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

Margarita Iudin: on 5/31/14 at 18:29pm UTC, wrote Hello Mr. Schmitz, I read your comments on the essays-2014. May I ask you...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 8/8/13 at 20:29pm UTC, wrote Jonathan, There are many essays out there and only a very few were "fun"...

Jonathan Dickau: on 8/8/13 at 3:05am UTC, wrote Light and fun to read. I enjoyed it. Descartes may have helped invent 'It...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 20:42pm UTC, wrote Dear Jeff, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Michael Helland: on 8/7/13 at 16:13pm UTC, wrote Interesting. I rated your essay a ten ...

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 7:36am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 8/6/13 at 12:15pm UTC, wrote I know there are many essays out there, but cutting and pasting me first...

KoGuan Leo: on 8/6/13 at 9:00am UTC, wrote Dear Jeff, A great opening statement that I concur 100%, as a matter of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: "The acrobats central to the rotation of a platform, share the same type of..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

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

Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

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:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


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 24, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Robots, Supply and Demand by Jeffrey Michael Schmitz [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 17:00 GMT
Essay Abstract

The nature of thought and intelligence is used to understand the nature of science.

Author Bio

Jeffrey Schmitz has his Masters in Physics from the University of Tennessee. He has taught Astronomy, Physics and Physical Science as an adjunct instructor at seven different colleges in and around Chicago. He also enjoys swimming, bike riding, skiing and curling. This is his third FQXI essay.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 21:07 GMT
Michael,

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


Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 00:19 GMT
Hello Jeff,

Your essay was short and sweet, and your reference to René Descartes reminded me of a time when I was about sixteen. Walking through the local park I encountered a group of people surrounding a man standing on a soap box, and while his prognostications were unintelligible to me, they were of such force that he had most others entranced. In seeing that I was unimpressed, he turned his attention to me with the question "How do you know you exist?" Having no idea I stood there blank faced, and after a time which seemed like an eternity, he answered "I thing therefore I am!". I walked away bemused thinking "That's alright for him, but what about me?".

The Wikipedia reference is all well and good but I would recommend Descartes actual work titled "Methods & Meditations". I think my essay may change your mind in some respects.

Best Regards.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
Zoran,

Are you saying that your essay and "method and meditations" will change my mind about my existence? I don't think that is possible (smile).

My actual essay has little to do with Descartes.

Thank you for your comments, I will try to get to your essay.

Jeff

Bookmark and Share


Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 23:27 GMT
Jeff,

I suspect your question was rhetorical, but I can't resist answering. I suppose, in a way, I am saying that a better understanding of the nature of mediation can change the way you think about your own existence, but not the actuality of your existence for which no one needs proof of, or justification. I actually considered saying that between my work and a better understanding of meditation (not necessarily Descartes) you may change your mind in some respects on many of your observations. Meditation is one means to understand the nature of thinking, and while Descartes found his answers in meditation he failed to make metaphysics more scientific, but that wasn't his objective. Emmanuel Kant took things to a new level, he added structure to the metaphysical domain and gave philosophy a new foundation, a superior work and a new foundation for understanding the nature of space and time. I believe my work has added to that, and within the context of my essay, I think I can explain the nature of "meditation" and "thinking" in a way which most people can understand without having to sit atop a mountain, or resort to 2000 years of philosophy. But, that explanation is off topic, so someone who has read my essay must ask the question.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stephen James Anastasi replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 01:48 GMT
Hello Zoran

You said, 'Descartes found his answers in meditation he failed to make metaphysics more scientific, but that wasn't his objective.' I think that was his objective, which was made clear when he said:

"All the mistakes made in the sciences happen, in my view, simply because at the beginning we make judgements too hastily, and accept as our first principles matters which are obscure and of which we do not have a clear and distinct notion. (Search, AT 10:526)"

Unfortunately, he did not see that there are actually two necessary foundations that can be known, the first being that of your (I thought funny) story, and the second being the General Principle of Equivalence introduced in my essay. From it, the world. I hope you like it.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 11:23 GMT
Jeffery,

As of 7-6-13, 2:23 am EST, the rating function for your essay is not available. Sorry I can't help you out right now by rating your essay.

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 21:03 GMT
Jeffery,

I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.

My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online competition which assures me that the competition will be back up and running soon. Ironically, the inability of not being able to rate the essays correlates with the TD experimental findings, as presented in my essay, which show how the acts of selection are fundamental to our physical existence.

Anyway, I hope that all entrants will be allocated the same opportunity to have their essay rated when they are posted, and if not possible due to technical difficulties, will have their opportunity adjusted accordingly. Best wishes to you with your entry.

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 04:58 GMT
Dear Michael,

I welcome your essay in which you did not using any formula but clearly narrating your thought. It shows you are inclined to rightness of Einstein' vision - nobody can thinking (and talking) by formulas! I am sure on rightness of principle - thinking before then calculating as much as it will necessary! I like your work and inclined to appreciate it within time. I offer you my work Essay also hope it will in your interest, then we will continue talk (welcome my forum!)

Sincerely,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 09:06 GMT
Dear Michael

An article is easy to feel and absorb,i am will be rate when the rating system continues to operate.

And to change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition along with 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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 02:15 GMT
Hello Jeff

I enjoyed reading this. “Yay the robots,” I say.

You say:

“A true proof of a theory would require something outside of science and at that point the “theory” would no longer be a scientific theory and could not be a part of the scientific method.” Is this a problem if the theory is necessarily true, that it is not part of the scientific method? This seems to assume that Popper’s fallibilism is the best case. In my essay you will see that I have stepped outside the scientific method, and replaced it with endpoint skepticism. Which of these is more trustworthy do you think? Please consider my essay in that light; I am confident you will find it interesting. Feel free to ask hard questions.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 04:42 GMT
Stephen,

There could be absolute truths. There could be ways of finding absolute truths, but science is not one of those ways. My essay was on science, which must follow the scientific method. For science to advance, skepticism is necessary and blind trust is not allowed.

I am sure your essay is interesting and I hope to have time to read it.

All the best,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 03:40 GMT
Dear Jeff,

I was attracted to your essay by its title. Robots competing with me in a game of supply and demand? I was alarmed. As a programmer by trade I know that robots have whatever desires a programmer decides they should have (yeah, this makes me weary of my own desires -- are they really my own?) Whether the universe has a purpose may be hard for us to tell, but this difficulty in itself does not strike me as a sufficient reason to deny such a possibility. What if the universe has a desire for novelty? So that it does not get bored, you know, in all that eternity. You speak of scientific method as of something solid and reliable, but what if it too is evolving? Everything changes, even the scientific method. I liked the quote in the end of Jennifer Nielsen's essay:

"A hundred years from now, people will look back on us and laugh. They'll say, 'You know what people used to believe? They believed in photons and electrons. Can you imagine anything so silly?' They'll have a good laugh, because by then there will be newer and better fantasies."

May I add, they will also have a new definition of a scientific method.

I liked your essay, but don't know how to rate it. You did not discuss information -?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 04:44 GMT
I said the universe might not have a purpose. I also gave a reason what the universe might have a purpose, but I said that we might be so hopelessly on the inside to see it.

The universe might have a purpose and it might be one we could determine.

Science is always changing, but at its core the scientific method stays the same and was around before the term "scientific method" was apply to it. I did not say the scientific method was solid and reliable, it is just the best thing we know. I did talk about the limits of the scientific method.

The projectile motion part is the part on information.

Own desires are not our own, they were given to us by evolution. How you act upon your desires is what is important.

I am glad you liked the title, it was my working title which I thought I would drop for something better. I never thought of anything better. I was a little worried the title might hurt the number of downloads.

Thank you for your comments,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 23:10 GMT
Dear Jeff,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 07:50 GMT
Dear Jeff,

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


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 22:13 GMT
Jeff,

Thank you for the ruminations in which you cast pearls of wisdom.

"Evolution 
can
 give 
us 
no insight 
as 
to why 
something 
works,


but 
it 
can 
give 
working
 examples
 that 
might 
not
 be
 imaged
 by 
the
 human
mind."

Not sure where you are on the issue. The above and many other statements make me think you are a foe of the anthropic principle, but I gather you are still dubious.

I attribute the anthropic principle to humankind's anthropocentric tendencies.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 23:46 GMT
Jim,

Thank you for your comments. I will try to get to your essay.

My essay is not about how or why the universe was formed, but how we see the universe. We try to be unbiased, but our bias as humans is still there. There is a possibility of seeing the universe in other ways. I hope this makes things clearer for you.

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 10:41 GMT
Hello Jeff,

I am yet to read your essay, but it surely sounds interesting considering that from your comments above squirrels can also be considered scientists! However...

As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there…

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 16:54 GMT

"Some 
distant
 life
 form
 could 
be
 observing
 dinosaurs 
on
 Earth
 through
 their
 telescope.
Since
 the
 universe 
contains 
so
 much
 information,
one 
might
 ask 
if
 one
 could
 ask
 the
 universe
 about
 itself.
The
 universe
 itself 
is 
not 
intelligent,
even
 with 
the
 very
 low
 bar 
I 
place
 on
 intelligence,
 because
 there 
is 
no 
broad
 goal
 for
 the
 universe.
"

No supernatural or human (Anthropic Principle) plan for the universe?

The perspective of others observing us some 80 million years ago is fetching. You could put together these pearls/these images into a "Jeff" view, perhaps aided by student perspectives on science -- which you touch upon.

Again thanks for your comments.We like to be Kings in our own minds.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 18:39 GMT
Jim,

They could be viewing us "now" (whatever now means) from a distance of 80 million light years away. Because light needs time to travel, we see the stars how they were and they see us how we were.

I am sure if there are "others" observing us, they would have a very different view of the universe. The "others" plan for our universe might be very different from ours. If the universe itself has an intelligence and a perspective, our goals and dreams might seem strange or even pointless. Our plan might seem like a wish that has not yet formed.

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 13:37 GMT
Hello Geffry,

I am pleased to read your essay with deep philosophical thoughts and conclusions. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, which gives each researcher good line of research, as well as deep understanding of Universe, as well as the nature and place of the phenomenon of information in the physical world:"The universe itself might not...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 15:56 GMT
Vladimir,

Thank you for your comments.

In answer to your questions: The Universe does not need to be self-aware to have a purpose. Self-awareness must come from intelligence, but intelligence does always lead to self-awareness (I gave the example of evolution). The universe might have a purpose, it might also have an intelligence and it might be a self-aware intelligence. The only pathway towards intelligence that I know requires a goal, other pathways could exist that are absent a goal. A self-aware universe without a purpose could exist.

The quote from Alexander Zenkin is about truth. The scientific method can not find "truth". The only pathway towards intelligence that I understand requires testing as seen in the scientific method and therefore has nothing to do with "truth". I hope Alexander Zenkin finds truth and I wish him the best, but I have no way of helping him on his quest.

We are in no danger of becoming robots. Music, art and the soul are important, Physics does not need to prove their importance. Art and science run parallel with each other and both help the other out, but they are separate.

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 13:41 GMT
Sorry, Jeffrey!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
Dear Jeffrey -

As someone wrote on my page - 'The Universe doesn't explain itself, it presents itself to us.' If it could speak it would say: 'I am therefore I am.'

I think that the Mind does the same thing - only it says: 'I think therefore I am'. The Mind reflects the universe - and its mechanisms can all be traced back through a binary puzzle that has as its starting point an energy-field correlation with the binary structure of matter itself - the underlying proton-neutron structure.

I was thinking of this as I read your description of evolution. I too consider evolution to indeed fundamental to how we perceive the universe, and obviously to how we interact with it biologically.

I agree with your defense of the scientific method; I would add that evolution has led us to consider ultimate questions in a manner so detailed that we need to rigorously re-evaluate our fundamental assumptions if we wish to achieve answers. You'' be interested to see how I do this in my paper, and I hope that in the next little while you'll have some time to look it over ...

I've rated your work, and wish you the best in the competition.

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 16:04 GMT
John,

Thank you for your comments.

I find I have to re-read these essays a number of times before I get them, so I have been slow with my reviews.

Hope you do well,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 14:34 GMT
Jeff,

As I stated in my email to you, I found your brief essay truly original, enlightening, and to the point. A most noteworthy effort. What caught my eye was your attention to the value of empirical evidence to deal with experimental and theoretical bias via the scientific method.

I am glad to see your rating has increased since then and I hope you find the time to reciprocate my support of your essay in kind.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 18:23 GMT
Jeff,

Great little essay, and very much needed, though it shouldn't be! I recently found myself on a blog explaining the SciMeth and axiomatic theories to a Professor of maths and quantum physics, who genuinely didn't understand and taught just old doctrine. Very worrying!

I entirely agree; "We confuse intelligence with self-awareness and... processing."

But also even just skilled mathematical symbol manipulation. I identify and define an important 'Dirac line' discerning maths form nature, because as you rightly say;

"Mathematical systems like kinematics imperfectly intersect with the physical universe, Quantum mechanics embraces noise."

I entirely agree and have proposed that perhaps the 'shut up and calculate era should give way to to "stop and think".

I appear guilty myself in using an ironic play on words, calling a 'bit' with massively extended capacity an 'Intelligent' or IQbit, but show that only the power of thinking can discover this capacity, partly by better defining 'observation' in terms of it's components. I hope the power I show this model has may be taken as proving your point. I do make some apparently radical suggestions, but none yet falsified!

I do hope you'll manage to read (and mark and comment on) my essay. Don't let the dense abstract put you off, see the more flattering blog comments; i.e. "...Peter and others interested in his wonderful essay..", and; "Technically challenging and philosophically deep - very few papers meet both. This is one of them." etc.

Very well done for yours in any event.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 20:23 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for your comments. Your essay is next up on my reading list.

Uncertainty being a foundation of Quantum Mechanics is both a strength and a weakness because it makes testing the theory difficult.

All the best,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 22:25 GMT
Hello Jeffrey,

I agree that the universe probably doesn't have a purpose. I was interested that you consider that it might have a purpose, but we might be unable to see it, yet are open to the possibility that we might.

You've shown here a thorough examination of all possibilities.

Science and scientific method was also thoroughly and thoughtfully. Sounds like your students receive a lot of wisdom from you.

Please take a look at my essay if you get chance.

Best wishes & well done on an excellent essay. I rate it highly - hope it helps,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 04:03 GMT
Antony,

Thank you for your comments.

I often teach nights and weekends to working adults (I sometimes get students who are older than me). I think wisdom is the wrong word. I hope I can give my students a new perspective on the world around them.

Hope you do well,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 20:27 GMT
Jeff,

Whatever you call it - keep it up - they are benefiting I'm sure!

I also hope you do well - thanks!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 16:23 GMT
Dear Jeffrey,

You have given due importance to science and scientific method in your essay. You have rightly described first how a pattern is formed by mind and based on this how hypotheses are framed and then how theories are developed on these hypotheses. Sometimes adhoc hypotheses are framed to explain new scientific facts and theories are based on them. If they fail to explain other facts later discovered then such hypotheses and theories based on them will have to be replaced by some other better theories. This is, indeed, found in the history of science. You have also stated clearly why robots and computers cannot take over man as they are not intelligent systems like humans but are operated by him. The idea that the universe may not have purpose behind it makes it look like non- lively. But you are right when you say that there is purpose behind the evolution of Life, because Life has continued to exist even after its existence and evolution for billions of years under going enormous change in its complexity, intelligence and form. When you say that “In evolution we have another intelligent system to compare with human intelligence” reminds me of my hypotheses in biology that “Evolution of Life is analogous to the evolution of the knowledge of mind”. It is based on this hypothesis I am going to build my theory of the existence and evolution of Life. Thus in this respect your idea is nearly similar to mine. Due to this similarity of thought I will rate this essay with maximum rating after seeing your response to my comments. I have answered your comments on my essay in my thread.

Thanks for writing an elegantly argued article.

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 18:06 GMT
Sreenath,

Thank you for your comments.

I feel that computers could be intelligent (along with many other things and animals), but computers (or robots) do not share our needs. In a sense, needs and wants make us "rulers", not intelligence.

Best of luck with you essay,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share


Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT
Dear Jeffrey,

As promised I have rated your essay.

Best of luck,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 21:08 GMT
Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, I read your essay and I find it bright and clear and it seems to me seriously done and I rated for it.

Maybe you would be interested...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:11 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


Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 04:24 GMT
Dear Jeffrey

I just want to let you know that I have read your nice and short essay. Up to now robots and computers don't have human features such as feelings and desires, but perhaps in the far future things may change. You also discuss that the universe has no purpose. Of course you assume that the universe is composed of inert elements, but how would you explain the emergence of purpose, feelings and desire from brute inert matter. Usually, the explanation is that all of these are nothing but chemical reactions, do you agree?

I'd like to invite you to read my essay and leave some comments. There I discuss about Wheeler's dream and propose a potential way to get out of the present crisis.

I'll be looking forward to hearing any comments you may have.

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 14:19 GMT
Israel,

I said that the universe might not have a purpose. If the universe has a purpose, it might be difficult or impossible for us to know.

Life has a purpose to reproduce. Feeling and desires are experienced by more complex life forms. We (complex animals) have many layers of intelligent systems. As an example, you do not have to think to make your heart beat or regulate body temperature. A rabbit will run in a zig-zag pattern than hide when frighten. We still have that "run and hide" command set within us, but we often over-ride this instruction. We still "feel" that command set to "run and hide" as a rabbit might feel but over-ride the "feed" command to run and hide.

Thank you for your comments,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share


Israel Perez replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 03:55 GMT
Hi Jeff

Thanks for your reply. Just to add: If the purpose of life is to reproduce then one could say that the purpose of the universe is to give consciousness, don't you think? So, why do you say that life has a purpose and the universe doesn't?

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 14:04 GMT
Israel,

Consciousness does not do anything for the universe, as far as we know, as universe existed without consciousness for billions of years. Without reproduction life would not be. The universe might have a purpose and consciousness might be that purpose, but that purpose is not clearly visible. On some other planet, they might view the goal of the universe very differently.

Thank you for your questions,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 18:59 GMT
Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

Maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 23:00 GMT
Dear Jeff

My previous post was erased. I just want to let you know that I have already read your nice and short essay. Robots and computers have no desires and feelings, but how can we explain these in humans if we are just of matter and energy?

I'd like to invite you to read my essay and leave some comments. There I discuss about Wheeler's dream and propose a potential way to get out of the present crisis.

I'll be looking forward to hearing any comments you may have.

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:24 GMT
Dear Jeffrey,

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


KoGuan Leo wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 09:00 GMT
Dear Jeff,

A great opening statement that I concur 100%, as a matter of fact KQID is designed to power Xuan Yuan Operating system2.0 to realize Xuan Yuan's Da Tong, an idea society in which "from each to each according to his/her dreams and aspirations" where each has free eduction, free health care and free material wealth. May I invite you to my blog and if you like it please rate it to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 12:15 GMT
I know there are many essays out there, but cutting and pasting me first and last sentence is not a review.

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:36 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael Helland wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:13 GMT
Interesting.

I rated your essay a ten

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:42 GMT
Dear Jeff,

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


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 03:05 GMT
Light and fun to read.

I enjoyed it. Descartes may have helped invent 'It from Bit' Cogito Ergo Sum - if translated in the impersonal - is Thinking therefore Being, or Bit engenders It.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 20:29 GMT
Jonathan,

There are many essays out there and only a very few were "fun" for me to read. I am glad you enjoyed my essay and found it easy to read. Easy is hard to do.

All the best,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Margarita Iudin wrote on May. 31, 2014 @ 18:29 GMT
Hello Mr. Schmitz,

I read your comments on the essays-2014.

May I ask you to read my essay? It is called

Imagining the future humanity

at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2096

Sincerely,

M Iudin

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.