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

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 21:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Murat, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Michael Helland: on 8/7/13 at 16:43pm UTC, wrote I am not sure I understand it, but I gave you a in to help out. Hope you...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/4/13 at 18:47pm UTC, wrote Dear Murat, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Peter Jackson: on 7/5/13 at 16:14pm UTC, wrote Murat, I see from the comments that sadly few have understood or seen the...

James Hoover: on 7/3/13 at 18:53pm UTC, wrote Murat, If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I...

Antony Ryan: on 7/1/13 at 14:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Murat, I think I understand where you are coming from with regard to...

George Kirakosyan: on 6/30/13 at 10:36am UTC, wrote Dear Murat, Your essay is really interesting,but I need have time to check...

Hoang Hai: on 6/27/13 at 3:48am UTC, wrote Send to all of you THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


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 23, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: The continuum problem solution (continuity principle) by murat Asgatovich gaisin [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author murat Asgatovich gaisin wrote on Apr. 26, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Essay Abstract

While solving the mathematical problem of continuum, the author of the paper has come to a conclusion of the necessity to introduce into the numeral mathematics the continuity principle (continuum) which is defined in philosophy.

Author Bio

I am an independent theoretical physicist. My interest is the study of the foundations of theoretical physics. I have published in the Internet more than 20 scientific articles.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Paul Reed wrote on Apr. 29, 2013 @ 12:42 GMT
Murat

The issue is resolving how diiference occurs when there is discrete. And the answer is sequence. Continuous is the same state permanently. But if you have an unbelievably high speed and vanishingly small alteration it can appear continuous. Like a movie, which ultimately comprises frames.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin replied on May. 1, 2013 @ 15:20 GMT
There is a concept of substance and phenomenon in philosophy. The continuity is substance, and vanishingly small alteration at an unbelievably high speed is the phenomenon, since it only seems that the process is continuous. To seem to be continuous and to be continuous in fact are different things. Unfortunately physicists in most cases can not distinguish between the phenomenon and the substance. The conclusion of my work is: firstly, the actual infinity cannot be represented, thus the use of actual infinity concept in mathematical theories is illegal; secondly, Cantor's set theory is wrong, because it is based on the concept of actual infinity. All the evidence in this theory are based on a potential infinity. Cantor's set theory creates many paradoxes, so this theory is incorrect and its use for mathematics should not be accepted.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on May. 3, 2013 @ 13:11 GMT
Murat

I am not bothered about philosophy, which is a waste of time.

We know there is an existence and we know it involves difference. I am not interested in possible alternatives to what we can potentially know, since that is determined by an identifiable physical process, whilst alternatives are just belief.

Thus is order to resolve this apparent conundrum, the physical existence we can know must be an existential sequence of discrete, definitive, physically existent states. The problem is that we do not realise this. Generally we get as far as, ‘it has changed’. Which is a contradiction in terms. If it has changed then it I something else.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author murat Asgatovich gaisin replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 07:42 GMT
My world view is based on the philosophy.

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Apr. 29, 2013 @ 19:59 GMT
Interesting ideas but are you just saying that physics requires continuous quantities rather than discrete, or are you saying that the continuum hypotheses is important for physics?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin replied on May. 1, 2013 @ 15:24 GMT
The solution of continuum hypotheses represents great importance for physics. For instance, the basics of quantum mechanics are in contradiction with Aristotle’s principle of continuity. According to quantum mechanics an electron in the atom at the emission of a photon makes an instant quantum leap from one orbital to another one. As the result physicists’ consideration loses process-event of the photon and electron neutrinos creation at the transition of an electron from one orbital to another. The postulates of quantum mechanics, in principle, do not give the chances to understand the nature of the photon and electron neutrinos in the future.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Critic wrote on May. 5, 2013 @ 07:41 GMT
The continuity problem in mathematics was solved by Dedekind 300 years ago. He is the author of the best definition of continuity (continuity principle); your essay adds nothing to the continuity theory or continuum.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author murat Asgatovich gaisin replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 07:26 GMT
Firstly, if the continuum problem had solved by Dedekind, so Gilbert in 1900 wouldn’t put this problem as first on the list of unsolved problems of mathematics. Secondly, you need to know difference between a “continuum set” and a “continuum”. They aren’t similar definitions. So Dedekind worked in the concept of a continuum set. By the principle of continuity of Aristotle, I’m asserting that line of numbers, in principle is impossible to imagine like the actual infinite set. And thirdly, from my solution of continuum problem follows that the actual infinite number set unimaginable and therefore the theory of Cantor's set is wrong. In physics the foundations of quantum mechanics are in conflict with the principle of continuity of Aristotle, so the theory of quantum mechanics is wrong too, which was to be proved in my essay “Physical nature of rotation figures of atom’s electron shells configurations formations (atom’s electron shells configurations). Magnetic poles physical nature. Exchange energy physical nature”. This essay participated in the previous contest.

Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
critic,

Stetigkeit und Irrationale Zahlen, Vieweg 1872, is not yet 300 years old. Moreover, Dedekind admitted in it that he hopes to persuade the reader because there is no evidence available for his cut.

murat Asgatovich gaisin,

Hilbert, not Gilbert referred to Cantor's cardinality when he spoke of the continuity problem. You are right in so far that Cantor's infinitum creatum sive transfinitum is logically untenable split thinking. Fraenkel who was perhaps the most important defender of Cantor's set theory admitted in 1923 that Cantor's definition of a set is untenable. Yes, Aristotle understood: "There is no actual infinity". Nonetheless, you can geometrically imagine the sum 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... as an entity of size 1 without knowing all single components.

If you read Fraenkel critically, you will even find in what Cantor's second diagonal argument was wrong. He assumed all of actually infinitely many numbers as fixed.

I will look for your previous essay. You might read and comment on the last two of mine.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author murat Asgatovich gaisin replied on May. 7, 2013 @ 09:49 GMT
Eskard,

The sum of an infinite geometric series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... is not equal to 1, even in the geometrically imagine, because it is based on a potentially endless process of fragmentation. But the limit of the sum of an infinite geometric series is equal to 1. Nuance, but it is very important for a proper understanding of the nature of infinity.

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 01:57 GMT
Dear Asgatovich

I agree with the idea in your conclusion, but perhaps we need a solution is specific and more detailed.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 08:15 GMT
Hello, Murat!

I enjoyed reading your essay and your all articles on http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/rus/avtors/g.htm

l pleasantly surprised by the breadth and depth of your views and ideas. In September, the Moscow State University hosts a conference on the philosophy of mathematics. Will you participate?

I wish you success! Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 03:48 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 10:36 GMT
Dear Murat,

Your essay is really interesting,but I need have time to check your references in details also. Please check my essay, you will find some different approach to fundamental problems of physics, but I hope you will welcome it as an independently thinking men. I am appreciated your work as a ,,good,,

Best wishes,

George

ESSAY

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 14:18 GMT
Dear Murat,

I think I understand where you are coming from with regard to continuum problem. Do you mean that it is at odds with Quantum Mechanics? If so then I think geometry can solve this, because it can be both discrete and continuous. Sorry if I've misunderstood this.

Also did you conclude Bit from It or It from Bit?

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:53 GMT
Murat,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 16:14 GMT
Murat,

I see from the comments that sadly few have understood or seen the value of your proposition. I certainly do and commend you, as you'll see from my own essay which develops the theme by testing the power of continuous helical curves. I refer to Bayesian inverse distributions (quantum iPAD's) between cardinals as 'fuzzy subsets'.

Have you explored the parallel with Godel's 'n-valued'/fuzzy logic?

You also beautifully point out the issues with infinities, transcendental and irrational numbers, and the limitations of symbols, as I do with both. I loved your reference to "mathematical objects which can be calculated with arbitrary exactness." I suggest a position for a 'Dirac line' between and defining metaphysical math/derivatives, as separate from real physical nature as entities and interactions.

I'm pleased to have taken something more from your essay, including learning of Aristotle's great wisdom, and a greater confidence to reject the cardinalisation I too discuss and constrain. As an astronomer I have also found compelling argument for the essential dark energy condensate and foundation of nature as a continuum.

I believe your essay needs to be more widely read, and I'm pleased to be able to score it well. You may also be familiar with or wish to read that of Vladimir Rogozhin, but I greatly look forward to your views and comments on mine, particularly my suggestion regarding the foundations of the poor logic and mathematics.

Both our essays may perhaps be summed up as examining the; "existence of the intermediate cardinal between cardinal number and cardinal of continuum."

Very best of luck in the competition.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 18:47 GMT
Dear Murat,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael Helland wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:43 GMT
I am not sure I understand it, but I gave you a in to help out.

Hope you like mine:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:49 GMT
Dear Murat,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

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.