caught my attention. You capture the 'blind leading the blind' methodology of modern physics. I have no hesistation in awarding you a top score and hope you do very well in the competition.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 06:04 GMT
Dear Prof. Bisognano,

You clearly make the case with solid arguments you make about the removal of the experimenter's free will and expansion of determinism on the full spectrum of time.

Though your ideas do not confirm as such some of my own exploration, they somewhat validate my approach which.

For instance, I have constructed a toy model, not of space-time, but of the universe. In my toy model, all physical phenomena are strictly causal. That is, they are sequences of causality dependant states. In such a model, time itself is not a physical aspect of reality but a purely relational concept which allows us to compare events with periodic and cyclic systems (clocks).

Also, the physics emerging from only two axioms behaves much like our own observable universe. At the fundamental scale, such universe is deterministic, but its determinism is not directly observable and models can only approximate its behaviour, hence must be probabilistic.

It would certainly be interesting to see where and how our respective toy models correspond.

Daniel L. Burnstein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 01:06 GMT
Dear Professor Bisognano

I enjoyed your essay because it very much resonates with my own conclusions that while measurement is important in practical everyday terms, one can (and should) bypass the experimenter role when making a theoretical model of the universe. Not only in QM as you show, but also concerning Einstein's SR then GR where he proposed an absolutely measureable universe (c is constant) while the universe itself, space-time, is relative. One might as well have used Lorentz' relative measurement in an absolute universe: variable c and moving frames where measuring rods- not space- contract, and clocks slow down, not time itself.

You propose a "toy model of a space-time net" and here it is, sort-of, in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory . I have used this theory as a springboard for my 7 questions of fundamental physics in my present fqxi essay. I will be honored if you give your learned feedback on both papers.

With best wishes


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

George Ellis wrote on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 11:31 GMT
Dear Professor Bisognano

this is a very nice paper, particularly because it takes the quantum measurement problem seriously. It needs a lot more thought on my part to really get to grips with it, but two brief comments are relevant: (i) as you know from my paper, I believe that relating this kind of discussion to the different level in the hierarchy of structure is important, and (ii) there are of course various hints that quantum mechanics may behave in a time-symmetric manner under some circumstances. Either of these issues may have the capacity to impact your argument.

George Ellis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 18:20 GMT
Dear Professor Bisognano,

Your conclusion "With all of space-time truly a unified whole, existing outside of the flow of time, determinism and quasi free will coexist." is a good description of the singularity and duality that we experience. Realizing that our "self" is the space-time is singularity, and thiking that our free will is separate from this space-time is duality.

Please see the essay Conscience is the cosmological constant in which i explained the absolute true singular nature of our self using the mathematical equation of zero = i = infinity.



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 23:05 GMT
Hello Mr Bisognano,

It is relevant about the possible convergence between the free will and the determinism , pure and simple. Of course the irrationality must be differenciated of this free will. if not we have possible stupidities.

The free will is not the probelm. The free will and its pure creativity is an important parameter , and this essential permits to have several interesting universal correlations. The determinsim, it , is a foundamental. The determinism is always the determinsim, the irrational has no place. We arrive at an important relevance considering the free critics like a free will, which can be futhermore determinsitic. The critics permits to sort so the irrational free will and the rational free will, deterministic. The deterministic free will so can be a reality. The rational critics, so, permit when we consider the experiments, irrational for example, to evitate the lost of money. It is a simple dterministic evidence. To be or not to be , that is the question ! :)

That said, the relevance is when both are unified.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 09:13 GMT
Dear Joseph Bisognano,

A very well written, comprehensible and relevant essay, according to the competition judging criteria. The measurement problem is an important topic to address. You have looked at it in an interesting way. I am afraid that by removing the experimenter's free will you are substituting one problem for another worse one, ( red hat dislikes in my own essay). So it is to my mind a provocative suggestion, (other's may find it less so). IMHO it is possible to overcome the measurement problem without having the observer's behaviour fully determined. That difference of opinion over the physics and philosophical implications of your 'solution' does not alter the fact that you have expressed your ideas and arguments clearly in a thought provoking, well crafted essay. Good luck in the competition.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 02:27 GMT
The problem with quantum measurement is really a question about why there is the appearance of a classical world. In this classical world there are eigenstates associated with “large N” that are stable under environmental perturbations. Quantum mechanics by itself is really fairly simple. We can describe it with linear vector spaces, operators on those spaces that are unitary and Hermitian and so forth. The problem comes with trying to get our classical or macroscopic understanding of the world, which is the physical format for most instruments, to jibe with the quantum world.

The free will of the experimenter is interpreted as the context of an experiment. In the EPR experiment the two experimenters can set their Stern-Gerlach apparatuses as they chose. Quantum mechanics does not provide this, for the eigen-basis of the quantum system is just one of an infinite number under unitary transformation. So we invoke the notion of free will, but this does not have to be so. We can well imagine a computer making the choice based on some algorithm, which could be a random number generator. If one is not happy with pseudo-randomness of algorithmic simulations of randomness one could use radioactive decay. A computer reads off a binary stream from the clicks on a Geiger counter, and this rotates the SG apparatus.. Now the reduced state of one quantum system is used to decide the context whereby another quantum system is measured.

The need for freewill might then be argued to be irrelevant. Physics that is not dependent upon such is best. The problem is that freewill is a part of consciousness, where we have little idea of what consciousness really is.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 03:25 GMT
Hi Lawrence,

The eigenstates that we measure are picked randomly by the quantum system. In a way, the quantum system has free will to pick whatever quantum state it wants. In other words, from our point of view, we measure an eigenstate that is random to us. But free will is sort of like how you and I make a decision that is a random choice to someone else. Go to a resteraunt and chose a meal (eigenstate) from the menu. The waitress has no idea what you're going to order. That is free will. Right?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT
A classical eigenstate is usually the most expected amplitude in a path integral. The orbit of a planet around the sun is a path that is the most expected path if an electron were in that orbit. However, the electron would exhibit an interference of different paths. Yet as a system which has an action S = Nħ for n -- > ∞ exhibits less interference between paths which converge to the most expected path. This destruction of interferences between paths is a measure of the entanglement the system enters into with the environment. The inference phase, or equivalently the overlap phase in the off diagonal portions of the density matrix, is converted into an entanglement with the environment. The density matrix is then reduced to its diagonal probability entries. However, for the large N conversion to macroscopic or classical reality only one of those entries is physically real: the most probable amplitude defines (in most cases) the classical path.

Consciousness or free will is problematic. This is particularly in light of Libet’s fMRI experiments. These demonstrated how the neural activity for engaging in motor activity that defines a choice occurs before the subject is aware of the choice or having made a choice. This suggests that what we call free will, or even the consciousness of making a choice, is some epiphenomenon of neurophysiological processes that are more deterministic.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 23:15 GMT
If you had free will, what would you do with it?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Michael Lee wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 18:56 GMT
Dear Joseph Bisognano,

very well written essay with deep thoughts on the measurement problem and its different "solutions" on the market of theories.

But one has - in my opinion - to be careful to not confuse oneself with the term "consistency".

Consistency is surely needed for every scientific theory, but is it also sufficient? As long as consistency in yours and other's theories/interpretations of QM is the only difference, we have a new problem: it's a matter of personal taste which interpretation the subject prefers. And that would mean - speaking in the language of your theory - that the subject hasn't the free will to choose the "right" interpretation! So "quasi-randomness" in the acceptance/non-acceptance of theories enters the field of our deepest scientific questions!

Would this make sense to you? I see no way out of this new paradox without assuming a meta-level of nature that has some "teleology" built in to lead us (to correlate us) with the true scientific interpretation of QM! So what you've achieved by eliminating free will, is to install a teleologic sense that guids the whole universe (maybe with, maybe without free will....).

So, i can not see how you can say that

"having “…eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” –And that truth is that the universe is fully determined"

is the truth - because assumptions about what's possible and what's not cannot be proven in advance, there are only verifications of possibilities allowed in this case. And for this case you need at least a practical demonstration that predicts every measurement outcome!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 22:56 GMT
Hi Joseph:

A Solution to QM Measurement Paradox

I enjoyed reading your clear and well-written essay describing the QM Measurement Paradox and offering a compromise interim solution – “It appears that accepting that the experimenter’s free will assumption is wrong offers a powerful foundation to move forward.”

I would like to draw your attention to my posted paper - - -“ From Absurd to Elegant Universe” and my book - -“ The Hidden Factor……” wherein I describe the following alternative approach to resolve the QM measurement paradox:

A Gravity Nullification Model is developed that describes the physics of the dynamics of the spontaneous particle decay. This model allows a mathematical description as to how a particle responds deterministically to the experimental apparatus or measurement characteristic in terms of the velocity V of the measuring frame of reference that interferes with the quantum particle being observed. The observed mass, energy, space, and time for the particle are relativistically determined by the model in terms of velocity V chosen by the Free-willed observer to observe the photon moving at the speed of light C. If V=0, the photon is stopped to provide the classical result in a Newtonian frame of reference. If V is chosen to be a higher value, then V/C determines the actual photon mass, frequency, and wavelength as shown in the attached figure 4-14 (pdf file). Thus, the results of the observation are deterministic and dependent upon the free willed choice (V of the measuring device) of the observer.

This also resolves the paradox of the Spooky Action at a Distance as follows. The photon moving at C experiences a fully dilated space and time (due to specific relativity, figure 1 in my posted paper) in its own frame of reference. Hence, a photon that is apparently broken into two subsystems remains correlated or entangled in spite of the appearance of separation experienced in the observer’s frame of reference moving at V less than C.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper that also resolves many existing paradoxes and inconsistencies of QM and explains its inner workings in deterministic relativistic formulations.

Best regards

Avtar Singh

attachments: Waveparticle_behavior_of_a_photon.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Avtar Singh replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear Joseph:

I would greatly appreciate it if you could respond to my comments above.

Thanks in advance,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yosef Alberton wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 07:00 GMT

Citation from my article "Free will and the incomleteness of physics" published in Internet at January 30, 2010: "Usual explanation of physical laws started with word “if”. If we do [some action], then we will see [some result]. But in deterministic world word “if” is senseless! Nobody can do something that is not on the unique track of the world development. In the deterministic world physics does not exist – history only exists.". Also: "Physicist makes his experiments in the places and moments written in the “main book of history”. And he cannot freely repeat these experiments. He has no more freedom of experiments, than mechanical doll. Question: what is happened in the world in moments and places that are not scheduled for an observation?,- is senseless. We never will know that."

Article is at the address:

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Warwick Morgan wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 14:00 GMT
I have often thought that the Sherlock Holmes that you quote is appropriate, but I've never dared to quote it myself. The insistence on free will could be said to require classical physicists not to take the initial conditions in the past to be what they have to be to obtain (given whatever the dynamics might be) what we see now, setting up a classic straw man.

I suppose you are aware of the various attempts in the literature to take on the free will assumption, or, as it might also be called, the no-conspiracy assumption, but have chosen not to cite 't Hooft, for example, in this context. For that matter, Wolfram takes this approach in his discussion of finite automata. FWIW, you will find a discussion of this aspect in my solitary contribution to the Bell literature, "Bell inequalities for random fields", J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39 (2006) 7441-7455,, cond-mat/0403692, although I certainly cannot claim any precedence.

There are quite a few difficulties with *using* a conspiracy approach, the intractability of available deterministic models relative to Hilbert space models for a given set of experiments (that are only repeatable in a statistical sense) being the most awkward, IMO. One can take solace in the possibility of such models, without troubling oneself with actually constructing them.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Joseph Bisognano replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 01:53 GMT
Although absolutely proving impossibility may be beyond the realm of physical argument, I conjecture, that, after decades of work and a growing body of no-go theorems , solving the quantum measurement problem is likely impossible without dropping the assumption of an experimenter’s free will. Clearly, many have realized that super determinism is the loophole (I mention Bell as just one example), but discomfort with conspiracies makes these arguments often tentative and apologetic. The core of my argument is, in the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, to grasp this idea wholeheartedly and see where it leads. I offer one example, more as a self assembly over space-time rather than teleology or a conspiracy at the beginning of time. But this is only given as an example, and other ideas such as Ellis’s top-down approach may ultimately be the way forward. The main point is to urge a serious investigation (international workshops?) of where the denial of an experimenter’s free will can take us.

Bookmark and Share

Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 03:25 GMT

I liked your essay and believe you got it right. The observer needs to be taken into account.

If the free will of the observer is not taken into account you get the standard QM.

Here is an page from my website that gives an unorthodox view of Feynman's mysterious e.

With your essay in mind I would say that the number e is due to not taking into account the free will of the observer.

See if you agree."e".

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 11:39 GMT
Joseph wrote:

"With all of space-time truly a unified whole, existing outside of the flow of time, determinism and quasi free will coexist."

I think wrong assumption to have space-time and flow of times\

space and time are anisotropic.

See my essay

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:23 GMT

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 - 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.

Regards !


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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:47 GMT
Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:30 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
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Janko Kokosar wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:36 GMT
Dear Joseph,

I see that your essay is something what I was should to read. I clarified the problem of measurement, and I got useful references. But, why did you not give reference for t'Hooft
728.pdf He has a similar idea of determinism of quantum theory. (I hope that this is here, otherwise this is other o'Hooft article?)

Otherwise, I have a different solution to your problem. (The seventh section.) I claim that every free will decision is a fundamental quantum phenomenon. I speak in favour of panpsychism. Thus, every quantum collapse is one decision of a primitive unit of consciousness. We see them as random, because they are not connected.

Thus, I think, with this model the measurement problem disappears?

Maybe you will object that EPR experiment cannot be explained on this way, because of superluminal effects. But I claim that spacetime is emergent, thus EPR contains three decisions, of two observers, and of one electron-spin pair.

I hope for any remark, that it will give me to think.

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 13:48 GMT
I’m certainly not the first person to point out that superdeterminism is a loophole for the measurement problem. As I point out, Bell was quite aware of this, and most recently ’t Hooft has championed this idea. Rather, my main point is that given the decades of failure to answer the measurement problem without invoking superdeterminism, in the spirit of the Sherlock Holmes quote, this improbable solution may prove to be the only possible solution. As a second point, I offer a holisitic view of an Escher-like self consistency of a space-time net rather than a conspiracy of initial conditions as a way forward.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 16:06 GMT
Hi Joseph,

Please check this link and find how five essays, including yours, were removed from the 35 finalists. I posted some messages with attachments containing the page and screenshots at 0:01.

Good luck,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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.