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 forums@fqxi.org 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
read/discusswinners

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.
read/discusswinners

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

read/discusswinners

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
read/discusswinners

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

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
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
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
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

annet both: on 11/6/12 at 10:39am UTC, wrote From the text: Even when we conform to something as “supremely” real,...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:14am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Hoang Hai: on 9/27/12 at 3:41am UTC, wrote Dear Joseph Maria Hoebe Very interesting with the model "Truth" of you. ...

George Rajna: on 9/16/12 at 9:01am UTC, wrote Excellent!

George Rajna: on 9/16/12 at 8:59am UTC, wrote Excellent!

Barry Kumnick: on 9/1/12 at 10:03am UTC, wrote Hi Jos, Thanks for your reply. Your essay appears to be another variant of...

Joseph Hoebe: on 8/30/12 at 9:37am UTC, wrote Hallo Barry, B: The prime truth is the totality of existence, for in the...

Barry Kumnick: on 8/30/12 at 1:09am UTC, wrote Hi Jos, Thanks for your kind feedback. I may just understand far more than...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 26, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The "I as Observer-Observing-Observation" Paradigm. by Joseph Maria Hoebe [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Joseph Maria Hoebe wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 17:09 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract: I use geometry as symbolic means to show the nature of Truth and the role of the observer in observing Truth. By building geometric models I show the impact of choice on observations and therewith the arising of different kinds of truths, all true in their own respect, but possibly conflicting or not understandable to other observers. My approach in this essay is to show that all paradigms should start with the “I”, who, as observer, defines its observations by its way of observing. With it I propose the making of a geometrical language as a symbolic means to show and communicate the basic mechanical directions and the margins arising from them to understand and alter any kind of observation, be it scientific; every day experience; psychological; philosophical or plain fantasy. A brief introduction for the making of such a geometrical language is included. The reader is asked to understand that further elaboration on this language is beyond the scope of this essay.

Author Bio

Jos Hoebe Inventor (of Consciousness Technology Worth Spreading) Inventor / Researcher / Developer. Trainer / Therapist / Coach. Owner / CEO of Qualcon services.org. Owner/ CEO of C60 Hedron Systems BV. Stockholder of Anome BV. Professor, senior advisor R&D at Stichting CommUniversity, the online University on Hedronsciences. Senior advisor and trainer at Stichting Code 40ne. www.anome.nl www.communiversity.nu www.code40ne.com www.joshoebe.com j.hoebe@hedronsciences.nl

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 14:33 GMT
To: Jos Hepta Pe-tro Idéon

from : the "I" part of Wilhelmus

location: alpha-P at TS

re : TRUTH

Dear Jos H, I liked your approach of the truth , however as you also mentioned any observation is limited by the senses of the observer, that is why on earth where we had only 5 senses we were so limited and were never able to find the whole truth. But ... now being here in TS we still are not able to a full perception of the whole reality of the metaverse, we may have 6 senses now, but I feel that there are other probabilities that the "I" part of myself cannot understand, as a matter of fact the colours on my Subjective Simultaneity Sphere have improved, but my "I" part still remains in the center, attempts are made to become the whole. You could read "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION", my latest contribution to the institution on earth that contributes greatly to the search for the Truth (by the way they hacked your mails), and leave there a post, I will be on earth still for some time, so I will read it there. I liked very much your conversation , the foam of my "objective simultaneity sphere" is in fact a continuation of your dodecahedron approach leading to decoherence here on earth. Have a good time (whatever that is there) and continue thinking free.

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Maria Hoebe replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 15:13 GMT
Thanks Wilhelmus,

I can agree fully to your comment. The riddle of reality is hard to comprehend in whatever "space", environment or being we are. To me that is also the great wonder. The unknown and uncertainty is thrilling for me. On each and every corner there is something to dis-cover. And even without cover whatever is revealed or to be observed is still unknown. It gives me a great feeling of wonder and thankfulness for being. That there is überhaupt something is to me the real wonder and to be conscious of it even extra.

I read your paper and liked it very much. I rated it a 9. I will send you a private mail, because I would like to use it in some discussions and would like to have your permission.

For now, thanks for attending the congress and have a wonderful life back on Earth.

Here on ∑√∏ Serius5 "we" are still very interested what is happening there.

It seems that the consciousness you mentioned is coming into the mind of the scientists. You did a great work with your paper. It is mentioned also on one of the forums we meet us sometimes.

To speak about wonder!

Warm regards,

Hepta Pê-tro Idéon

(Jos Hoebe).

Bookmark and Share


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 16:34 GMT
from : alpha-P in TS

to : Hepta Pe-Tro Odéon

ref: OOO

Dear HPTI, thanks for your positive causal reaction, indeed the universe is so immense and on every Planck length there is a myrad of wonders. I was some timeless moment in alpha-P TS from where I sent you this answer. When we try to unify our causal "I" singulairity with the TS singulairity (both difficult to understand in causal spheres) we are the creators of all these wonders, so the more "I's" the more wonders, as is proved in your essay.

Hope to hear from you soon, I am back now.

Wilhelmus

wilhelmus.d@orange.fr

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert Fay wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 01:09 GMT
"I as Observer-Observing-Observation"

Joseph is a dear friend who knows that he gets what have said to him about the mechanics of the illusion and the why behind it all >>> that of producing a slowed down time\space expression {expression = free-flowing-energy rendering itself into the state of vibration or containment} so that which is real-containment and holds the mechanical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 16:23 GMT
Thank you Robert for the links.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Maria Hoebe replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 17:13 GMT
Thanks Robert, Always nice to hear of you, even when you are snippy.

The why, is just because it occurred that way in a Linkedin discussion in the APS group, where consciousness was mentioned and one of the contributors said to me and some others, that if we know so well about consciousness, write it down in an essay for this contest. I thought it a good idea.

It thought it a good idea also while written this was already something I would write, but I had not the appropriate audience, which is here very well.

all the best to you, and I take that beer.

Jos

Bookmark and Share



Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 17:27 GMT
Dear Jos Hoebe,

You have beautifully presented a wonderful fantasy - the observer! Well done!

As you know, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.

You are also requested to read and comment my essay titled "Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Maria Hoebe replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 17:41 GMT
Thanks Gurcharn,

I hope you've rated it too.

I will read your paper and will comment to it.

I indeed like this contest topic. Of course we have to start with some assumptions. To my opinion the first one is: Iam. Then the rest can follow.

What triggered me in physics is that it is built on assumptions, proposition.

I had also another essay in which the basic assumption is that we can use a measure. In the Vedic there is the word Maya, which is mostly translated as Illusion, but do you know also that it means measure?

When we measure we get the illusion of reality, but the only reality we have then is that we have a measured reality, which will differ from reality without measurement. On this I developed a math of measures.

But that would be more for another contest.

Anyway, thanks for reading and your comment.

warm regards,

Jos

Bookmark and Share


George Rajna replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 08:59 GMT
Excellent!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ioannis Hatzidakis wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 11:00 GMT
Dear Jos,

you may find some useful grains in my essay.

Best luck wherever you are. Ioannis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Maria Hoebe replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 09:07 GMT
Thanks Ioannis, I have read it, and comment there too.

Here I add: In every of the 3 dimensions, different geometries can be made and each will having different symbolic meaning and also different different views and equations for reality.

With kind regards

Jos Hoebe

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 18:22 GMT
Jos

Great essay, fun but with some very pertinent points. I picked up your link from APS, and hope you may have picked up mine earlier, or that you'll read it now.

I use something of the same structure, but discussing kinetics and the importance of better understanding the effects of interaction with non zero bodies, not the points our current maths assumes. High community mark coming to you, and I hope you like mine too. Please do comment.

Best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Maria Hoebe replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 09:10 GMT
Thanks Peter.

I am reading your essay, but due to a lot of work I will comment to it later.

What I saw of it, I like very much.

In the tread of Ali on reality at the APS forum I will comment to some questions on it of Ali, related to that thread.

Kind regards,

Jos

Bookmark and Share



Barry Kumnick wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 01:48 GMT
Hi Jos,

I enjoyed your piece on truth and observation. It was insightful and entertaining.

I've attached a little critique of your essay for consideration by you and anybody else that may be interested. It also contains a brief synopsis of some of my fundamental research in this area in the hope that it may encourage others to investigate the same or similar lines of research.

Enjoy,

Barry Kumnick

attachments: A_Critique_of__I_as_Observer.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Maria Hoebe replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 09:12 GMT
Wow Barry, thanks.

I will read it later and comment here and will send that comment also to you by private mail. It will take some time, while I first have to do a lot of my "normal" work.

Bests,

Jos

Bookmark and Share


jos hoebe replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 15:00 GMT
Barry,

Your comment is very long. It is also much. Too much to answer in full because then we get a discussion and that I want to avoid. My approach to show a different understanding and that the “Unknown” is the prime “Truth”. I also wanted to show that it could be possible to make specific geometrical representations which build themselves by consistent logic.

What you do in your comment is stating a lot of assumptions as if they are Truth. That is precisely what the problem is, I suggested. It are all assumptions, and with it you prove the Unknown quality.

Furthermore you derive these statements/assumptions from other ones. E.g. I do not agree on that Existence as truth is mathematically complete. What about Beauty and Love?

I also do not agree on the Constant of the speed of light. Just because there is no vacuum at all. Not on Earth, nor outside. Also it is to my opinion a not enough understood “Phenomenon”. I have total different ideas on it, not to discuss here as a comment. I also do not agree on your statements on Energy (Conservation of energy) that there is first x and then observer, not everything is observable, etc.

It is too much to comment on.

My essay is about something else, and it seems to me, reading your comment, that you missed the mark completely.

Nevertheless, Thanks for your brave work.

With kind regards,

Jos

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 16:01 GMT
Hi Barry, your answer to Jos intrigues me a lot because you say :

1. "We construct our neural models of existance relative to ourselves". On this point we agree, the center of our consciousness receives the signals from our "Subjective Simultaneity Sphere, SSS", the radius of this sphere can be changed so that we can compare events from long ago or recent ones.

2. Existence is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Barry Kumnick wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 01:09 GMT
Hi Jos,

Thanks for your kind feedback. I may just understand far more than you think.

I agree with most of your points as far as they go from the perspective in which you presented them, but I think the perspective itself is wrong. In my opinion, you haven’t dug deep enough.

I guess I need to show you just how deep this rabbit hole goes...

Please forgive me for dumping this on you. I understand it might be a little much to take in all at once and more than a little deep. You can take it slow.

I am only offering to share this because your article shows a keen mind that may just be capable of grasping some of what I have deduced. I enjoy keen minds and yours seems like it is far ahead of most on this planet. I am just trying to nudge you towards what I see as a far deeper and potentially far more productive perspective. How far you carry that ball is completely up to you. If you don't want to discuss these issues any further, I won't post anything more.

Kind regards,

Barry

attachments: Reply_to_I_as_observer.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Maria Hoebe replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 09:37 GMT
Hallo Barry,

B: The prime truth is the totality of existence, for in the final analysis, that is what is (partly)

unknown to us, and that is the only thing that exists. After all, the observer and their observations

are just another part of existence.

J: The observer observing observation is existence. That is the whole truth. Just that.

B: The whole concept...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Barry Kumnick replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 10:03 GMT
Hi Jos,

Thanks for your reply. Your essay appears to be another variant of the panpsychic philosophical position.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism.

Panpsychists typically attempt to argue that human consciousness could not exist unless everything in the universe had some kind of consciousness or consciousness precursor. In my experience they tend to believe...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Rajna wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 09:01 GMT
Excellent!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 03:41 GMT
Dear Joseph Maria Hoebe

Very interesting with the model "Truth" of you.

Hopefully soon to be known about the nature of "truth".

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:14 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
and
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:
or
or
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


annet both wrote on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 10:39 GMT
From the text:

Even when we conform to something as “supremely” real, it is still Unknown plus something else, namely: “It must

be there”. Both we could consider as an actual fact. We can trust this conclusion.

---

Why should `something that is not known' be there (as a fact)? I my view there are two possibilities, both do not lead to `thruth as something that must be there'.

1 I do know that there is something I do not know. How do I know that there is something that I do not know? It has to be the case that `truth that must be there'. is an assumption, and this assumption is there before(!) I know that I don't know it. Iow, it is an assumption, not a fact. The assumption is needed to know that there is something I do not know, otherwise there is nothing at all and then it happens that

2 I do not know that I do not know. And in that case I do not know anything about `thruth that must be there' either, because I do know that.

Did not read the rest of the text yet, because I got stuck here...

best wishes

annet both netherlands

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.