Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

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
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Yosef Alberton: on 10/26/12 at 13:30pm UTC, wrote Dear Georgina, thank you. Your last letter highlighted points where my...

Georgina Parry: on 10/13/12 at 9:03am UTC, wrote Dear Yosef, thank you for your reply. Re.2 Your essay talks directly of...

yosef alberton: on 10/6/12 at 17:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Armin, Once a student I hear a lecture of M.M. Bongard. He mentioned...

yosef alberton: on 10/4/12 at 14:07pm UTC, wrote Sergey, What I was not understand is not why I am the last. It is sport....

Anonymous: on 10/4/12 at 13:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Benjamin, Laws of thermodynamicas do not cancel Newton's laws. They...

yosef alberton: on 10/4/12 at 13:52pm UTC, wrote Dear Hoang Cao Hai If I was able to prove, it was not assumptions.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

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

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

RECENT 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.

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.

FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Where From Appear Algorithms in Universe? How All Algorithms and Ideas May Enter the Physical World and Act There? Who (What) and What for Created the Universe? by Yosef Alberton [refresh]

Author Yosef Alberton wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 13:44 GMT
Essay Abstract

Physics studies laws of motion of matter. Exist basic laws of physics, and every real motion can be reduced to these basic laws. Motions related to life and consciousness usually are described by algorithms. Though algorithms are well mathematically defined, for them does not exist said reduction. Consciousness give more complicated case: it has power potentially convert every abstract idea into motion of matter. For this phenomenon also does not exist physical explanation.

Author Bio

Yosef Alberton, programmer.

James Putnam wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 15:01 GMT
Dear Yosef Alberton,

I find your essay interesting. It appears to me to have scientific importance. Your repeated mentions of and description of God will probably keep your essay buried at the bottom of community votes; however, I think that perhaps it may be uninteresting to many others for unscientific reasons. The mechanical bottom-up frame of mind that has taken firm hold on theoretical physics leaves it a weak 'foundational' science.

That weakness leaves open the opportunity for others, such as yourself and myself, to offer ideas meant to strengthen the foundation of science. Whether or not these ideas put forward by others are correct or not correct is not yet as important as is the mere process of breaking free from the mechanical ideology. My own work involves removing these mechanical theoretical inventions from the equations of physics. I do not assume that you agree with my view.

I am not quite certain that I understand your conclusion. Is it your position that a background of intelligence has always existed but remained inactive until processed by individual physical entities? If so, that seems to me to leave too much unanswered, in that viewpoint, about the process by which the universe evolved. If the background intelligence was inactive, how did the physical entities capable of making use of it acquire their ability? Do you accept the fundamental properties described for us by theoretical physics as universal 'givens' and 'natural'? Perhaps if you said more about this it would help to clarify your view for me.

I invite you to express your own opinion about anything that I have said in this message that you disagree with. Thank you.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 14:42 GMT
Yosef Alberton,

Hand wave! Hand wave! I left a message in your forum.

James

report post as inappropriate

Yosef Alberton wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 13:00 GMT
Dear James,

1. It is a pity that there are no critical posts. If suggested model is true, then it will change the history. It may be obviously (obvious = proof is obvious) stupid, but even in this case it deserves 2 words contained said proof. FQXi community is master of its prizes, but not master of truth. Is model true or not - it is the only...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 21:04 GMT
Dear Yosf Alberton,

you pose some interesting questions in your essay. Though I do not think you clearly say which basic physical assumption is wrong.

I wrote this on TH Ray's essay thread but I think it is also highly relevant to your questions. "............ made me think of the end of the book "Falling for science, asking the big questions" by Bernard Beckett. The ending is a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

yosef alberton replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 13:46 GMT
Dear Georgina Parry,

1. " One of the very good things about FQXi is it provides a platform on which thinkers from many different backgrounds can share ideas, that -they- think worth exploring with others" - 100%.

2." There aren't any competition entrants who can tell you with certainty that your idea concerning God are right or wrong" - if it is really so, then it is excellent! My...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 09:03 GMT

Re.2 Your essay talks directly of God. It may possibly have deterred potential readers who might have thought it out of place in a physics contest. Or deterred them from commenting for fear of causing offence to your religious sensibilities.

Re.3 The word "God" has a lot of theology and popular religious ideas associated with it. You have not said what "God" means to you. Without clear definition of the word (what is and isn't meant by it, as you use it, within the context of physics), it is not really possible to say whether it is helpful, or bringing a lot of unsubstantiated ideas along with it that have no place in science.

Re.4 Yes physics is incomplete knowledge. It can't for example fully explain the emotional experience of being human. That's not what the subject of physics is about.

Re.5. No, I mean that thought should be given to meaning, how ideas are related, to be consistent with the evidence. Common sense alone is not sufficient to understand what is going on in physics.

Re.6 The role of the observer in physics is really interesting to me. The observer has a place in physics because the models that we have are based upon the observations that are made. To have measurements an organism, device or sensitive material that makes detections, i.e. an observer, is needed.

Regards Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Yosef Alberton replied on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 13:30 GMT
Dear Georgina, thank you.

Your last letter highlighted points where my position may be clarified.

Re. Re.2. " directly of God ... out of place in a physics contest ". But contest IS about possible and impossible changes in the physical context! Sorry for the grotesque: "Dear Copernicus. Your paper talks directly that Earth rotates around the Sun... " Yes, it is what I say - that God...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 11:48 GMT
Dear Yosef Alberton

Very interesting with the presence of the Creator, that's the way I used to, but with a different perspective.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate

yosef alberton replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 13:52 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai

If I was able to prove, it was not assumptions.

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 22:35 GMT
Dear Yosef,

You discuss some interesting ideas here. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. The question of whether physical laws ultimately govern what MUST happen in the universe or merely describe what actually DOES happen seems relevant here. The "lecturer" in your essay seems to believe that simple laws actually "govern" what is physically possible, while the student points out that many processes that actually do occur are not completely reducible to such laws. Of course, these processes might be consistent with the laws, but that does not mean the laws determine them.

2. Personally I believe that the most fundamental "laws" of physics will prove to be more like the second law of thermodynamics than like Newton's force law. What I mean is this: the second law of thermodynamics does not define what MUST happen, it only describes what is overwhelmingly likely. What actually happens tends to follow the more likely possibilities, but this is a description of what occurs rather than a rule for what must occur.

Thanks for the interesting read! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 13:58 GMT
Dear Benjamin,

Laws of thermodynamicas do not cancel Newton's laws. They analize different situations. Every individual molecule always obeys to Newton's law. Algorithms appear at the level of 1 molecule, so this phenomenon must be explained.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:28 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

yosef alberton replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 14:07 GMT
Sergey,

What I was not understand is not why I am the last. It is sport. Somebody must be last - why not me? Strange for me was combination: assey is accepted to contest - no positive votes - no negative posts.After essay was accepted, I had hope - now I will hear objections.

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:39 GMT
Dear Yosef,

I think the rating of your essay was hurt by the unusual formatting of your paper, the fact that English does not appear to be your first language, and most importantly that you take on some highly controversial positions.

Nevertheless, I believe that your essay by no means deserves to be at the bottom because it is coherent (something that I found a few other essays to be lacking), it uses the engaging dialogue format, and it raises some interesting questions.

From my perspective, the most interesting question is how to model intentionality. While there are some rival psychological theories that try to give broad outlines at the human level, it may well be true that modeling it via an exact algorithm is too complicated to be possible. But I wonder whether it can be done at the level of more primitive organisms. Can one find a biochemical algorithm that, say, models how an amoeba "senses" food nearby and then proceeds to engulf it? Such an algorithm might provide at least a starting point for modeling intentionality in higher level organisms.

All the best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

yosef alberton wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Armin,

Once a student I hear a lecture of M.M. Bongard. He mentioned bionics and says (as I remember): "Simultaneously in US and USSR bionics was defined as way to get money from the military to the development of biology. Do not think that you can to see something in the nature and implement technically. Usual way is opposite. How many words were said about heart! But only when the simplest pump was invented, then it became clear what the heart is."

I mention this lecture to explain my direction. There exist wide region of modeling. But I think that more important in the opposite direction. Possibility of modeling human being indicates that algorithms are a deep entity staying behind life and consciousness. They may be found in the biology, and further - in the physics, and further - in Creator.

First article I wrote in internet in said direction was "Static Creator Models", 2008 (exists more detailed Russian version).

About senses. I think that first of all it is interesting what they are. I suppose that they may be defined at the level of physics, as "something", appear when some algorithms are performed. In the physical world, not on the computer.

And here is the formula of life from mentioned article: "Program creates processor".

Thank you.

Yosef.

report post as inappropriate