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

Previous Contests

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

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:23am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Frederico Pfrimer: on 10/2/12 at 20:57pm UTC, wrote Dear Erik, I greatly admire your essay. Your characterization of how would...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 9:39am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Erik Andrulis: on 9/29/12 at 11:18am UTC, wrote Within hours the posting of the link above and after not being scored for...

Anonymous: on 9/28/12 at 18:18pm UTC, wrote Hi Peter, thanks for your comment. I will take a look at your essay. ...

Erik Andrulis: on 9/28/12 at 18:13pm UTC, wrote Whoops, that would be "Consistent"

Erik Andrulis: on 9/28/12 at 18:11pm UTC, wrote With the FQXi contest coming to a close, I thought it would be fun to post...

Peter Jackson: on 9/23/12 at 20:23pm UTC, wrote Erik A very pertinent review of pertinent views. Wheelers "utterly simple...


Jason Wolfe: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Re.macroscopic objectivity: How an outcome is to be called, the method..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Jahangir kt: "A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you..." in Our Place in the...

Steve Dufourny: "I am going to tell you an important thing about the aethers. I thought that..." in Alternative Models of...

halim sutarmaja: "dewapoker hadir untuk semua pecinta game poker dengan teknologi terbaru dan..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...

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.

November 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Complete and Consistent Theory by Erik David Andrulis [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Erik David Andrulis wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 12:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

The grandest prize for the theoretician and the chief intellectual glory of humankind is the complete and consistent theory of the universe. Being complete, this theory includes everything in the visible and invisible universe. Being consistent, this theory accurately arranges and unites the facts. Consequently, the complete and consistent theory explains both how and why physical reality is the way it is and not any other way. In so doing, the complete and consistent theory overturns flawed assumptions and obsolesces ad hoc theories. Here, I outline the characteristics of the complete and consistent theory and discuss issues and assumptions that interfere with its emergence and acceptance.

Author Bio

Erik D. Andrulis received his Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology from Stony Brook University in 1998. Anomalous experimental observations motivated him to re-examine extant genetic theories and to construct a heuristic model and framework for the interplay of RNA, protein, and DNA. Andrulis expanded his theoretical research to fields beyond his specialty, resulting in a theory of the origin and evolution of life. His theoretical goal is to unify the universe. He is currently an assistant professor in molecular biology and microbiology.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 17:34 GMT
John Wheeler, whom you quoted, my favorite scientist. l like other his quote: "Some day a door will surely open and expose the glittering central mechanism of the world in its beauty and simplicity."(Gravitation,Vol.2 p.1197)

I tried to make closer this day.

See my essay

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Erik Andrulis replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 17:50 GMT

Thank you for your comment, but I am not sure what you meant by "I tried to make it closer..." Did you mean "closer" as in proximity? Or did you mean "closer" one who in the process to shutting up something (i.e. opposing Wheeler's yen for the open door). Or did you mean neither or both?

Regarding quotes, the one by Dyson at the end of your piece gave me pause. His first disastrous thing—the solution of all major unsolved problems in physics—would indeed be tragic, but no more or less tragic than watching physics continue forever without ever reaching its goal(s). Which tragedy is more tragic?



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 18:18 GMT
I mean closer Wheeler's "Some day"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 18:01 GMT

Your first section, "The limitations of current theories", is apply confirmed by the many essays in this contest. The term "incomplete information" presented by Georgina Parry in her essay, topic 1316, pretty much sums up of how contemporary science theories have become so jumbled. You mention many of the factors that have influenced the development of current theories. I believe economic incentives, the grants and funds directed toward "proving" certain assumptions, as being a major factor why the "scientific authority structure", a Thomas Kuhn term, defend certain theories with religious type zealotry.

On a less philosophical direction, have you had time to read the essay of Jerek Duda, topic 1416? I made this statement in a comment, "Do you realize that you are presenting material as to why ionizing radiation is so destructive to biological tissue, the rotational form of the energy field allows it to efficiently couple to DNA and other helical structures within the body."

I suspected that ionizing radiation might have a helical type form when I formulated the concepts in a paper I prepared, The helical structure of the electromagnetic gravity field .

My essay, topic 1294, exposed an assumption that has become so ingrained in everyone's thinking that no one recognizes it as an assumption

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 12:51 GMT
Thanks for your comment and thanks for sharing those other works. I will peruse them.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 19:36 GMT
Dear Eric,

I read with great interest your essay. It is very important and extremely interesting. Good luck in the contest!

Sincerely, Vladimir Rogozhin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Erik Andrulis replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 12:53 GMT

Thanks for your kind comment. All the best,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 20:03 GMT
Dear Erik David Andrulis,

Very good essay. A pleasure to read. Thank you for submitting it.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Erik Andrulis replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 12:57 GMT

Thanks for the compliment. There are many great essays here; my only hope is that that mine complements them in some small way.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Erik Andrulis wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 13:00 GMT

p. 5: "were this theory not true, it would not be the final theory." (removed extra "were")

p. 7: "I am not the system or physical object that I model" (added "the")

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Matt Lass wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 18:32 GMT

I was excited by this essay, like hearing the peal of bells from a mountaintop, calling for the world to receive new ideas without being threatened or compelled to crucify those seeking the truth in science. There are some in the scientific community who claim that a large percentage of what can be known is already known, a belief held centuries ago. Knowledge will reveal itself in ever-expanding fashion, like a gyre, whose point of origin holds an elegant, simple secret.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Erik David Andrulis replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 18:41 GMT

I am truly humbled and touched by your comment.

I am grateful that FQXi has given me this opportunity to share my work. If, by any measure, my essay promotes self-knowledge, then I am all the more grateful.


Bookmark and Share

ABRAHAM wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 08:16 GMT

A truly interesting essay on the impact and assessment of a Unified theory in Physics.

Tetryonics - the charged geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter may well fit the bill as it is based on the priori principle that equilateral energy geometries are the foundation of all physical forces, fields, particles and their interactions.

Whilst you argue that theoretical physics is Mathematics, I would argue that Physics is GEOMETRY which in turn constrains the Maths that describes it.

An important point to reflect on here is that whilst Tetryonic's equilateral geometry changes our view of Energy in all its forms it does NOT change the Math used to describe the physics [save for where it reveals errors in the current formulation or physical perceptions of the Math], in complete agreement with James Jeans' statement in your essay.

You will note that even Einstein advised against the "prejudices of known facts" as highlighted at the beginning of my essay and that Tetryonics goes a long way to prove cautionary statements like that to be sage advise.

Through its equilateral geometry many mystifying aspects of physics are swept aside and revealed to be facets of a foundational equilateral geometry.

Perhaps the best examples of this is the early revelation in Tetryonics that SQUARE numbered energies in QM are in fact TRIANGULAR geometries, and that quantised angular momentum is not a rotational vector but a measure of equilateral geometry per unit of Time. [see attached].

To date I have applied it to QM, QED, Chemistry and Cosmology [as well as SR & GR] and I hope you'll examine Tetryonics [both the essay and my detailed work on the net] and see how it meets your criteria for a unified field theory of Physics.

attachments: 2_Figure_80.22__Geometric_Physical_Maths_800x600.jpg, 2_Figure_01.07__Quantised_Angular_Momentum_800x600.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Erik David Andrulis replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 15:48 GMT

Thank you for your comment and kindeness. Your argument is reasonable, and there are many in ancient Greece who agreed with it.

That written, there is one and only one complete, universal theory. What that means is that there is only one framework that accurately fits and explains all of the empirical evidence. That one theory must not only include physics but must go beyond physics, as Bernal pointed out.

Any non-universal theory - for example, one that is restricted to physics - as Barrow and Tipler pointed out, is wrong before it is even tested (see quote in 'The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,' OUP.

This is not meant disrespectfully, this is meant as a rule of thumb for the theorist in search of the complete and consistent theory of the universe.


Bookmark and Share

Joseph Maria Hoebe wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 11:35 GMT
excellent thinking, Erik. Thank you very much.

To your essay mine ( )could be added. In it I state that we first have to look for the so-called "I". Reasoning you can read in the essay.

The topic of this contest is to me a top priority in science. The whole cardhouse is built indeed on assumptions seens as truth. Nowadays science, especially physics, is more a religion, than a reality, although technology makes a lot possible, but that was also true then when the world was flat: no-one went to the edge and the brave ones never returned, which should proof the theory.

Well, stupidity and narrow-mindedness will always survive. Even when a TOE would be there and published (already done to my experience)it will not be accepted while as you stated clearly, these 3 assumptions are still held up.

So, I, can understand my (kind of) TOE and live with it and do with it. For me, that is enough.

warm regards

Jos Hoebe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Erik David Andrulis replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 16:05 GMT

My thinking is only as excellent as s/he who would call it that. For me to experience that excellence, I am a reflection of what Jos is; it could be no other way.

I saw the assay cited and am aware of its contents; thanks for sharing. I await the theory that includes me, the one doing the theorizing.


Bookmark and Share

George wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 13:31 GMT
Dear Erik,

I find yours judgments very interesting and yours article well informative. I am agree that mathematic is a tool only (it is true, a powerful!) that cannot solely to guide of researcher. The idea should be putted in the basis, then to use some logical system and common rules to build any self-consistent theory. I try do it in mine work that I am hoping may deserve your kind attention. (Topics 1430)



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Erik David Andrulis replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 16:19 GMT

Thanks for sharing your comment. Regarding tools, Gregory Bateson had this to say, "Some tools of thought are so blunt they are almost useless; others are so sharp that they are dangerous. But the wise man will have the use of both kinds." I agree with Bateson.

I will take a look at your essay.


Bookmark and Share

Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:03 GMT
Gregory Bateson is very interesting sharp-eyed thinker

As well as many people from this listing

William Ross Ashby

Heinz von Foerster

Warren Sturgis McCulloch

John von Neumann

Norbert Wiener

Claude Shannon

They have made a huge contribution in the world-view XX century.

Dear Erik

All my life i remember Hans Selye slogan:

"Neither the prestige of your subject, and the power of your instruments, nor the extent of your learnedness and the precision of your planning, can substitute for the originality of your approach and the keeness of your observation."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 20:35 GMT
Hello Mr Andrulis,

I am so fascinated by this evolution. Probably it is the reason why I have classed a little of all since the age of 16. It is in classing that I have found my theory of spherization. I classed the animals and the vegetals. I searched the links since this hypothetical BB. In classing, you see the generality of this evolution. I am also very intrigued you know by these amino acids.

If we take a simple gauge of whole point of vue.

so we have

quantum spheres(uniqueness serie).....we see the evolution on earth so on the line time, so 4.6 billions hydrospheroids......H ....CNO.....H2C2 HCN H2O CH4 NH3....and we see the evolution with the creation of amino acids. ....after the cells....the pluricells....the sponges,.... the medusas..and us now in simplifying of course....It is very intriguing. The adn becomes a real universal key......we can continue the classment in inserting ....planets , stars and BH .......and our UNIVERSAL SPHERE. Like that, the gauge can be seen witha real quantization.

In fact in classing, the spheres appear with a real rationality for the quantization of this mass. The mass polarises the light. But of course the serie is a finite serie.If not ,it is difficult to quantize this mass.

The evolution is a real universal project. The optimization spherization like the torch of essentials.

It is fascinating this evolution, we optimize, we spherisize, we improve , we are catalyzers inside a physical sphere.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Erik David Andrulis replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 20:53 GMT

Thank you for sharing your fascination. I cotton on and to it.


Bookmark and Share

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 10:01 GMT
You are welcome.

The anthropical principle dances with the entropical principle. We are coded in our main central spheres in fact since the begining of this big polarization, this hypothetical BB. I see it like a sphere of light and its meiosis mitosis more the multiplication of the system of uniqueness. It is relevant considering the quantization of mass.This uniqueness serie is relevant considering the number of particules inside a closed evolutive sphere and its quantum and cosmological spheres.

We polarize, all mass polarizes and increases in mass at all momment. The mass polarises the light informations.

fascinating all this evolution.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT

B.t.w read my essay and send your opinion please...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 18:17 GMT
Dear Eric,

In the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my essay about it) alive beings and the matter carriers (nucleons, stars and so on) exist as equal opposite parts of Universe. What do you about it?

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 02:36 GMT
Dear Erik Andrulis,

I enjoyed immensely reading your essay and agree with what you say. You have done a great job outlining characteristics of a “complete and consistent theory”. That is should be “explanatory” and “parsimonious “ and “unifying “ and “testable “ and “revolutionary“. And that “The complete and consistent theory foments that definitive revolution. It is the end of the quest for knowledge about the ultimate nature of reality and the beginning of knowing the ultimate nature of ... Truth”. You are very correct in saying, “assumptions that undergird scientific theories are, quite shockingly, just like religious beliefs”.

In my essay, “The Metaphysics of Physics”, I delve into such issues and argue much of modern physics is metaphysical in essence. Mathematical models that seek to describe 'what is' the Universe are metaphysical and will ultimately fail. And I suggest in order for physics not to morph into metaphysics, we should limit our scope to measurements of 'what is' (what we do know to be true) and mathematical tautologies (not models) applied to measurements (what we know to be logically certain).

I hoped for more detail from you as to what such a theory might be, in your view. You hint at such revelations that have come to you through your own research. And I also have notions of what such a Theory of Everything may be. Like you, I also draw great inspiration from the wisdom of ancient Greece. And I see that wisdom in all areas of human experience. Including physics! One of my favorite such edicts is “know thyself” and “all things in balance” and “man is the measure of all things” and “all knowledge is self-knowledge”. I use these to guide my thinking. And I would be very interested in your thoughts and reflections on the arguments and research I present in my essay. Please read and rate!

Best wishes,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 03:15 GMT

My present for you

Crystallographic picture of the world

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 16:00 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

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 20:23 GMT

A very pertinent review of pertinent views. Wheelers "utterly simple idea" is correct for me, but the real problem seems to be recognising it. As Feynman said; The real answer will at first look wrong as It'l be unfamiliar.

I'm quite convinced that in my essay I've demonstrated an 'utterly simple idea' that takes us a giant step out of the current bog, based on solid logical foundations. Perhaps you may have a look as I'd value your views as someone with an understanding of the issues.

Well written, and best of luck.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 18:18 GMT
Hi Peter, thanks for your comment. I will take a look at your essay.



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Erik David Andrulis wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 18:11 GMT
With the FQXi contest coming to a close, I thought it would be fun to post the presentation I am giving this upcoming week on the complete and consistent theory:

Complete and Constistent Theory of the Universe

Comments are welcome here, there, anywhere.

Bookmark and Share

Author Erik David Andrulis replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 18:13 GMT
Whoops, that would be "Consistent"

Bookmark and Share

Author Erik David Andrulis wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:18 GMT
Within hours the posting of the link above and after not being scored for several days, my essay entry went from the top 25% to the bottom 50%.

In other words, the evidence reveals that it is not my essay that is being judged here but, rather, the contents of the link that is receiving a score.

Interesting. I thought this was an /essay/ contest.

So be it. The rankings are a reflection of what I think about myself; they are a true reflection of what I am. In fact, I am the number itself, as proven by theory. I rank, reject, define, and categorize myself as and through number.

It needn't matter what number I give myself. Frankly, numbers are useful and necessary—to a point.

What I would like to see from my colleagues is a scholarly disproof of the complete theory I have presented.

Bookmark and Share

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:39 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 20:57 GMT
Dear Erik,

I greatly admire your essay. Your characterization of how would be the “final theory” brings clarity and insights into its nature. You could describe very well what kind of theory might solve the problems on the foundations of physics and even other fields. And I deeply agree with the core of your ideas. In fact, in my essay, “The Final theory and the Language of Physics”, you will see many points of convergence between our views. But you go beyond me and try to extend you ideas not only to physics but to all science. I restricted myself, not completely, to physics and physical sciences. It is good to know that there are others thinking the same thing as I. Your notion of “the complete and consistent theory”, if restricted to physics, would be exactly my notion of “the final theory of physics”.

I suggest you reading and rating my essay, but please, consider my notion of mathematics and of mathematical theory a bit more wide. I mean, I consider being mathematical anything that is being described in a more formal sense, which is not limited to usual algebra. So as algorithms, programming languages, sets, fractals, geometrical forms can (at least in principle) be described in a formal (unambiguous) way they could all be considered mathematical in my sense. And I agree with you first wrong assumption; we should not limit ourselves to ordinary math and mathematical models. They are too restrictive. I also agree that this theory will, at some point of development, be able to describe ourselves and so we cannot keep observers and conscience out of it. If it is complete it can describe anything, so it must describe us at some point, and say how human agents are related with the physical world.

Wish you all the best!


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:23 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

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.