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 21:19pm UTC, wrote Dear Kjetil, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Michael Helland: on 8/7/13 at 16:11pm UTC, wrote Nice essay. I gave it a ten. ...

Peter Jackson: on 7/31/13 at 15:05pm UTC, wrote Kjetil, Nice fundamental approach, nicely organised and argued, but not...

Akinbo Ojo: on 7/31/13 at 8:56am UTC, wrote Hello Kjetil, We corresponded before on this blog. You must have read my...

Antony Ryan: on 7/17/13 at 14:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Kjetil, I like thought experiments and agree we ought to think about...

Hugh Matlock: on 7/16/13 at 18:11pm UTC, wrote Hi Kjetil, I appreciate your willingness to think through these...

Vladimir Tamari: on 7/16/13 at 13:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Kjetil. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have...

George Kirakosyan: on 7/15/13 at 7:16am UTC, wrote Dear Kjetil, I have re - reading our comments (in my forum) and your essay...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Jorma Seppaenen: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..." 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...

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

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...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations 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 25, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Building a universe from its fundamental building block. by Kjetil Hustveit [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Kjetil Hustveit wrote on May. 30, 2013 @ 17:21 GMT
Essay Abstract

The essay is a kind of thought experiment to discern what the universe's smallest element must be and how it might be possible to build the universe from it and argues why it is spatial finite and probably temporal finite. The discussion also touches that one can't split the physical universe from the information structure, thats what the universe is.

Author Bio

The Author started studying mathematics and physics but lost focus along the way and ended up developing various software. However - never lost interest in theoretical physics and always trying to combine knowledge from different domains. Which this time resulted in how to build a universe from its bits.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on May. 31, 2013 @ 01:00 GMT
Dear Sir,

How do you define information density? Density is a relative word – you can describe it only with relation to something else having similar properties. With what you are trying to compare information and what is the yardstick of such comparison?

How do you define “a certain blob of information, small like a particle or huge like a universe”? Information is specific...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kjetil Hustveit replied on May. 31, 2013 @ 12:18 GMT
Dear basudeba,

thank you for taking time to read and comment my essay, this was exactly what I was trying to achive. I’ll try to answer your questions and objections and hopfully use this to sharpen the message if I write another essay.

What I meant with infinite information density is that in a continuous universe the potential information between any two points are infinite. Aka the count of real numbers between two different real numbers.

The definition of a collection or blob of information must be something like bits of information with a relation, in other words they can interact - this is what boils down to the shot at a definition of a universe. And that when two different collections of information or collection of bits have zero possibility to to interact or measure each other, they do not and will never have any possible way of influence each other. It is only possible to measure the collection of bits the observer is a member of. If we from this tries our definition of the universe and sets the collection of bits to infinite, any nonzero amount of interacting will result in an infinite amount of interacting leading to everything would happen everywhere all the time and this would be dull. Thats at least the reasoning - I guess I’ll spend much time contemplating about infinities. So again - thanks for the comments.

Kjetil

Bookmark and Share


basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 02:49 GMT
Dear Sir,

As we have already explained real numbers are discrete units. Fractions are also discrete units of the subdivision of the earlier unit by the denominator. But when you refer to “the count of real numbers between two different real numbers”, do you mean to say that the real numbers are analog? If you have two apples, the interval between them is also full of apples? It is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kjetil Hustveit replied on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 09:47 GMT
Hi again basudeba,

This may be the result of a mutual misunderstanding but real numbers are not discrete. Due to my lazy nature I borrowed this from wikipedia: "a real number is a value that represents a quantity along a continuous line." And to me the rest of the text in your comment seems like you have thrown in all the names of mathematical concepts you know of to make an argument without any content. It is entirely my fault that I was not able to write my essay in a way that communicated my ideas to you, but you are ranting away with things that are at best loosely connected to what I actually wrote. For example in your first comment you trail of with division by zero which was not mentioned in the essay. And Mahavira's handling of the division by zero problem isn't actually very successful. But it very interesting from a historical point of view. What I tried to do in my essay, was to argue why the foundations of the universe is discrete and finite and how it can be possible to use this knowledge to

explore the universe from the bottom and up.

Regards

Kjetil

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on May. 31, 2013 @ 01:21 GMT
Kjetil

I think you are asking the right questions, and I agree that it is important to find the 'building block' of the Universe. But as they say, the devil is in the details! The building block has to somehow reproduce all known experimental effects and to explain theoretical ones such as relativity, quantum mechanics etc. It is a long journey. I have been on such a quest for many years.

Good luck to you

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kjetil Hustveit replied on May. 31, 2013 @ 12:27 GMT
Thanks for your comment Vladimir.

As you said the devil is in the details, and it may not be feasible to do this bottom up approach but I think it's an interesting line of thought. And of course any experimental effects and to explain theoretical ones such as relativity, quantum mechanics that is impossible to explain will falsify it. Actually I do not think that one relation pr bit will do either, but adding another and make a multithreaded solution will cause a whopping increase in complexity. I sincerely which you luck on your long journey too.

best regards

Kjetil

Bookmark and Share



adel sadeq wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 05:03 GMT
Hi Kjetil,

I think you have been misunderstood, that is why you got bad ratings. However, I think your line of thinking is not bad at all. It is not entirely correct but it is very good. I don't have the time to go into details but you can check my theory which does a similar thing to your idea. And since you are a programer it should be easy for you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kjetil Hustveit replied on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 08:29 GMT
I think the most important lesson from the feedback so far is that I must be much clearer in my text. But thanks for some positive feedback. I did read the first part of your theory and will certainly take time to read the rest.

Bookmark and Share



Paul Reed wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 07:28 GMT
Kjetil

“Absolutely everything is built on top of something that is either continuous or discrete”

Not so. If it was continuous then it would remain in the same physical state, which it obviously does not. Existence can only be discrete.

“Is the universe finite or infinite”

We do not know, and never will, because we cannot transcend our own existence. In other words, what constitutes physical existence for us is all that is potentially knowable, and that is a function of a physical process. Whether we will ever know that is a practical question, but we certainly cannot know what is inherently unknowable.

“The probability to have a finite distance from the start or end in an infinite amount of time is zero.”

Distance is a spatial relationship between entities which are existent at the same time, there cannot be a distance between something and something else which is not existent. ‘Entities’ only exist in one physically existent state at a time.

“space must be a result of how bits interact with each other”

Space (as in spatial relationship) is just the space which must be ‘present’ to accommodate physical entities. Space (as in ‘not-matter’) is just something which is different from matter.

“Time is probably the most or one of the most basic features of the universe”

Time relates to the turnover rate of realities, which in your language probably equates with ‘universe’.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 13:32 GMT
Hello Kjetil,

Leibniz has a suggested building block for you (http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/leibmona.pdf), not too different from the Pythagorean idea. See also my take in my essay 'On the road not taken'.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kjetil Hustveit replied on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 10:30 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

I really like the monad idea and I think your essay was elegantly written (I've only had time to skim through it now but will read it closer later today). I think the idea of finding the simplest way to describe a phenomena is very central. Thanks for pointing me to the Leibniz text

Regards

Kjetil

Bookmark and Share



Roger Granet wrote on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 04:22 GMT
Mr. Hustvelt,

Hi. While I don't understand everything in your essay, I agree completely with the basic premise that thinking about the universe is best achieved by thinking of a fundamental building block and then trying to figure out how the universe can be derived from it. My essay will be along the same lines.

On your specific points, I agree that our universe is discrete, but I think it's possible that whether or not a universe is viewed as discrete or continuous depends on one's perspective relative to the universe. For instance, an infinite-sized observer (relative to the discrete objects in our universe) outside our universe might view our universe as continuous, just like we might view the set of elements between 0 and 1 as continuous.

That time depends on action seems to make perfect sense, IMHO. Also, as you mention, starting from a single bit which then replicates itself to produce a bigger universe seems like a good way to start a universe with very low entropy.

If you're interested, some very similar ideas are at my website at:

sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite

Anyways, good essay!

Roger

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kjetil Hustveit replied on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 08:35 GMT
Thank you for taking time to read and even appriciate my essay. I look forward to read your ideas, exchanging ideas is what the idea behind this really is.

Bookmark and Share



Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 16:54 GMT
what is a discret universe in your opinion?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kjetil Hustveit replied on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 19:49 GMT
Hi Koorosh,

With a discrete universe I mean that there is a smallest unit which cannot be divided. These smallest bits are connected though relations between them. How these bits are related define space, matter and forces. The idea is that if its possible to prove that a simple structure can express everything we observe, them this has to be the universes fundamental building block. (I think that is possible but I certainly haven't proven that yet)

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 09:00 GMT
Dear Kjetil

I agree with your notions of building blocks. I think serious physicists have to explore such a way. As such theories develop however, they have to explain many things... its a big job! I too start with a building block proposed here: Beautiful Universe Theory . Also Franklin Hu in this contest and I agree with him that the time dimension is derivative from a universal 'tick'. Others in the past have chosen a tetrahedral building block. I feel a binary building block may be too simplistic because it needs to explain Planck's (h) which is in units of angular momentum. Did Wheeler deal with (h) in his suggestion?

Whatever the case the devil, they say, is in the details...the Universe took 13 billion years to use its supposed building block...and we have to do it in one lifetime!

Best wishes

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Kjetil Hustveit wrote on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 19:38 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

it is so good to hear others thinking about these issues. (And thanks for pointing out Franklins essay) I haven't had time to read the whole of the Beautiful Universe Theory yet - it was a lot - but I like the way the idea goes. Even though we may have somewhat different views. I believe that the bottom up approach can and will be very useful, but it may very well turn out to be too complicated to actually get any useful results.

And it may turn out that the binary building block is to simplistic but I think that as a logical smallest unit it may be even smaller than planck units describing structures with the right properties and functionality to match our experimentally verified view of physics. The smallest bit could for example make up strings in string theory and the interactions between them could be the strings oscillations. Angular momentum is in itself an interesting construct. Somehow it has to be a kind of loop of interactions i think. I'm not aware of how Wheeler dealt with this, though I'm sure he must have given it a lot of thought.

I think that to really advance with this bottom up approach we need much more mathematics than I can offer. But it may be possible to start with proving that a smallest bit construct can represent everything we can throw on it. It may be fruitful to start with things we think should be impossible to represent - in order to have as few cycles of trying out versions of the smallest bits. For example I don't think one relation from each bit will work, as it will be kind of single threaded, but right now I don't know so it has to be proven that it wont work. And then we there are about 20 orders of magnitude from the size of the proton to planck length, so it should be enough elbow room to conjure up considerable complexity. It may not be possible to do this in one life time but cooperating the efforts will certainly help.

PS. Your 3DD stuff is very, very cool.

Best regards

Kjetil

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 10:05 GMT
Dear Kjetil

Thank you for your nice response, for confirming some things either you or I mentioned. Physics has become so 'obese' with top-heavy and too-imaginary ideas that a new approach in tiny realistic 'fundamental' steps should be tried.

I am happy you liked the 3DD - it is of course a wholly non-digital approach 0- but its been some 3 decades since I practically stopped the 3DD development because I thought digital versions would be immediaely adopted. Instead we now have 3D graphics but it is very different from what I imagined.

By the way I found out that J.C. Maxwell the physicist made stereoscopic drawings of xyz functions!

Best wishes,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


james r. akerlund wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 04:08 GMT
Hi Kjetil,

I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on your statement in your last paragraph which says; "The ideas presented does not actually overthrow any other theories nor make any spectacular predictions,..." You make an amazing prediction in this statement "For a temporal finite universe with a start and end, the amount of information contained in the universe must be able to change." For me that statement suggest a 'conservation of information' in the same vein as 'conservation of energy'. Energy can not be created nor destroyed only transformed. You are saying information can not be created nor destroyed only transformed. When I think I have acquired new information, it never occurred to me that information where it came from was changed in some way. Just because I can't perceive it doesn't mean it didn't happen. That is deep, deep, deep. I love it. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Kjetil Hustveit replied on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 09:12 GMT
Hi Jim,

I'm delighted to hear that you enjoyed my essay. Thanks for your kind words.

Kjetil

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 02:41 GMT
Dear Kjetil

A very specific idea and the reality, but is probably need to develop as a methods to more detailed conclusions.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Kjetil Hustveit wrote on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 09:20 GMT
Dear Hoang,

I agree that I need to develop ideas much further. (To reach your absolute if at all possible) It is a work in progress, and I probably need to delve deep into maths to reach concise conclusions. Probably much more than I can hope to learn in my lifetime I'm afraid.

Best regards

Kjetil

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:19 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


Patrick Tonin wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 16:05 GMT
Hi Kjetil,

Nice essay. I also agree that the universe is just made of bits (in my case it is existence/non-existence bits). I have also worked in the IT industry although I was not a programmer.

I have developped a theory that you might like, the start of it is in my essay, the complete theory is here: 3D Universe Theory. If you read it, it would be great to have your comments.

Cheers,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:08 GMT
Kjetil,

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


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 07:16 GMT
Dear Kjetil,

I have re - reading our comments (in my forum) and your essay also. I am thinking that now we can mutually resumed our opinions and formulated those. Please find time and tell your opinion on this matter. You can email me (from my essay) I hope on your response.

Sincerely,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 13:13 GMT
Dear Kjetil. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 18:11 GMT
Hi Kjetil,

I appreciate your willingness to think through these fundamental questions. You wrote:

1. "The first thing that strikes me is that the information density in a continous universe is infinite."

If you limit how tightly "curved" the universe can be then the information density can also stay finite.

2. "Every attempt to discuss how our universe works runs into serious trouble when trying to work out how it started with very low entropy."

Essayist Royce Haynes has a nice description of an initial scenario starting with zero entropy.

My own essay Software Cosmos considers what we can determine about the universe if we assume it is a kind of virtual reality. In fact, I am able to construct (and carry out) an observational test to determine if we currently live in such a simulated world.

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 14:18 GMT
Dear Kjetil,

I like thought experiments and agree we ought to think about what the universe's smallest element must be and how it might be possible to build the universe from it.

Also as you argue that the Universe is spatial finite and probably temporal finite, I think you tie both points together well.

Pre-Big Bang the Universe was certainly finite spatially and temporally. This point in existence ought to then give us clues about the nature of the most basic building block.

Please take a look at my essay, as our subjects may loosely overlap.

Well done and best wishes for the contest,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 08:56 GMT
Hello Kjetil,

We corresponded before on this blog. You must have read my essay. Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, including your respected self, perhaps you will like to view the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & OrsAtomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. Thanks.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 15:05 GMT
Kjetil,

Nice fundamental approach, nicely organised and argued, but not seeming to penetrate any new ground. However, I think it does so subtly. You refer to;

"elegant algorithms that explain everything with infinite resolution." and it does indeed seem to be the infinite resolution of the 'noise' between the 'wave peak' bits we use now that will provide the answers we need.

Also you say; "Every value that means anything for the universe is something rather than nothing." When applied to Godel's n-valued logic, this gives a Bayesian 'probability' distribution of values, that must mean something, not the nothing QM currently assumes.

I think you may enjoy reading my essay, and hope you do (I need the points)!). It constructs a realist ontology, is jargon-free (well ..'largely'!) and does have some rave reviews I could quote (ignore the off-putting Abstract).

Hope you get the chance.

Q; Is a spinning dipole 'donut' (torus), moving along its's axis (so describing a helix over time, corresponding to a 2D wave), a particle? or a wave?

Well done for yours. Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael Helland wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:11 GMT
Nice essay. I gave it a ten.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:19 GMT
Dear Kjetil,

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.