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

genies alan: on 6/13/17 at 7:17am UTC, wrote Many a book is like a key to unknown chambers within the castle of one’s...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:17am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

qsa: on 9/30/12 at 0:29am UTC, wrote Dear Dean & Jessica, I have a theory that EXACTLY...

Hoang Hai: on 9/26/12 at 2:29am UTC, wrote Dear Dean & Jessica You have the same orientation to me, but two you...

Peter Jackson: on 9/25/12 at 14:09pm UTC, wrote Dean & Jessica I couldn't agree more about 'Relative Locality' emerging...

Steve Weinstein: on 9/23/12 at 1:32am UTC, wrote Dean & Jessica, Really nicely written essay. I like your willingness to...

James Hoover: on 9/20/12 at 18:49pm UTC, wrote Dean and Jessica, We can't even agree that things are there or that they...

Karl Coryat: on 9/19/12 at 23:10pm UTC, wrote Thank you for challenging this difficult and persistent assumption. I did...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Georgina Woodward: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy." in Cosmological Koans

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

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...

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
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Things Ain’t What They Used To Be by Dean Rickles and Jessica Bloom [refresh]

Author Dean Rickles wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 15:22 GMT
Essay Abstract

A world of things or a world of relations? Things have traditionally exposed scientific development to trouble. Think phlogiston. Think luminiferous ether. Things have been at the root of many problems in the foundations of physical theories. Think spacetime points. Think quantum particles. Yet things seem to be necessary for relations to make sense. How could there be a world without things; without particular objects or individuals? How could there be relations without things standing in those relations? So long as there are things, there are relations between them and, it seems, logically dependent on them so that where there are relations there must be things too. In this essay we will argue, contrary to this common line of thought, that the assumption that the world is composed of ‘things’ is wrong (or at least problematic) and that jettisoning it might plausibly lead to advances in physics. That the world is fundamentally made up of things is surely an example of a belief “so ingrained” that (with some exceptions) it has become an “unquestioned dogma” (though a perfectly understandable one). While the basic idea defended here (a fundamental ontology of brute relations) can be found elsewhere in the philosophical literature on ‘structural realism’, we have yet to see the idea used as an argument for advancing physics, nor have we seen a truly convincing argument, involving a real construction based in modern physics, that successfully evades the objection that there can be no relations without first (in logical order) having things so related. We will sketch an argument in this paper that is sufficiently general to apply to fundamental physics as a whole.

Author Bio

Dean Rickles is a senior research fellow in History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Sydney, where his primary research focus is the history and philosophy of quantum gravity. Jessica Bloom is a graduate student, working on photonic systems, in the School of Physics at the University of Sydney.

Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 21:32 GMT
Dean Rickles and Jessica Bloom,

clear,comprehensible, very relevant, very well done. I agree that relations, and what kind of relations, are most important to consider. Questioning the thing-ness of things is also very valuable.

I hope you get lots of interested and appreciative readers. You have discussed some very important ideas in a lucid and engaging way.Good luck in the competition

report post as inappropriate

Author Dean Rickles replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 05:09 GMT
Thanks Georgina.

Best of luck with your (things/relations-focused) essay too!

Michael Silberstein wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 04:39 GMT
Hi Dean,

Great essay and I am in complete agreement. The only bit I object to is the following:

"While the basic idea defended here (a fundamental ontology of brute relations) can be found elsewhere in the philosophical literature on ‘structural realism’ (especially [6]), we have yet to see the idea used as an argument for advancing physics."

Our work on relational blockworld has been doing exactly this for some time. See our essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1393 . Also see the attached pubs. Comments gratefully received!

attachments: 10701_2012_9653_OnlinePDF.pdf, 1_SHPMP557.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Dean Rickles replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 05:03 GMT
Hi Michael,

Thanks. I hadn't thought of your project as similar before, but scanning these papers I can see there's much in common (especially the things you say in 3.1 of your SHPMP paper). I also very much liked this line of Hiley's that you quote: "both geometry and material process unfold together?".

I'll have a proper read of your FQXi essay when I get a spare moment.

Best,

Dean

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 06:17 GMT
Dean and Jessica,

Congratulations on an excellent and informative essay. I have a great deal of sympathy for this point of view, and it heartens me to see accomplished expositions of it. A couple of questions/comments:

1. Since you mentioned Baez' work involving category theory, I wanted to remark that there is at least one other closely related way in which similar ideas can be applied. This involves simultaneous use of multicategories (in which the morphisms of one category are the objects of a "higher" category and so on) and categorification (in which structure is added or forgotten by promoting elements to objects and relations to morphisms, and similarly demoting). There are several important concepts that arise in this setting: first, (roughly speaking), in certain models it does not matter whether you consider an entity to be an element, object, relation, or morphism, because there is another category, containing the same information, which it is viewed as something else. Second, quantization can be understood in certain contexts as an instance of categorification, since the configuration space of binary relations inherits an induced relation which gives it the same local structure. I discuss both these points a bit more in my essay: On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics.

2. I'm interested to know your views of the principle of covariance, in light of your relational paradigm. The reason I ask about this is because I believe that emphasis on relational structure properly elevates the order-theoretic interpretation of covariance over the symmetry interpretation. This has obvious implications for representation theory, which is at the heart of modern physics, particularly quantum field theory.

Thanks for the interesting read! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 17:27 GMT
Dean and Jessica --

You've made a very good case for the relational viewpoint, and I completely agree with you. But I think this needs to be taken to a deeper level.

Traditionally, philosophy thinks about "relations" as if we could stand outside of them -- they're an aspect of objective reality, along with the things they relate. So we think of relations like "taller than", which...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 18:41 GMT
Correlations without correlata?

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 19:10 GMT
No: Love affairs without lovers.

Just kidding, Dean.

Good luck with the essay contest.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 14:20 GMT
Dear Jessia and Dean,

Beautiful writing, I am in total agreement. Let me try to sketch my approach to this. Let's start with the (complete) collection of true propositions about the universe. This will contain also universal statements like the physics principles. In principle, it would be possible to deduce most of the proposition from a subset of them. Ideally, this would be like a theory, based on axioms and deduction. Maybe the axioms will have to be infinite in number, maybe not. Then, build a mathematical model for this theory. In general, this can be done by using universal algebra, so we end up with a set, and a collection of relations defined on this set. It doesn't really matter what the elements of the set are, what matters are the relations. I wrote these thoughts in an essay which I planned to submit to this contest, but then, when I only wanted to polish it a bit, I decided to write a completely different one (about singularities in general relativity).

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 14:22 GMT
I apologize for misspelling your name, Jessica.

report post as inappropriate

Chris Kennedy wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 19:45 GMT
Dean and Jessica,

Nicely done!

If your next physics essay discusses an irresistible force meeting an immovable object just remember:

Something's gotta give

Something's gotta give

Something's gotta give

Good luck!

report post as inappropriate

Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Dean and Jessica

a very nice essay, but it misses out the key issue of levels of description.

"A world of things or a world of relations?" - its both! Interactions at the lower level lead to emergent higher level structures, that provide relationships amongst the lower level elements. These relations then act down to structure and even change the nature of the lower level interactions. This form of top-down causation (or whole-part constraint, if you prefer) is the key to the emergence of truly complex structures.

At least that's my view. It is largely consistent with yours: it gives a context where relations do real work.,

george

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 16:05 GMT
Dear

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 !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 18:34 GMT
Dear Dean Rickles,

In Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, I think the eigen-rotational relation between the string-matter elements of a cluster-matter holon is the primitive relations for these elements in this paradigm.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 23:10 GMT
Thank you for challenging this difficult and persistent assumption. I did the same in my essay, "Toward an Informational Mechanics" -- arguing the objects and things (as well as spacetime and physical laws) are all emergent. I went from there to speculate on where an alternative relational-informational picture of the universe might lead. I think it leads to an incredibly simple and elegant conception of ultimate reality. I hope you will find a moment to check it out, and thank you for an enjoyable and enlightening essay.

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 18:49 GMT
Dean and Jessica,

We can't even agree that things are there or that they do impossible things (UFOs) because our science says it's impossible. We impute dark energy as an unseen "thing" because of what the force seems to do. My views on gravity are based on such observations and what they might mean regarding what our technology says is impossible.

Your views would be of interest to me.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Steve Weinstein wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 01:32 GMT
Dean & Jessica,

Really nicely written essay. I like your willingness to take relationalist ideas all the way. In denying existence to the "relata", your proposal reminds me of David Mermin's "Ithaca Interpretation" of quantum theory (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801057). Are there indeed points of contact?

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 14:09 GMT
Dean & Jessica

I couldn't agree more about 'Relative Locality' emerging from 'primative relations.'

I've similarly proposed the interaction of massive particles (things) and em waves as a detection 'sampling' process logically resolves paradoxes. Indeed I think I've derived the postulates of SR direct from such a quantum mechanism, using dynamic logic.

To quote from your conclusions this was achieved by; “considering the role of observation in physics.” taking the “observation of the distance moved by some object, or the time elapsed of some process.” I do hope you'll read my essay this year and give me your views (last year you didn't manage to, or respond to my post).

I hope you may also enjoy my theatre, equivalent to your musical analogies. You should find the solution unfamiliar (as Feynman predicted) and I need falsification as am quite convinced 'This is the real thing,” so do need a return to reality.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 02:29 GMT
Dear Dean & Jessica

You have the same orientation to me, but two you better expressed.

Please Take the time to contribute to essay and new theory of me.

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate

qsa wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 00:29 GMT
Dear Dean & Jessica,

I have a theory that EXACTLY matches your idea and DR. Tegmark. my theory "quantum statistical automata" .

Reality exists hence we say it is true. But what is really true besides that more than anything else which we can really trust, it is mathematical facts. So, to my mind I connect both since both seem to be a statement of truth. So I...

view entire post

attachments: 1_newqsa.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:17 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.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

genies alan wrote on Jun. 13, 2017 @ 07:17 GMT
Many a book is like a key to unknown chambers within the castle of one’s own self. [url=http://www.tokoagengreenworldherbal.com/cara-mengobati-
penyakit-ulkus/]obat untuk tukak lambung[/url]

report post as inappropriate