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.

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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 8/7/13 at 17:50pm UTC, wrote Agung, Though failing to read quite all essays I was pleased to get to...

**Sreenath N**: *on* 8/6/13 at 10:05am UTC, wrote Dear Augung, It is good to know that you have given primary importance to...

**Paul Borrill**: *on* 8/6/13 at 4:17am UTC, wrote Agung - Nice essay. Well written, well argued. I like the principle of...

**Charles Card**: *on* 8/6/13 at 3:54am UTC, wrote Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read I am sending to you...

**eAmazigh HANNOU**: *on* 8/4/13 at 19:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Agung, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

**Antony Ryan**: *on* 7/19/13 at 10:39am UTC, wrote Hello Agung, Nicely written, relevant and ingesting essay. I like any...

**George Kirakosyan**: *on* 7/7/13 at 6:30am UTC, wrote Dear Agung, You have trying gave to QM some cause-logical foundation: it...

**James Hoover**: *on* 7/3/13 at 18:59pm UTC, wrote Agung, If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Georgina Woodward**: "'Energy' can be a measurable. Measured or calculated, number value assigned..."
*in* Cosmological Koans

**Lorraine Ford**: "Georgina, Energy is merely a category of information in the same sense..."
*in* Cosmological Koans

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Reality Fans, The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.”..."
*in* First Things First: The...

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

**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...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read 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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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

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.

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 19, 2019

CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]

TOPIC: Bit from It: quantization from realist physical principles by Agung Budiyono [refresh]

TOPIC: Bit from It: quantization from realist physical principles by Agung Budiyono [refresh]

There is a growing interest recently to pursue the most tantalizing foundational question: "why the quantum?" from the point of view that "all things physical is information-theoretic in origin", thus "It from Bit". Here we shall endorse the reversed old-fashioned conceptual hierarchy: "Bit from It", by showing that the abstract-formal and "strange" rules of canonical quantization can be derived from 'a statistical model' singled out uniquely up to some free parameters by a set of physically transparent axioms within the realist tradition of classical statistical mechanics.

I am an independent researcher living in Java, Indonesia. My area of research is the foundation of quantum theory.

Agung,

I found your very well argued essay to be truly fascinating. I was especially impressed by your assertion in your abstract that: "Bit from It", by showing that the abstract-formal and "strange" rules of canonical quantization can be derived from 'a statistical model' singled out uniquely up to some free parameters by a set of physically transparent axioms within the realist tradition of classical statistical mechanics.

As I have gone to great pains to point out in my essay BITTERS, I strongly feel that everything in the real Universe is unique.

report post as inappropriate

I found your very well argued essay to be truly fascinating. I was especially impressed by your assertion in your abstract that: "Bit from It", by showing that the abstract-formal and "strange" rules of canonical quantization can be derived from 'a statistical model' singled out uniquely up to some free parameters by a set of physically transparent axioms within the realist tradition of classical statistical mechanics.

As I have gone to great pains to point out in my essay BITTERS, I strongly feel that everything in the real Universe is unique.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Agung,

I saw independent researcher as your bio, but as I read through your essay, written beautifully in the language of today's physics, an inner voice told me this was a physicist and no ordinary researcher. Seeing your published papers in the references confirms this.

My problem is that mathematics is a language, and like all languages can be used to tell lies or to say the truth. Presence of paradoxes is usually one sign of untruth. Mathematics can be used to contract lengths which we cannot physically measure and dilate time which cannot be recorded but which are assumed by keeping velocity invariant. In this vein, I have issues with the statement, "The finite maximum velocity of interaction given by the velocity of light". Yes, velocity of light is 'c' but there is classical evidence of interactions at c+v and c-v due to receptor motion. I can furnish references if requested. Such c+v and c-v interactions must therefore also be possible on the quantum scale.

My essay, is not written in much mathematical language. Criticism welcome. Do you believe a line having length and breadth of zero can exist in this physically real world? If you do, how?

Will not rate low because I admit your essay is very well presented, but cannot score you 10. You can score me 0, but let us argue why!

Best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

I saw independent researcher as your bio, but as I read through your essay, written beautifully in the language of today's physics, an inner voice told me this was a physicist and no ordinary researcher. Seeing your published papers in the references confirms this.

My problem is that mathematics is a language, and like all languages can be used to tell lies or to say the truth. Presence of paradoxes is usually one sign of untruth. Mathematics can be used to contract lengths which we cannot physically measure and dilate time which cannot be recorded but which are assumed by keeping velocity invariant. In this vein, I have issues with the statement, "The finite maximum velocity of interaction given by the velocity of light". Yes, velocity of light is 'c' but there is classical evidence of interactions at c+v and c-v due to receptor motion. I can furnish references if requested. Such c+v and c-v interactions must therefore also be possible on the quantum scale.

My essay, is not written in much mathematical language. Criticism welcome. Do you believe a line having length and breadth of zero can exist in this physically real world? If you do, how?

Will not rate low because I admit your essay is very well presented, but cannot score you 10. You can score me 0, but let us argue why!

Best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Dear Agung

You describe very meticulously, but the conclusion is sketchy and trouble too.

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

report post as inappropriate

You describe very meticulously, but the conclusion is sketchy and trouble too.

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

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Budiyono:

I enjoyed reading your well-written and carefully argued essay. Too many physicists these days assume that nonlocality is an unavoidable central aspect of quantum mechanics. Your work seems to follow in the tradition of "stochastic electrodynamics" of Boyer, Santos, and others, but you have taken this stochastic approach considerably further. You did not discuss quantum entanglement, which is also generally believed to be intrinsic to QM. Are you suggesting that this, too, can be avoided using your approach?

You might be interested in reading my own essay "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time"), which maintains local realism in quantum mechanics from a quite different perspective. I derive the Schrodinger equation from a relativistic wave packet (no point particle) without indeterminacy. This wave packet follows a classical trajectory on the microscopic scale, as derived from the quantum wave equations, without requiring decoherence. This wave consists of real rotating vector fields that carry quantized spin, and also function as local clocks defining local time. General relativity falls out naturally due to the reduced rotation frequency in a gravitational potential. I further argue that multi-particle states cannot properly be described by the Quantum Hilbert Space Model, which conventionally generates entanglement and nonlocality.

Alan Kadin

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed reading your well-written and carefully argued essay. Too many physicists these days assume that nonlocality is an unavoidable central aspect of quantum mechanics. Your work seems to follow in the tradition of "stochastic electrodynamics" of Boyer, Santos, and others, but you have taken this stochastic approach considerably further. You did not discuss quantum entanglement, which is also generally believed to be intrinsic to QM. Are you suggesting that this, too, can be avoided using your approach?

You might be interested in reading my own essay "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time"), which maintains local realism in quantum mechanics from a quite different perspective. I derive the Schrodinger equation from a relativistic wave packet (no point particle) without indeterminacy. This wave packet follows a classical trajectory on the microscopic scale, as derived from the quantum wave equations, without requiring decoherence. This wave consists of real rotating vector fields that carry quantized spin, and also function as local clocks defining local time. General relativity falls out naturally due to the reduced rotation frequency in a gravitational potential. I further argue that multi-particle states cannot properly be described by the Quantum Hilbert Space Model, which conventionally generates entanglement and nonlocality.

Alan Kadin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Agung Budiyono,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate

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

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

report post as inappropriate

Dear

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The...

view entire post

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Agung Budiyono,

Your paper is interesting. This is in line with the stochstic QM work, or Nelsonian quantum mechanics --- or even a bit like Bohm. I am toying with using this sort of thing in a problem. These approaches to QM or QFT have some weaknesses, but they are useful in solving certain problems that do not yield to other quantization techniques.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Your paper is interesting. This is in line with the stochstic QM work, or Nelsonian quantum mechanics --- or even a bit like Bohm. I am toying with using this sort of thing in a problem. These approaches to QM or QFT have some weaknesses, but they are useful in solving certain problems that do not yield to other quantization techniques.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lawrence B Crowell,

Thanks for the nice comment. Yes, the model goes in line with SQM, Nelsonian and other models which attempts to derive the quantum dynamics and kinematics within the framework and logic of classical statistical mechanics. In my essay, I in particular is interested if quantum dynamics and uncertainty relation can be derived from the principle of local causality.

Cheers, Agung

Thanks for the nice comment. Yes, the model goes in line with SQM, Nelsonian and other models which attempts to derive the quantum dynamics and kinematics within the framework and logic of classical statistical mechanics. In my essay, I in particular is interested if quantum dynamics and uncertainty relation can be derived from the principle of local causality.

Cheers, Agung

I am interested in trying to employ the Seiberg-Witten invariant as a topological quantum field theory. The knot polynomial or Alexander polynomial is classical and I am curious about the prospect of deforming it into a quantum or semi-classical form by methods similar to yours.

LC

report post as inappropriate

LC

report post as inappropriate

Agung,

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

Dear Agung,

You have trying gave to QM some cause-logical foundation: it is right approach and I am with you on this point. You have taken however the classical statistical principle for representation of QM phenomena that I see incorrect. You will ask why? Matter is the statistical behavior (SB) we can attributed to a group of objects only and not to a single one. Single objects in this case is controlled by cause-effect principle the summary of these brought to SB. Thats whay I am doubtful on your math proofs (excuse me) Then what to do? I think you can find the answer from references mentioned in my work Essay, if you have enough time. Meanwhile I see your work as a professional and I intended to appreciate it within time. Please visit my forum.

Regards,

George

report post as inappropriate

You have trying gave to QM some cause-logical foundation: it is right approach and I am with you on this point. You have taken however the classical statistical principle for representation of QM phenomena that I see incorrect. You will ask why? Matter is the statistical behavior (SB) we can attributed to a group of objects only and not to a single one. Single objects in this case is controlled by cause-effect principle the summary of these brought to SB. Thats whay I am doubtful on your math proofs (excuse me) Then what to do? I think you can find the answer from references mentioned in my work Essay, if you have enough time. Meanwhile I see your work as a professional and I intended to appreciate it within time. Please visit my forum.

Regards,

George

report post as inappropriate

Hello Agung,

Nicely written, relevant and ingesting essay. I like any where we conclude Bit from It, so think you have achieved this well. Please take a look at my essay if you get time.

Best wishes for the contest,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Nicely written, relevant and ingesting essay. I like any where we conclude Bit from It, so think you have achieved this well. Please take a look at my essay if you get time.

Best wishes for the contest,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Dear Agung,

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.

report post as inappropriate

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.

report post as inappropriate

Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented...

view entire post

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Agung - Nice essay. Well written, well argued. I like the principle of local causality, although I can understand some may not. I happen to believe that locality does not have to be sacrificed in order to accept quantum theory.

Kind regards, Paul

report post as inappropriate

Kind regards, Paul

report post as inappropriate

Dear Augung,

It is good to know that you have given primary importance to It than Bit very much against the current trend. So it is Bit from It rather than vice versa. You have not simply said this but you have derived it from your fundamental postulates of a statistical model within the realist tradition of classical statistical mechanics. Thus giving mathematical touch to your arguments much in the spirit of current trend in physics to describe physical reality in terms of mathematics. For this you have made use two fundamental assumptions. 1) There is an inherent indeterminism in microscopic scale which is negligible in macroscopic regime. 2) Lagrangian schema based on potentials is more fundamental than `Newtonian schema' based on forces. On the basis of these you have succeeded in deriving S-equation, uncertainty relation and pilot-wave theory; a remarkable feet indeed. You have yet to explain violation of Bell inequality from your theorem which, I hope, you will do in due course. Thanks for writing such an original article with authenticity and deep knowledge of mathematics. Hence I rate it with maximum score.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

It is good to know that you have given primary importance to It than Bit very much against the current trend. So it is Bit from It rather than vice versa. You have not simply said this but you have derived it from your fundamental postulates of a statistical model within the realist tradition of classical statistical mechanics. Thus giving mathematical touch to your arguments much in the spirit of current trend in physics to describe physical reality in terms of mathematics. For this you have made use two fundamental assumptions. 1) There is an inherent indeterminism in microscopic scale which is negligible in macroscopic regime. 2) Lagrangian schema based on potentials is more fundamental than `Newtonian schema' based on forces. On the basis of these you have succeeded in deriving S-equation, uncertainty relation and pilot-wave theory; a remarkable feet indeed. You have yet to explain violation of Bell inequality from your theorem which, I hope, you will do in due course. Thanks for writing such an original article with authenticity and deep knowledge of mathematics. Hence I rate it with maximum score.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Agung,

Though failing to read quite all essays I was pleased to get to yours. Very interesting, and surprisingly one of the very few pointing out that in QM; "there is still no consensus on the meaning of the theory."

It's interesting the more recent conference result found even more disparity than Max Tegmark's original with no interpretation, even Copenhagen, having more than 50% support.

I read your proposition with great interest as the proposed EPR case resolution uses more conventional assumptions than my own, which dispenses with the long used assumption that particles have no structure, which is now appearing inconsistent with optical and particle physics. I think Niels Bohr would have agreed 90 years ago that by now we might be able to 'say' rather more!

Your principles are interesting and slightly different to mine so I was interested in your efficient testing of them. You rely on statistical means, and don't make any 'breakthrough', but I hope you'll be similarly interested in a model which does, using different assumptions. I think 'opinion' differences should have no bearing on scoring quality of essays so am pleased to score yours well. Very well written, presented and argued.

As my own findings are quite radical and different I'd greatly appreciate your critical eye and scientific comment. (I think too many in science just judge by prior 'belief' and opinion, which is unscientific). Your work looks properly objective.

Well done and thank you kindly.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Though failing to read quite all essays I was pleased to get to yours. Very interesting, and surprisingly one of the very few pointing out that in QM; "there is still no consensus on the meaning of the theory."

It's interesting the more recent conference result found even more disparity than Max Tegmark's original with no interpretation, even Copenhagen, having more than 50% support.

I read your proposition with great interest as the proposed EPR case resolution uses more conventional assumptions than my own, which dispenses with the long used assumption that particles have no structure, which is now appearing inconsistent with optical and particle physics. I think Niels Bohr would have agreed 90 years ago that by now we might be able to 'say' rather more!

Your principles are interesting and slightly different to mine so I was interested in your efficient testing of them. You rely on statistical means, and don't make any 'breakthrough', but I hope you'll be similarly interested in a model which does, using different assumptions. I think 'opinion' differences should have no bearing on scoring quality of essays so am pleased to score yours well. Very well written, presented and argued.

As my own findings are quite radical and different I'd greatly appreciate your critical eye and scientific comment. (I think too many in science just judge by prior 'belief' and opinion, which is unscientific). Your work looks properly objective.

Well done and thank you kindly.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.