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 19:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Israel, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 7:45am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Israel Perez: on 8/5/13 at 23:45pm UTC, wrote Dear John Thanks for reading and leaving your comments, I appreciate it. ...

Israel Perez: on 8/5/13 at 23:34pm UTC, wrote Dear John Thanks for reading and leaving your comments, I appreciate it. ...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/5/13 at 23:23pm UTC, wrote Dear Israel, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

John Merryman: on 8/3/13 at 3:12am UTC, wrote Israel, It lays out a well rounded description of the current situation...

john selye: on 8/2/13 at 1:58am UTC, wrote Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to...

Israel Perez: on 7/31/13 at 6:47am UTC, wrote Hi Georgina Nice to hear about you again. Thanks for reading my essay and...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Re Blogger Ian Durham replied on Aug. 25, 2019 @ 15:31 GMT..."Free will..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Lorraine Ford: "So, define “free will” Ian. It’s obvious that you are not talking..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Anthony, you have briefly explained the fictitious (centrifugal) force...." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Vipul Agarwal: "All about this post is very informative and unique. I am thankful to you..." in FQXi'ers Debate the Deep...

Georgina Woodward: "What is happening in material reality provides the connection to inertia...." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...


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.


FQXi FORUM
August 26, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Common sense reflexions on Wheeler's dream by Israel Omar Perez [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Israel Perez wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
Essay Abstract

Alice and Bob have a nice chat about Wheeler's dream. They interchange their bird's-eye view of the topic and analyze the rudiments behind scientific proposals. From their discussion one can conclude that the problem may be a matter of semantics. Although they both agree that the it-from-bit approach may be useful to dissolve the crisis in physics. After discussing several roads to reality, Bob considers that it is worthy returning to the old way of doing physics in which intuition and "common sense" used to go along with the mathematical description of reality. Bob thinks that if physics wishes to maintain its high reputation among the sciences and the public, scientific proposals should not only explain the experimental observations but also be credible in accordance with "common sense". He then brings an example of these kind of proposals in which the "it" remains fundamental.

Author Bio

Dr. Israel Perez works as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada in the field of condense matter physics. He is member of the National System of Researchers in Mexico. His innate passion for the understanding of nature has led him to do research also on the foundations of physics. This time, Israel has worked out a relaxed analysis of Wheeler's dream.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 10:41 GMT
Dear Israel,

You did a terrific job of conveying the rich theoretical landscape of modern physics! I wonder, though, if even something seemingly so certain -- "What is clear is that GR does not play a fundamental role in the realm of particles whatsoever" -- might not also be doubted by researchers who apply Mach's Principle to the many body problem on microscales.

No matter. It...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 18:59 GMT
Hi Tom

Thanks for reading my essay and for leaving your comments. Mach's principle was not included at all in GR. This is why many people (such as J. Barbour) are trying to build a truly relational framework, perhaps you will be interested in checking Daniel Wagner's essay and references therein.

I'm glad you had fun reading my essay I'll try to read yours asap. I wish you the best...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 12:03 GMT
Hi Israel,

To follow up -- while it is true that Mach's principle does not figure into the mathematics of general relativity, the philosophy of Mach's principle does motivate GR, as Einstein himself admitted. In fact, Einstein agrees with you that such "common sense" virtue *should* motivate the mathematics by which we make closed logical judgments on how nature behaves.

It is special relativity that limits the common sense of Mach's principle to local events, which makes it uncommonly hard to unite those events with the global assumptions of Mach. If all physics is local, though, as Einstein avers, I think you will like the part of my essay (it isn't yet approved for posting) that deals with finite sets of infinite things.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 03:47 GMT
Dear Tom

Indeed, Mach's principle was an inspiration for GR. And I also agree that first one should have a picture in mind and then look for the appropriate mathematics. Although, in modern physics, most theoreticians works in the opposite direction.

Thanks for your comments. I'll look for your essay as soon as it appears.

Good luck in the contest

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 11:52 GMT
Dear Israel,

Yeah, well done. Relevant and interesting. I should look at the references.

A few words that you use where I fully agree a) context: you can see my essay, b) geometry: again there is geometry in quantum contexts, c) correlation: David Mermin is fun of them d) the rules are simpler to manipulate: Henri Poincaré, e) compactified: I hope to become familiar with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:04 GMT
Hi Michel

Nice to know you find my work interesting. Thanks for taking some time to leave your comments, I appreciate it.

I wish you good luck too.

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Luigi Foschini wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 11:54 GMT
Nice work, it was a pleasure to read it. Although, I do not think these are "common sense" thoughts... I do not think that any layman could write such kind of essay...

I liked your point that:

..."agreement with experiment" is not synonimous of "fundamentally correct".

particularly because the "agreement with experiment" is done on just a very few specific measurements. As...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 14:27 GMT
You are correct Luigi,

You are correct "agreement with experiment" should not be done. That way truth will come out. One may not get the financial benefit. People who do the manipulation of results of experiments, will grow fast, earn money, surpass others.

best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:27 GMT
Hi Luigi and Satyavarapu

Thanks for leaving your comments. I appreciate it very much.

Satyavarapu:

An experiment is not accepted in science if it's not reproducible. So, manipulation of results doesn't help reproducibility and reliability. Luigi refers to the parameters of a model that allow us to fit the model with the observations. Given that we have several parameters one...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 09:15 GMT
Dear Israel,

Thank you for the nice reply. You are correct about the theoretical experiments and simulations, especially when the equations have real and imaginary values to be setup initially.

I feel when you are conducting real observational experiments, there should not be any manipulations. What do you say?

You got a very good way of presenting things with a smooth...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear Israel,

Very interesting, well written, and entertaining essay! You rightfully advocate the return to intuition, which is lost these days in the sea of information and theories one is required to understand (correction, to use), which grows exponentially. These days, such a return is unjustly labeled as going back to ether theories, or to classical mechanics, etc. Great physical discoveries were always first found in mental simulations, in intuition, even though they defied the "common intuitions". For example, the "dark side" of the intuition told people that the Earth is not moving, or that heavier objects fall faster etc. But the "light side" of the intuition told people like Galileo that the truth is different. As theories became deeper and deeper, more such common sense intuitions became traps, and physicists started to avoid them, by hiding behind formalisms. By this, it became customary to also reject the good intuition, to throw out the baby with the bath water. Your essay advocates the return to the good intuition.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:13 GMT
Hi Cristinel

I'm glad you took some time to read my essay, thanks for your comments. You have opened a couple of interesting topics. Indeed, many people who don't appreciate the importance of intuition in the development of science consider those ideas as retrograde. But, you may recall that Einstein revived the notion of light as a particle. Evidently, he was a rebel. I have no doubts that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Cristinel Stoica replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 05:37 GMT
Dear Israel,

Thank you for the reply. While, as you have seen, we have many points of agreement, your answer developed well the point of disagreement. I am fully for intuition and for pictorial explanations. But I have the feeling that we use different definitions of intuition, and here may lie the difference. For example, mine include bad and god variants of intuition. Intuition can fail...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 05:04 GMT
Dear Cristinel

Thanks again for your comments.

Indeed we can talk about different kinds of intuitions, but in any case I think our mathematical picture of the world should be aligned with our intuitive one.

You: If some pope during Copernicus's or Galileo's time had the intuition build on the incomplete knowledge at that time, that the Earth is not moving, how could Galileo...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 14:02 GMT
Israel,

I look forward to reading your paper later on this evening. Your abstract sound intriguing.

I believe you will find my essay relative to your interests as well. I look forward to your review of it which can be found here: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 19:20 GMT
Israel,

I have had the pleasure of reviewing your essay. Although my findings dispute your statement, "What is clear is that GR does not play a fundamental role in the realm of particles whatsoever." I truly enjoyed how you presented your argument. Excellent indeed as reflected by my rating of your masterful work!

I hope you will be open minded enough to review my essay which show how GR plays a fundamental role in the realm of particles. I believe you will somehow find the unification of gravity with the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces relevant to your perspective as well:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Good luck with your entry.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:30 GMT
Hi Manuel

I really appreciate your comments. Definitely I'll take a look at your essay as soon as I can. I'm just arriving to the contest and there is a lot of material to see. I'm intrigue that you say that GR plays a crucial role at small scales. As I mention in my essay the final goal of physics is to find a unifying theory and if you claim that you have it, I'm open to persuasion.

Thanks again and good luck!

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 16:08 GMT
Dear Israel,

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:39 GMT
Dear Sreenath

Thanks for leaving your comments and for the invitation to read your work. I'll read it as soon as possible. I just arrived to the contest and I already have a pile of essays in my list, including yours.

I wish good luck too!

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear Dr Perez,

Nice to see another essay which explores It remaining fundamental. Also, I'm a big fan of classical mechanics, as it still has plenty to offer in a world without a full Quantum Gravity theory. My essay also doesn't abandon It's importance.

Nice essay - well scripted - well done!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:44 GMT
Dear Antony

I'm glad that you have enjoyed reading my work. I'm also looking forward to reading yours. I do indeed think is worth trying to recover an intuitive picture of the world. This will give us a new insight of physical reality.

I wish you good luck in the contest!

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 22:35 GMT
Dear Israel,

I think that you are right that intuition plays an important role in our understanding of nature. I hope my essay does not disappoint.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 16:38 GMT
Israel,

I enjoyed reading your essay, which provides both a clear and entertaining overview of various approaches to modern physics. I particularly appreciated the conclusion that a theory that unifies GR and QM should be more intuitive and less mathematically abstract than most of the current candidates. In that regard, you might be interested in looking at my essay ( "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotations and Relative Time" ) in which I present a locally realistic quantum picture, whereby primary quantum particles such as photons, electrons, and quarks are soliton-like rotating vector fields with quantized spin, with rotation rate f=E/h (where E is the total relativistic energy). These constitute local clocks, which slow down when E is reduced in a gravitational field, thus deriving general relativity in a simple intuitive way. This picture also avoids non-locality, indeterminacy and entanglement. Yes, this is all highly heretical, but is more logically consistent than the orthodox approaches.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 21:54 GMT
Hi Alan

Thanks for reading my essay and leaving your comments, I'm happy that you have found it entertaining. I realized that the topic is controversial and I thought that it would be fun to invite Alice and Bob for a nice chatting.

You: ...thus deriving general relativity in a simple intuitive way. This picture also avoids non-locality, indeterminacy and entanglement.Yes, this is all highly heretical, but is more logically consistent than the orthodox approaches.

I'm curious about how could you derive GR. Heresy is not bad as long as the approach is logically consistent and make the right predictions. I'll definitely take a look at your work. I wish I had more time to read them all, so please give me some time, I'll take a look at it asap.

All the best

Israel

Bookmark and Share



M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 00:08 GMT
Hello Dr Perez!

It is so nice to see you take part in this contest too. I very much enjoyed reading your essay and sincerely hope it too will be a winner.

I decided to join on the fun in a spur of a moment 2 weeks before the deadline and now, waiting for mine to show, wanted to tell you that, while I was writing this essay, I changed my mind on Absolute Ref Frame -- remember I denied it on practical grounds? Looking at SR as a theory of relativity of information, I suddenly saw that an absolute frame is a very useful, practical, concept, for we could place in it all the info that we know must be there, but is not available to us at the moment. I could not help thinking of you then.

Good luck and have fun :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 05:19 GMT
Hi Vasilyeva

It's nice to know about you again. I'm also glad you enjoyed reading my essay. Thanks also for the wishes, it'd be great if my essay make it the finals.

I just watched that your essay was published, it'll be nice to read it, I was very much delighted last year with your work and I'm sure this time you also did an excellent job. I'll read it asap. Glad to know that you found an advantage of the privilege frame I wish most colleagues did the same (sarcasm).

At the moment, I only have a request for you, If it is not much to ask, I'd be very happy if you could tell me your name. Thanks

Best Regards and good luck too!

Israel

Bookmark and Share


M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 12:35 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez, this year I dared to to print my name bellow the title in my essay :)

As an outsider I am a crank by definition lol. It's enough for me that my friends ridicule my participation in this contest. But I can't talk to them about physics. That's why I very much value your feedback and was thrilled to have talked to you last year.

Thank you,

-Marina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 22:20 GMT
Hi Marina

Beautiful name! It's sad that you have no friends to discuss about physics and nature, I understand why you are here though. I'm glad that you have found a place to discuss about your interests.

Good luck in the contest!

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 06:01 GMT
Dear Israel,

As already noted, I agree with your essay and with the point that common sense and intuition have served us well in the past. But the profession of physics has grown from a relative handful of brilliant individuals to a worldwide industry. And it's questionable whether the physics community (at least the theoretical side of it) could be kept busy if it were constrained to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 05:52 GMT
Hi Edwin

Thanks for your insightful comments. I'll address them the best I can.

You: As already noted..., ... appears to be brewing. We'll see.

I agree with this, but in recent years things are starting to change due to the fact that the abstract approach is not giving the expected results. There exists a moderate movement of important physicists and philosophers supporting the old way of doing physics. Actually, the FQXi project is one the consequences. Of course, the change would take some years more.

You: i.e., the 120 order error in vacuum energy..

Since most physicists believe that GR and QM are both correct, they ignore the anomaly. As long as there is no other alternative theory to replace QM or GR, the anomalies remain there until a new theory solves it. Recall for instance, the Michelson-Morley experiment. From the perspective of Maxwell's theory it was an anomaly, and it remained as such from 1887 until 1904-5.

You: But the physics... ..substance-less nature. A very nice example.

Yeah, this is clear for many physicists, but some others don't even understand it. It seems that relativity causes a blinding effect.

You: I would also mention... ...common sense.

I think you did a great job, and it would be nice if you could publish your results in scientific journals, that would grant scientific status and recognition to your work. Barbour is a case similar to yours. I'll take a look at Vishwakarma essay asap.

Best regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Stuart Heinrich wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 06:44 GMT
Dear Israel,

Your article seems to prematurely conclude at the point where it says:

"A: I got your point. As I see it, this may be a matter of semantics..."

I must confess, I don't see your point, because the differences between the various theories are not merely a matter of semantics.

For example, there is quite a fundamental difference between Tegmark's MUH and the "universe as a simulation" hypothesis. For starters, the universe as a simulation is not even truly compatible with the laws of quantum physics, which show that the period inbetween observations cannot be simulated. Moreover, the concept of a simulation implies that the universe is represented by a configurational state which changes as a function of time -- which again, is contradicted by findings in quantum physics showing that there are temporal dependencies across the time dimension, not to mention that relativity shows us that there is no global reference frame for time. Thus, the only way to represent the whole of spacetime in a formal system is to represent all past and future events simultaneously, which is not really what a simulation is.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 06:34 GMT
Hi Stuart

Well, if we just fixed our attention to that sentence, we could notice that Alice is not sure at all. She says "may be a matter of semantics". That's her guess based on the poor knowledge she has of the topic. However, in a broader sense the sentence is related to the unification problem. The problem is the same and unique. So, to solve it there are several approaches. LQG proposes a theoretical context with a 3 dimensional space, loops, background independence, etc. whereas string theory contributes with 11 dimensions, calabi-yau spaces, strings, etc. and so on with the other alternatives. In this sense, this is a matter of semantics, because every theory tries to solve the same problem with a different UNDERSTANDING and thus MEANING of the reality.

You: For example,... ...observations cannot be simulated.

Indeed, due to the lack of space in my essay I couldn't go into the details and the complications that you are pointing out. I agree, that the computational formalism has many problems. One of them is that it only works with discrete units. The US army and NASA have had a terrible time with this because sometimes accuracy is very important to control the trajectory of projectiles and computers cannot get all the real numbers. This severely limits the scope of this approach.



You: ...not to mention that relativity shows us that there is no global reference frame for time.

In this part, I have a disagreement. Indeed SR excludes this kind of frames, but in my previous essay I discussed that the preferred frame of reference is not at variance with the principle of relativity. You may wish to take a look at it: http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2012.1#perez. As well you may wish to take a look at Daryl Janzen's essay from the past contest and the present one. He also supports this view and he was one of the winners in the previous contest.

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 09:43 GMT
Hello Dr. Perez.

Your essay seems to be a call to everyone to go back to basics, or at least change its current direction. I note in other essays references to criticisms which speak to the ever widening gap between scientists and their ability to understand each other, and I suspect if that continues we may see more and more schisms within fields as well as between fields. There are also concerns that the ever growing numbers and the ever diminishing returns in pure science are starting to worry those who see chit chat evolving into squabbles over nothing.

My essay comes out of left field, and I suspect it is being dismissed out of hand by those too busy to notice, because on first sight it doesn't fit into the normal chit chat. It's title "Hierarchical Space-Time" is not doubt an instant put off, but then I found I had to take ten steps back in order to find a rock solid enough to keep me grounded. I would appreciate any criticisms you may have, because in the end it is better to be criticized than ignored.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 07:44 GMT
Hi Zoran

Thanks for leaving your comments. Indeed, the FQXi is one those projects that attempts to recover that spirit and at the same time is the result of a splitting in the physics community.

You: I note in other essays references to criticisms which speak to the ever widening gap between scientists and their ability to understand each other, and I suspect if that continues we may see more and more schisms within fields as well as between fields.

As I mention in my essay there are several proposals that attempt to explain physical observations. The number continues growing and the schism will be worst in the forthcoming years. Only few people have realized where the problem is but we are minority. So, this would take many years more.

I'd be glad to read your essay. I'll write it down in my long list. So, please be patient, I'll try to comment asap.

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share


Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 21:39 GMT
Hello Israel,

I agree completely. If we can't agree on the nature of observation, thinking and measurement, and describe those same things consistently, squabbles over nothing will continue.

Regards, and good luck.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your essay begins with a conversation of Alice with her friend and ends with both enjoying the discussion. So is the reader, who is guided through a maze of analysis with suspense in each turn like the experience of Alice in the Wonderland till the reader – laymen included - ends with enjoying the essay. We must admit, midway we cheated and switched to the last para to come back...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 08:11 GMT
Dear Basudeba

Thanks for your comments and for the invitation to read your essay, I'm trying to keep up with the reading, so, it would take some time to read your essay, I'll do it asap.

You: Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this fantasy?

This is what I discuss in my essay. Math is used in physics not only to model physical observations but also to quantify. Without math it would be impossible to make quantifiable predictions. The extra dimensions approaches are only models attempting to explain observations and quantify. If one disagrees with such or such view one should make a proposition and follow the scientific protocols. This is what scientists do. In particular, I don't agree with String theory and that's why I'm putting forward my conception of the universe.

I also feel that GR is not fundamentally correct.

Good luck in the contest

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 15:57 GMT
Israel,

Absolutely excellent essay and wonderfully refreshing approach, right in line with my own thesis. I also enjoyed your presentation method, though it perversely departed from reality somewhat in that Alice hardly got a look in! lol.

But seriously it was an absolute joy to read. Can you really drag physics back to the physical world? Many other may then understand the propositions in my own essay, which clearly to me provide all required resolutions, but you're clearly correct in the implication, conscious or not, that its not a case of having to FIND the right solutions, it's a case of thinking in such a way that, hiding right before our eyes, they become visible. I believe much may now become visible to you well before most.

I'll comment no more for now as I'd very much like you to read and comment on mine, but there are a number of compatible themes I'd like to discuss.

Very well done, and thank you for restoring my faith in at least part of physics.

Best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 08:21 GMT
Hi Peter

Nice to read you again. I'm glad you had fun reading my essay. I'd like to answer your question.

As I mention in essay, there are many physicists who are confident that understanding space can take us out of the present conundrum but it would take some time to finish this titanic task. We just have to do some adjustments to our way of conceiving the intuitive reality.

As you may imagine I a have a long list before reading your essay but I'll try to do it asap. Thanks for reading and commenting my essay.

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 20:08 GMT
Dear Israel,

An essay with a refreshing approach. Many comments have been expressed on this blog especially those of Peter Jackson, Anthony, Cristinel, Basudeba, etc which I agree with so no need repeating.

My first and probably only question for you is this: When did we start losing our "common sense"?

You state that common sense was lost in the XXth century. But I disagree. Someone and his pupil, wrote a book called Elements more than 2000 years ago and upon which ALL current physics is based, geometry, the science of space, being crucial to all physical theories, both quantum and classical.

In that book, lines were drawn and despite what we could see with our eyes, we were told that though the lines physically existed, they had no breadth. This was hotly disputed but eventually overlooked. And up till today no one has demonstrated a line without breadth or a surface without depth in this world. Or have you seen such a physical (not mathematical) surface or line?

The consequence of this for physics in a real world is also unaddressed. Mathematicians can enjoy the study of objects in a Platonic world, but this luxury is not open to physicists. Physicists are to study the things in this world and not in a Platonic one.

Therefore, I argue that if we have to regain our common sense we should start from where we started losing it. A natural consequence is that space will assume substantival properties and other consequences must follow from this. If we start from the XX century, we run the risk of starting all over again after encountering paradoxes again down the line.

All the best.

Akinbo

*If you find the time, comments on my essay will be welcome.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 08:27 GMT
Hi Akimbo

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. In relation to your question, we have to keep in mind that classical physics is highly intuitive and goes along with experience and common sense, I would say that relativity starts to depart from common sense drastically and QM is a worst case. But, I'm working in fixing all these "mess".

The issue here is that physics has to quantify and this is why we need to use math as a fundamental tool, without math, physics loses its power of prediction and it would look as pure natural philosophy.

Do not worry, many physicists are confident that we have found the way out of the puzzle. The key is space. Thanks for inviting to read your essay I'll do it asap.

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 04:53 GMT
Dear Israel

A good story about a common desire - but it seems we need a specific proposal to solve the problems be existing in reality that related to information.

Anyway, wish you success.

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 17:07 GMT
Dear Hoang

Thanks for leaving your comments and the invitation to read yours. I'll will try to read your essay asap.

I agree with some of your points, the new theory should be as simple as possible, considering an absolute system of reference. Although as Newton discussed, we can only measure relative quantities. Objects have two motions absolute and relative.

A theory should be written in mathematical language in order to quantify phenomena if a theory doesn't display a mathematical formulation it is not a scientific proposal (at least in physics). I recommend that you implement calculations in your theory. I wish you good luck in the contest.

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 08:46 GMT
I found your historical perspective on the development of the ideas of physics to be very interesting – especially how over the centuries we've moved away from a balanced 'intuitive-abstract' take on reality, so that we presently greatly accentuate abstractions.

To pursue your thought, I'd say that we are progressively getting lost in abstraction, and that in a sense physics is painting...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 01:43 GMT
Dear John

Thanks for reading my essay and leaving your comments. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Please find my comment below.

You: To pursue your thought, I'd say that we are progressively getting lost in abstraction, and that in a sense physics is painting itself into a corner where no-one can figure out the meaning of the phenomena that are being expressed.

This scenario is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


john stephan selye replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez, thanks for your many good points.

Rather than responding now, I think it would be more interesting to see where you stand after you read my paradigm. It is a fundamental paradigm – and, I believe, in line with our continued progress as scientists, thinkers, and people.

One point, as an example of the importance of our assumptions - when you state that inorganic and organic concepts are chemical and not fundamental, you are adopting a very definite paradigm – one that has a long history, to be sure, but which must now evolve further (indeed, one can say that it is evolving further, whether or not we know it).

What is fundamental?

And what might we gain by adopting a system wherein inorganic, organic, and sensory-cognitive phenomena are equally fundamental – and correlated?

These are the questions I deal with in my essay, and I very much look forward to your feedback.

Many thanks!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 04:36 GMT
Hi John

Fundamental means that is not derived from another concepts. Organic or inorganic are just a chemical distinction for materials that have carbon or not.

Please be patient, I have a lot work these days and it's difficult to keep up with all essays. I'll do my best to read yours asap. Thanks

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Israel,

You wrote "If space were trully Minkowskian, one would expect null electromagnetic properties." Can you please explain this to me?

In your previous essay you argued in favor of something like a liquid ether. Trying to find out what can explain some inconsistencies in Einstein's belief concerning time and spacetime, I checked Michelson's expectation and got aware that the already corrected after a hint by Potier version was still incorrect. However, my suspicion was wrong. The incorrectness cannot account for the null result. Einstein followed Lorentz's hypothesis of length contraction/time dilution. I see a different and perhaps so far overlooked possibility. Will you be fair enough as to admit that it might be an alternative to your common sense view?

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 07:56 GMT
Dear Eckard

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I'm glad you find it interesting. I'll do my best to answer your questions.

Just keep in mind that geometrical spaces represent total emptiness, nothingness. They don't represent substance (material or any other). In Newtonian mechanics total emptiness was represented by Euclidean space. In this vision, space was conceived as an EMPTY CONTAINER which in turn was filled with matter and electromagnetic fields. Later in 1908 the Euclidean space was replaced by Minkowski space-time, which is also an empty container. Mathematically speaking, this space doesn't have intrinsic electromagnetic properties associated with it. And again, this container is filled with matter and fields. So, if space were of this kind, we would expect that the magnetic permeability and the electric permittivity of empty space were zero, but they are not.

You: Will you be fair enough as to admit that it might be an alternative to your common sense view?

Yes, actually there are many alternatives, we just have to decide which one sounds more cogent. I hope I have clarified your doubts.

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 17:11 GMT
Dear Israel,

Thank you not just for answering my question but also for attracting Cristinel Stoica who pointed us to papers by Elitzur.

As I tried to explain in a previous essay, I support common sense but would like to warn about mere intuition which is often hidden in putatively natural and absolutely unquestioned assumptions. The enigma of forces across a vacuum puzzled already Otto de Guericke what immediately led to steam engine and electricity.

If I understood you correctly, your common sense tells you that there must be something material that fills the vacuum. Didn't Michelson's experiment disprove Maxwell's guess?

You wrote "geometrical spaces represent total emptiness, nothingness". Well, any mathematical abstraction from reality is - at least in my understanding - quite different from reality.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 05:39 GMT
Dear Eckard

Based on your comments, I could realize that you are not clearly understanding my view.

You say: your common sense tells you that there must be something material that fills the vacuum.

Indeed my intuition makes me infer that there must be a tangible substance (material or whatnots) that CONSTITUTES the vacuum. Can you see the epistemological difference? This...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:11 GMT
Israel,

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

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 07:58 GMT
Hi Jim

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to read your essay asap.

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Anton Biermans wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 02:08 GMT
Hi Israel,

Indeed: ''Why should we believe that the information is more important than the stuff the universe is made of? ''

I have yet to read an essay which treats the question where all information comes from, how information becomes information. What I mean is this: If there would be only a single charged particle among uncharged particles in the universe, then it wouldn't be...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 04:47 GMT
Hi Anton

Thanks for expressing your opinion. I notice that you have some ideas about your conception of reality and that's fine. I would like to invite to formulate your ideas in a mathematical theory. I don't know if you already have it, but if not it would be a great exercise for you to realize how theoretical physics is done. I couldn't understand some of your ideas certainly because I don't have the same background as you do, so I would prefer to take a look at your essay, if time allows, and leave you some comments.

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Henry H. Lindner wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 11:22 GMT
Israel,

I think you'll be interested in my paper on just how and why physics was transformed into observer-info-mathematics. I also touch on Descartes' role in this process. You'll be interested to find that it was Bishop Berkeley who gave us Relativity and QM with this theory that we are living in a Matrix created and run by God--just like the movie.

Henry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 04:38 GMT
Hi Henry

Thanks for the invitation to read your essay, it sounds intriguing. I'll consider it in my list.

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 17:00 GMT
Dr. Perez,

Your essay was extremely informative and surprisingly easy to read considering the complex nature being reviewed. I find the prospect of virtual reality and artificial intelligence laughable.

The only question Wheeler ought to have posed was:

Is the real universe simple? And the only sensible answer is: Yes. Why then does man put all of his faith and trust in abstract complexity?

Each real snowflake is unique, once. Each star is unique, once. Everything in the real Universe is unique, once. It cannot and it does not get any simpler than that.

Yet here we have the physicists pretending that their antithetical unrealistic quantum theory is superior to reality.

I wish you well in the competition.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 20:29 GMT
Hi Joe

Thanks for commenting on my work. I'm glad you found the VRH laughable. I think that things are simple, but only once you understand them. Understanding is the difficult part.

You: Why then does man put all of his faith and trust in abstract complexity?

Theories must be put in mathematical language because this is the best language we human have to order our conception of the world a logical manner. Furthermore, without the mathematical language it would be impossible to quantify and make quantitative predictions. A theory that cannot quantify would be just beautiful philosophy.

Thanks for your wishes, I also wish you good luck too!

regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 21:25 GMT
Israel

Many thanks for your comments and your advice, but maybe I'll just add the calculated after resolved the criticism of the theory - in fact, I have already prepared.

Wishing you success and happiness always.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 04:49 GMT
Hello Dr. Perez

I came to FQXi web site only recently and to your essay many days later. In both cases, I feel like a guest arriving late to a fabulous banquet.

If I were a little more systematic in sampling the contest essays, your essay should have been the first on my reading list. The title “Common Sense Reflexions” should had been a dead giveaway to the likes of me who have...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 06:22 GMT
Dear Than

I'm happy you had enjoyed reading my essay and that you had found it interesting. I also thank you for leaving your comments here.

Indeed, I believe that a theory should not only make predictions but also be credible. I think that modern proposals have deviated from the right track. I do agree that QT should also be "remodeled" to go along with common sense. I'm working on this problem as well. I'm intrigue that you also discuss these topics. However, given the long list of essays that I have, I'm afraid it would take some time to read your work. I'll try to do it asap. Meanwhile I'd like to wish you good luck in the contest.

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 12:59 GMT
Dear Israel

You wrote a very well reasoned and enjoyable survey of the issues raised by the It Bit Question. To your historical survey one could add Godel's Incompleteness Theorem as it was applied to the concept of the Universe as a computer. I think the conclusion was that it was impossible because the computer will then have to contain its own information, and the information of the universe and in that the information of the computer, ad nauseum!

Towards the end you examine various possibilities of how to transcend the problems of current physics. At one point you say "GR and QM. These theories have been quite successful that nobody doubts that they can be wrong." Well of course they 'work' but I think for the wrong reasons. Too much bad baggage to use Tedmark's concept.

You yourself then examine the concept that space is paramagnetic - something that contradicts Einstein's Special Relativity in which the ether was banished. As you can tell from my essay and my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here I too believe that the vacuum is magnetic and from its building blocks everything else is made.

Alice and Bob can ask: Oh yeah? Hmmmm.

With best wishes for your success

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 05:50 GMT
Dear Vladimir

Thanks for reading my essay and leaving your comments. I appreciate it very much. Indeed, I do think that space is more than an empty container. I have read you previous essay in which you express your view of the vacuum. I think that we are in agreement. As of now I'm working in reconceptualizing the notion of space which from my view is very deficient in the current view of physics.

I also wish you good luck!

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 06:00 GMT
Dear Israel,

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 15:14 GMT
Hello Israel,

Thanks for your detailed views on my site (I post this here, to be sure you get my message).

Many of your points are of interest to me.

Your reference to deChardin is apt (another commentator pointed this out also). But in reference to the relation between matter, life, and mind you say - 'I believe that current science is not yet well equipped to address these...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 18:10 GMT
Dear Israel,

It appears you have overlooked my essay. You promised to read, especially since you said the key to making our physics right lies in our concept of space. Or perhaps, you have read but I didnt make my point clear enough? Your valued comments are welcome.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:16 GMT
Dear Israel,

I appreciate your comments on my blog. I believe the relational view of space can be faulted but I admit very difficult to do. If you don't mind can you itemize the weak links in the relational continuous space concept? I know a few myself. You can reply here as I will be coming back in few days to check.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 06:23 GMT
Hi Akinbo

I don't consider myself an expert in the relational or substantial approaches of space since those topics are mainly treated by philosophers of physics. I have to study a little of that in order to understand the ontological and epistemological bases. Daniel Alves, Julian Barbour and Lee Smolin support the relational view because they see that the absolute space is a superfluous concept. I disagree with this and in my previous essay I give some arguments in favor of the absolute frame of reference or the existence of an absolute space. The relational approach adapted to relativity seems to me paradoxical, this is the only and most crucial weakness that I see. I don't have a list of weak links about the relational view of space. Sorry I cannot help more in this sense. However, if you do know some of them, I'd be glad if you could mention them.

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 03:13 GMT
Dear Israel

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 05:07 GMT
Dear Than

Thanks for leaving your comments. I'll try to read your work asap, you touch some interesting points.

I wish you good luck in the contest too.

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 20:47 GMT
Israel,

I hope the extra time does let you get to my essay. I'm sure you won't regret it. I found you languishing too low down and noticed I hadn't yet rated you, so your well deserved top marks going on now. Best of luck in the run in.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 10:40 GMT
Hello Israel,

I read with interest your analytical essay made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt. There is a little essay, which provides underlying philosophy.

Excellent conclusion: «The classical way of doing physics is more alive than ever. Always keep in mind that in science we have to find correlations and that any approach has scientific value insofar as it explains natural phenomena. But this is not sufficient for theories should also be credible for common sense, otherwise, I'm afraid that physics will be jeopardizing its high reputation among the physics community, the sciences and society.»



Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counter-revolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence».

http:// www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

In the russian version of the paper that thought shorter: "the truth should be drawn and presented to" an "unlimited number" of viewers."

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

Maybe we need a new mathematical revolution in the spirit of Descartes, to overcome the "trouble with physics" and build «a model of self-aware Universe» (V.Nalomov), united for physicists and poets?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

Please read my essay. I think we are the same in the spirit of our research.

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 20:40 GMT
HI Vladimir

Thanks for commenting on my essay. I'm happy that you enjoyed reading it. Indeed, the work touches philosophical issues of Wheeler's proposals. But it also deals with the a different conception of space.

With respect to your first question, I don't see the necessity of bringing the truth with "the help of cognitive computer visualization technology", but I do definitely agree that "should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence".

I also read your essay. I'm surprised of the number of references that you used and how you put them into context.

In your essay you mention that "logical symbolism is identical to the ontological structure of the world". As I mention in my essay common sense (which is the source of ontologies) is another mental tool that we humans have besides to logic or mathematics. I find this very much related to your last question. I don't know if the revolution will be mathematical or ontological, but indeed a revolution in thought is needed. However, I think it will take some decades more.

Good luck in the contest!

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 20:52 GMT
Israel,

Thanks for your comments and questions on my blog, I've responded these.

Well done also for your excellent work, Score going on.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 02:56 GMT
Dear Israel,

I really enjoyed reading your essay. The conversational style made it easy to read and makes it stand out from other essays that I have read. It is nevertheless informative and clearly expressed.Overall it sounds to me like an appeal to K.I.S.S. 'Keep it simple stupid' It makes a lot of sense to find ways that meaning can be easily extracted along with data. The discovery that geometry can be expressed as algebra was an interesting point for me. It made me think at the end that when the universe is understood as entirely mathematical relations it is also only 'a step' away from being an expression of geometry. Good luck.

Regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 06:47 GMT
Hi Georgina

Nice to hear about you again. Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. Indeed, the idea is to give a classical picture of our universe. Take a look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE, it goes along with my notion of particle and space. It's very intuitive and I think we can have more progress if we follow this road. The idea is to find relations no matter their nature (ontological, mathematical or whatnot) but they should be necessarily mathematical to quantify. Thanks again, as you can see there are so many entries and it's difficult to keep up with the reading, but I'll try to read yours asap.

Good luck in the contest

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 01:58 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 03:12 GMT
Israel,

It lays out a well rounded description of the current situation and, commonsensically, points out the various possibilities, without insisting on any particular one, other than laying the ground rule that they shouldn't involve suppositions that seem intuitively nonsensical.

An idea that occurred to me while reading it; Abstraction is a form of reductionism, in which the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:45 GMT
Dear John

Thanks for reading and leaving your comments, I appreciate it.

You: Yet we must constantly decide what is important, even though what might be necessary in one context, is not in another.

Indeed, although it is difficult to find out what is important and what not. As to the problem of entanglement, it is not well understood, I'm working on that part.

To your...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:23 GMT
Dear Israel,

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


Author Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:34 GMT
Dear John

Thanks for reading and leaving your comments, I appreciate it.

You: Yet we must constantly decide what is important, even though what might be necessary in one context, is not in another.

Indeed, although it is difficult to find out what is important and what not. As to the problem of entanglement, it is not well understood, I'm working on that part.

To your...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:45 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:31 GMT
Dear Israel,

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.