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

Tommaso Bolognesi: on 6/6/14 at 10:48am UTC, wrote Dear Alexandre, I`ve read with interest your essay (the last I read before...

James Hoover: on 6/6/14 at 2:39am UTC, wrote Alex, In my last essay, "It's Good to Be the King," I did dispute the...

Alexandre de Pomposo: on 6/6/14 at 2:34am UTC, wrote Very dear Janko Kokosar, It is a very happy coincidence that I just read a...

Alexandre de Pomposo: on 6/6/14 at 1:58am UTC, wrote Neil, I think you said it quite well from the very beginning of your...

Alexandre de Pomposo: on 6/6/14 at 1:36am UTC, wrote Dear Peter, I am deeply touched by your words. I found phrases very...

Alexandre de Pomposo: on 6/6/14 at 1:01am UTC, wrote Dear Leo, What can I say? I am very grateful that you considered my...

Janko Kokosar: on 6/5/14 at 14:16pm UTC, wrote Dear Alexandre de Pomposo It is a very nicely written essay, which merge...

Neil Bates: on 6/2/14 at 0:11am UTC, wrote Alexandre, I agree with you that we need to combine more variety of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Robert, thank you. I now understand the difference between decisions and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Making a decision, means selecting between discrete, a priori established..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


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
October 15, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: Science: the unifying factor for humankind in the future by Alexandre Serge François de Pomposo [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Alexandre de Pomposo wrote on Mar. 17, 2014 @ 17:08 GMT
Essay Abstract

Even though science achievements are undeniable through human history, there is a sort of disenchantment about its ethical and social consequences. Despite the fact that this is true, we question now on the validity of the approach between scientific models of the world and current and existential reality, because we think that the future of Humankind largely depends upon that. Scientific language is extremely powerful but it is not almighty; therefore, we review the serious limitations of proclaiming a unique code of expression about the real world, humans within, and instead we propose a polyglotism which not only recognizes there are other forms of telling the world, but opens its own horizon, accepting its needs, assuming then the unifier role that science is called to play, so that Humanity steer the future in an adequate way.

Author Bio

Born in Mexico City, september 2nd 1957. Undergraduate studies in Physics: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Qualifying PhD. The University of Texas at Austin. PhD Physics: Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium) under Prof. Ilya Prigogine. Undergraduate studies in Philosophy: Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium). MD Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Full time professor and researcher: Multiversidad Mundo Real Edgar Morin, Mexico City. Holder of the research group on Open Systems and Complexity (SACO) Faculty of Ha'atelier, University of Berlin. Member of the Société Française de Philosophie. Member of the Fundación Xavier Zubiri, Madrid.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Mar. 18, 2014 @ 13:47 GMT
Dear Mr.Alexandre de Pomposo,

intersting essay which is in agreement with my own essay:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2002

(right in the spirit of Prigogine which I like very much).

More later after a second reading of your essay.

Best wishes for the contest

Torsten

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Mar. 20, 2014 @ 09:00 GMT
Dear Alexandre de Pomposo,

thanks for your reply and for the good ideas. I agree that my model is not very detailed. But the discoveries in science cannot be planned and if I don't know it I can assume a stochastic process. More philosophical: noise creates potential information not real information. The real information can be created by selection (or by other processes of choice among the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 21, 2014 @ 14:26 GMT
Dear Doctor de Pomposa,

I regret that reading your exceptionally well written essay depressed me close to the point of despair.

I found your frank admission that although you understand that …”we all live in the present…” you have never asked yourself why we do that. May I please give you a clue from my sensible essay, REALITY, ONCE? We only live in the here and now because that is the only way we can realistically live.

Reality is unique, once. Reality was not created. Information is not unique. Information had to have been created. Reality cannot be correct or incorrect. All information must be incorrect because it assumes unreal characteristics. All technology is destructive. It cannot be anything else but destructive because it is unnatural.

With best regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 16:18 GMT
Dear Joe:

I am very sorry for, apparently, you found some discomfort while reading my article. I already read yours, though I need a second view of it. Meanwhile, I allow myself to think loudly about your observations on my paper: to begin, when I say that "we all live in the present" I pretend to underline the fact that we should learn from our past experiences, that we shall orient our...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 24, 2014 @ 16:23 GMT
Alexandre,

The only question we need to ask ourselves is: Is reality simple? Reality must be simple; because the question can only draw the response of yes. Now, we can then ask the question: Is information about reality simple? The answer might be that some of the information about reality is simple, but some of the information about reality is exceedingly complex. Utter intellectual confusion ensues. How can simplicity and complexity co-exist simultaneously? The less abstract information about reality one has at one’s disposal, the better able one can deal with reality.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alexandre de Pomposo wrote on Mar. 24, 2014 @ 18:04 GMT
Dear Joe,

I thank you, once again, for your reply. I think that I can see very clearly now where is the "problem": the turning point is in the difference between the concepts of "complex" and "complicated". The term "complex" denotes a property of things; so, when I say "that is complex" what I am actually saying is that such realities possess a complex nature (see below). Instead, when I declare that something is complicated, what I am pointing out is my bigger or lesser capability of understanding or dealing with reality itself.

You might be asking why do I suppose complexity as a property of reality. Well, I guess that the problem before us is like that of a jig-saw puzzle. Suppose we have a box of pieces out of which we are to construct a certain picture (in fact, what we call "nature", "reality", and so on). But the pieces contained in the box are more than can be used, an from among them we have to select those which are needed for our purpose. Furthermore, the pieces do not fit together, and they have to be reshaped. Finally, many necessary pieces are missing, and we have to supply them ourselves (hypothesis). But to offset all these difficulties, we have an outline of the picture which we are to construct... What do we want to do? Do we describe reality or do we invent it? Simplicity is the lowest degree of complexity we can understand.

Alexandre

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 25, 2014 @ 15:00 GMT
Dear Alexandre,

I am not making myself clear. Please allow me to try again. Reality is not in the least bit complicated. The only thing that is complicated is information about reality.

For instance: All surfaces travel at the constant “speed” of light. All non-surfaces travel at an inconsistent speed that is less than the speed of light. This must be so for lit surfaces can be observed by man, moose, and mouse, and non-surfaces cannot ever be observed.

By mistakenly believing that they can measure the speed of light, the physicists have cornered themselves in an impossible situation. Nothing in reality is measurable for all reality takes place here and now.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Turil Sweden Cronburg wrote on Mar. 27, 2014 @ 13:46 GMT
I appreciate your mention of how science needs art and philosophy, and that combined they can focus on supporting humanity’s (basic, physical, etc.) needs.

And, obviously, I definitely appreciate your proposition that open-mindedness is crucial to a healthy future.

I would have loved to hear a deeper discussion of your ideas on the practical side of polyglotism, as you see it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on Mar. 27, 2014 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Professor Turil Sweden Cronburg,

I thank you a lot for your encouraging words and, as I see in the paper you wrote, the discovering of how we deeply coincide in many points. I greatly enjoyed reading you, particularly expressed in the diagrams you beautifully presented. However, if you allow me to make a few comments about your ideas, I would like to know how can we pretend to use...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Mar. 27, 2014 @ 23:55 GMT
Alexandre,

As you profess to be an open minded scientist, would you be able to examine the possibility that the practice of science is quite capable of social behaviors which lead it off into imaginary realms, as abstractions of abstractions create schools of thought that are every bit as fantastical as anything dreamed up by religion, or fiction? Multiverses is necessarily the culmination...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on Mar. 29, 2014 @ 01:05 GMT
Dear John,

I appreciate both your paper and your beautiful reply. I mostly agree with you and what you say made me stop for a little while in my job, walk out and start considering your concepts, one by one, under the trees of a park. The result of those thoughts are expressed in the following lines.

Basic sciences have shown, from their very beginning, the greatest interest to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Mar. 29, 2014 @ 02:38 GMT
Alex,

We assume that as broad and deep as the scientific endeavor has grown, mistakes would be quickly revealed, but the opposite can be true as well, that the establishment momentum does not backtrack any more than absolutely necessary. Scientists are human.

Let me ask you directly, if I may be so forward; Does it make sense to you to think of time as change causing future to be come past? That tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns?

Obviously you can appreciate the difficulties this would pose for the notion of spacetime, that correlation of measures of duration and distance and the effects various fields and velocities have on them are reflective of this deeper 'fabric of spacetime.' Yet on a deeper level, history and linear logic is based on this narrative premise. What is more elemental to the human condition than the progression of time?

I'm not arguing this from a point of personal hubris and it is not as though we haven't poetically sensed events receding into the past on a daily basis, but as humans we concentrate and focus on the details, which the practices of science and math magnify. Personally I'm one of those people who is more inclined to sit back, when everyone else is rushing ahead, not for intellectual reasons, but simply more air to breathe. Professionally I train horses, which is the family business. So while the rest of the world rushes into the future, I watch from a distance. Objectivity is simply a matter of having some distance from the subject. The universe swirls overhead. It's taken us decades to eject one satellite from our solar system, yet we now posit multiverses? From my point of view, it seems a fairly classic case of getting way beyond ourselves and real progress is not going to come, until we come to our senses.

Thank you and hope this doesn't come across as a rant, but a clearly stated opinion.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on Mar. 29, 2014 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear John,

I thank you very much for your openness of thinking. As I already told you, I completely agree with you and I celebrate that you like to watch from a distance: open spaces are essential to have an idea of the entire landscape. So, after that, you deserve that I widely open my heart to you in a matter as fundamental as time is. But before that I must prevent you that, as it seems...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



James Dunn wrote on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 17:42 GMT
I gave you a score of 8. The part that was missing was how to provide sustainable support for a monumentally diversified system of investigative efforts.

Public schools are not even teaching common sense, let alone concepts and practiced application of diverse foundations for investigative developments.

James Dunn

FQXi Submission:

Graduated Certification for Certification of Common Sense



http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2045


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear James,

Thank you for the score you gave to me. You are right about the missing part of providing sustainable support of investigative efforts. However, my article, being written by a physicist, hardly could deal with such items, and I wanted to put the accent on the epistemological attitude facing the legitimate unification of knowledge, of realities and, mainly, of humans. Indeed, I think that attitude is first; economics is later. As a matter of fact, one can find quite often such confusion in most of the western countries, namely, that prosperity in education comes from prosperity in economics; I think it is exactly the opposite.

You say well that we don’t even teach common sense at schools (neither public nor private): common notions are completely oriented to making money, to generate and utilize technologies, to worship the body, to be as popular as possible, to reach wealth at any price, and so on and so forth. In other words, we have consciously organized our world on an egoistic basis and, as a consequence, rather that dignifying the human individual by making him more responsible of the world, humans within, we block the natural volition of humankind to live with the others, to live for the others as the best possible self-service, to back feed a healthy self-esteem, … That’s why I believe science can become an area of hopefulness for humankind in the future, provided we actually understand the crucial role of self-critique in science generation and the importance of learning other ways of thinking the world and the whole reality. ¿Don’t you think so?

Best regards,

Alex

P.-S. I shall read your paper in detail. Only then, I will be able to making comments to you; however, I can see in advance that it will be an enjoying experience.

Bookmark and Share



Anselm Smidt wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 16:27 GMT
Ernüchterung im Vergleich zu was?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 16:31 GMT
Hi. When I mention the idea of a “disappointing science” I am not referring to science itself, but rather to the way many scientists, mainly along the 20th century, have interpreted the terms of doing science. As an intellectual effort sciences have been from the very beginning a tremendously successfully explanation of the world, at certain levels, not all of them. The scientists who get deeply into the making of science know that, even though we can establish many facts, we still miss the main point, namely, the role played by human nature of thinking reality and the effects of all that onto consciousness. So, in few words, the difficulty does not come from science itself, but from the attitude of many scientists who uncritically believe that deterministic science guarantee humans future and happiness. Science is, as a matter of fact, unthinkable without scientists.

Well, not only am I not against science but I think that science is one of the more important issues for humanity, as soon as we assume scientific though on a revisionist basis, I mean, reviewing all the root concepts of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics, dominating as far as possible all the epistemological perspectives on nature. I hope these ideas will be helpful.

Regards

Alex

Bookmark and Share



Petio Hristov wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 07:07 GMT
Dear Mr.Alexandre de Pomposo

Your essay greatly excited and imprested me.

I support your idea that reality is diverse and complicated, but is regulated by clear principles. It makes me very happy that in the disclosure of reality you mention not only the second law of thermodynamics and the Prigogine theorem, but Hermeneutics and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), as well and the idea of the meaning and perfection of the circle.

I agree with you that in the understanding of entropy one must have in mind the evolution of nature, but I believe that a new physical decision could shed some light on its secrets.

I suggest the answer given by the General theory of Unity: in the moment before the occurrence of the thermal death due to entropy comes conversion. (Life under ground Cosmic mystery and physical reality by Petio Hristov ) This process was known in some ancient cultures. The cycle of nature was also known.

Entropy is one of the manifestations of the law of Conversion. The law expresses the encrypted idea of the prevention of the thermal death due to entropy. It is important to understand that after the occurred conversion entropy continues… in a different direction and in a new way (in a different configuration).

Entropy is a continuous process, which changes its direction, as well as its magnitude in the different moments of its own development. It changes its own configuration. The point of this conversion with which the thermal death due to entropy is prevented some scientists perceived as the Big Bang.

I consider that your essay deserves a high rating.

Petio Hristov

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on May. 14, 2014 @ 23:24 GMT
I am extremely sorry for I took so long to answer your very interesting reply. You are mostly kind about my writing and, it seems to me, we agree in more than one point: I find specially exciting the idea of a “conversion” process upon which entropy itself depends. It reminds me a little bit the situations facing the multiverse theory, namely, that it either is a pure mathematical possibility, or a purely phenomenological facet of mental reality. That doesn’t mean that we should simple brush it aside. It seemingly points out a projection of brain structure, like most of our scientific constructs.

Reading your paper I frankly enjoyed a lot that you didn’t fear a bit considering ancient models. You are absolutely right: ancient peoples were much less stupid than we might think: they had that extraordinary capability of observing reality, while we rarely do that because we usually “see” things. In order to recover such skills, we should look beyond our scientific stuff and start rethinking the same scientific action as the pristine concern of how nature does the wonderful masterpieces we should observe everyday.

Best wishes.

Alex

Bookmark and Share


Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on May. 14, 2014 @ 23:26 GMT
Dear Mr. Petio Hristov,

I am extremely sorry for I took so long to answer your very interesting reply. You are mostly kind about my writing and, it seems to me, we agree in more than one point: I find specially exciting the idea of a “conversion” process upon which entropy itself depends. It reminds me a little bit the situations facing the multiverse theory, namely, that it either is a pure mathematical possibility, or a purely phenomenological facet of mental reality. That doesn’t mean that we should simple brush it aside. It seemingly points out a projection of brain structure, like most of our scientific constructs.

Reading your paper I frankly enjoyed a lot that you didn’t fear a bit considering ancient models. You are absolutely right: ancient peoples were much less stupid than we might think: they had that extraordinary capability of observing reality, while we rarely do that because we usually “see” things. In order to recover such skills, we should look beyond our scientific stuff and start rethinking the same scientific action as the pristine concern of how nature does the wonderful masterpieces we should observe everyday.

Best wishes.

Alex

Bookmark and Share



Mohammed M. Khalil wrote on May. 6, 2014 @ 16:42 GMT
Hi Alexandre,

Great essay! I agree with you; In my essay , I argue that science can lead humanity's future, and we have to make the conditions right for science to do so.

Good luck in the contest.

Mohammed

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on May. 14, 2014 @ 23:51 GMT
Dear Mohammed,

I cannot but say that your essay is gorgeous too! Even we argue in different styles and even with different sorts of conceptual backgrounds, we agree on the main topics. I would like to underline, since I myself pointed it out too in my paper, that improving education not only is very important, but it is indeed urgent. However, I shall disagree that the only fact of owning a laptop guarantees education (there exist many educational programs trying to do so). No doubt that computers can be extremely useful tools while learning about new horizons in knowledge; just to mention one aspect, it is amazing the amount of good books on science, arts, philosophy, and so on, one can download for free (I have thousands of such e-books which I share with my students). Nevertheless, the marrow of knowledge still depends upon personal yearnings, hard work trying to understand concepts and feeling overwhelmed by beauty in nature. Well, I suppose I sound like a grandpa talking to his grandson: I assure you that my intention is to support initiatives like yours and mine. Best regards.

Alex

Bookmark and Share



Ajay Bhatla wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 05:32 GMT
Christine,

Your emphasis on "should empower the individual's mind" is precisely the point of my essay (here).

So, I am very surprised when you say "This is not a proposal for steering humanity."

I look forward to your comments on my essay.

- Ajay

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ajay Bhatla replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 05:54 GMT
Alexandre,

My sincere apologies for posting a comment not meant for your essay on your essay.

Please ignore it.

Thank you

- Ajay

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ajay Bhatla wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 06:04 GMT
Alexandre,

I completely agree that science is only one of many forms "of telling the world."

I also agree that the more forms used the better the chance of reaching every one.

If your goal using the many forms is to make "general intelligence" more powerful, I agree with that.

What's a bit vague to me is what you specifically want everyone to know or be able to do.

- Ajay

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 15:43 GMT
Ajay,

I appreciate your comment on my paper. I thoroughly read yours and I must say it was a joyful experience. In order to answer to your reply I shall say that what I want everyone to know is restlessness of intellect: the essential “sickness” of being unsatisfied by our poor understanding of reality as it is, not as we would like it to be. In concrete this means that a scientist, for instance, has to be more than interested in other sorts of knowledge, anthropological, artistic, metaphysical, philosophical, political, etc., even religious realm should be appealing to him, just because such a subject has to do with humans yearning, fears, behaviors, etc. I imagine that in doing so, a scientist can do his or her scientific work much better, with the consciousness of being for and with the other in thee planet, isn’t it so? The whole stuff is in the attitude and humbleness with which we pretend to know something about the world, including us. Best regards.

Alex

Bookmark and Share



James A Putnam wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 18:36 GMT
Dear Alexandre de Pomposo,

Very good essay. Several lines are worth quoting, I chose this one:

"Human history, particularly the 20th century history, is filled up with stories of blood, hunger, injustice, nasty social contrasts, amazing technologies usually sponsored by and oriented for armies, medical techniques of astonishing precision and, at the same time, millions of people, mainly children, dying of preventable infectious diseases, and so on. The solution starts down here, amongst humans, learning to learn from others and declaring from their inner part of their minds, that it will never again happen to humans to set over human dignity the ambitious perspective of racial superiority, of fanatic wrights, of apocalyptic views. No, the future of Humanity must take into account the open unity in diversity."

Humanity needs to achieve a better world. I think you expressed this need, the importance of 'open unity in diversity', and, your view of 'Science: the unifying factor for humankind in the future' beautifully.

From your abstract: "Scientific language is extremely powerful but it is not almighty; therefore, we review the serious limitations of proclaiming a unique code of expression about the real world, humans within, and instead we propose a polyglotism which not only recognizes there are other forms of telling the world, but opens its own horizon, accepting its needs, assuming then the unifier role that science is called to play, so that Humanity steer the future in an adequate way."

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 17:02 GMT
Dear James Putnam,

Thanks a lot for your encouraging words; sincerely, I don’t think I am worth of being quoted but, still, Thanks again. On my side, I confess I had to read several times your paper, not because it is not well written, but because of the axes you fix: they are all fundamental and forced my mind to review most of the basis I considered already clear. Aren’t articles...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chidi Idika wrote on May. 17, 2014 @ 17:53 GMT
Dear Alex,

Its a rich essay you have here (although I found my comprehesion often hampered by a certain syntax).

I figure that what prevents polyglot-ism in science is that scientists in every field take themselves TOO seriously. If every field of study is able to see itself as only a language/idiom/model for articulating nature we would build bridges more easily as you noted children are wont to do.

For practicals you say: “It is easily noted that the common “zone” of these three dimensions (ontological, epistemological and ethical) is reality itself, and its foundations are in the concrete manner the human brain perceives and interprets such reality.”

This above thesis underlines the approach I take to the subject at hand; on which approach I will appreciate your valuable judgment.

As you put it: “…the future of Humanity must take into account the

open unity in diversity.”

Also I did check up your link on dissipative systems.

Best (and I'll certainly be back here to rate),

Chidi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 17:22 GMT
Dear Chidi,

Thanks for your kindly talk. I appreciate your point of view since, as I could read in your beautiful paper, we truly agree on many aspects of what sciences should have in mind while descanting about nature. I apologize for my syntax, as you already noticed, is not very good in English; however, I assure you, I’ll do my best.

The approach you take argues that “There...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on May. 20, 2014 @ 10:41 GMT
Dear Alexandre,

I read with great interest your depth analytical essay in the Cartesian spirit of doubt and specific suggestions and direction for mankind. Very close to me your ideas and conclusions:

«Among the best accomplishments of mankind we recognize science, art and Philosophy, as they have in common, all three, that they can bring in question the blindly accepted state of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 21:18 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

How I thank you for your encouraging words! I’m deeply honoured for the comparison you made vis-à-vis de Descartes! However, unlike him I doubt about everything, even I doubt about doubt… I mean I aspire to become a rebel with a cause, namely, reality including man as an important part of the whole context of things.

You are certainly right, Tradition is extremely...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 24, 2014 @ 11:33 GMT
Dear Alexandre,

Many thanks for your deep and very important answer for me. I completely agree with your conclusions and additions according to Gadamer, Husserl, Levinas, Heidegger, Feyerabend, Bergson, Lee Smolin. Today overcoming of "understanding crisis" (K.Kopeykin) requires Mega Synthesis ("over generalizing") all knowledge accumulated by Humanity, their extremely maximum compression,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jolanta Klyszcz wrote on May. 21, 2014 @ 22:21 GMT
Dear Alex:

Let me to invite you and more colleges to discuss an interesting aspect of your concept of polyglotism which involve the communication as a condition of culture, and only the human culture. In next I am going to explain my posotion then link it to poliglotism of culture.

In quantum physics the causal structure is not assumed but emerges in the right conditions....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 17:27 GMT
Very dear Jola,

I am very sorry for I send my comment to your interesting reply just now. Anyhow, I could not just say something politically correct, as there are truly original points in your text. For instance, you say, “In quantum physics the causal structure is not assumed but emerges in the right conditions. The right condition is the momentum of taking a measure” and you’re...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 27, 2014 @ 22:29 GMT
Alex,

Your essay contains a lot to consider. Does your title, "Science: the Unifying Factor for Humankind in the future" suggest that the laws of science are central in our lives and that a broad education -- science, art and philosophy (I assume you are suggesting broader like liberal arts) -- "bring into question the blindly accepted state of things in the world." And that your polyglotism relates to speaking the language of science and other academic subject.

I totally agree with your suggested need for general intelligence, including all these disciplines, better enable us to treat special problems. Certainly in my essay I argue that fixations on short-term material needs tends to rebuff the long-term needs of our planet.

I see "Looking beyond" as the need to consider orthodox and unorthodox science and "Looking Within" to explore the universe of the mind.

I would like to see your comments on my essay.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 19:24 GMT
Jim,

I am very glad to observe that you went deep into mi writing. Thank you very much. I therefore read carefully your paper and I could enjoy the trip around the concept of “vision”. The example of Einstein is quite well chosen, I must say. So, I would like to put here a complete quotation by Professor Ilya Prigogine, during an academic event he attended in Athens:

“The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 02:39 GMT
Alex,

In my last essay, "It's Good to Be the King," I did dispute the anthropic principle, suggesting it places humankind in a anthropocentric role prolonging the "divine right" belief.

That was the duality I saw. Certainly science should be the unifier.

I am revisiting those that I have read, wanting to rate all. Another duality seems to be my Firefox browser that wouldn't rate and the Opera browser that did. I found that I rated yours on 5/27.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


KoGuan Leo wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 12:42 GMT
Dear Alex,

Excellent essay. I found your reply to John above is more compelling to me pertaining to your conversation with Prof. Prigogine because I incorporated the concept of time as on dimension and it is in the zeroth dimension of time. KQID theory postulated that 3D time is space and 3D time as space is moving orthogonally inside time Lm, Minkowski Multiverse timeline in the zeroth...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 01:01 GMT
Dear Leo,

What can I say? I am very grateful that you considered my writing and that you even took a look on the replies I have received. You truly honored me.

Your comments based on your articles, the one you wrote for the present contest and the others from 2012 and 2013, incited me to have a close look on them and, I am happy I did in detail. KQID is a very exciting view on...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear Alexandre,

I'm pleased I reached your excellent essay before the deadline. I was also not familiar enough with Prigogine's work on dissipative structures. I find parallels in my own findings of a coherent perspective in theory and observational cosmology pointing to a cyclic pattern.

I find your work very well considered and written and am happy to help ensure it's in the final...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alexandre de Pomposo replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 01:36 GMT
Dear Peter,

I am deeply touched by your words. I found phrases very quotable too in your writing. You say, for instance, “But impending disasters couldn't be proved.” Indeed, there it is scientist’s play as prophets, trying to predict the future. However, I would like to ask them if there is an actual weight of reality in numbers: is it enough to have them present in the spirit in order to declare them “real”? Of course I am not talking about real numbers as the conjunction of rational and irrational numbers. I would like to know if Pythagoras had reason to look at numbers as the actual creators of reality. That is why we shall “[…] be the ultimate skeptics in identifying and testing all possible candidates.”

“We load information continuously, often flawed, then mainly use 'intuition' to judge

Things, even in science.” Yes, I agree and I would even consider that “mistakes” play the crucial role of relating, playing as fluctuations, two opposite poles, namely, structure and dissipation-function, solving once and for all the old quale of which came first, the chicken or the egg… Which came first, the structure or the function, translates the neurosis of causality. In other words, dear friend, I think that even when “Many considered the pair had remained entangled during the trip. They may have been right, but Bob and Alice found that harmonic resonant coupling is a local and quite different effect.”

Best wishes.

Alex

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Neil Bates wrote on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 00:11 GMT
Alexandre, I agree with you that we need to combine more variety of "intellectual dialects" and open up more interdisciplinary dialog, as well as ensure that members of various communities of thought can appreciate what other groups mean and are really doing. Delving into the nature of our own minds and wills is another need that I explore in my own essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexandre de Pomposo replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 01:58 GMT
Neil, I think you said it quite well from the very beginning of your beautiful paper:

“The challenges facing humanity require not just action, but better understanding and transformation of the human mind.” Nevertheless, I think that the transformation of the human mind is in itself an action and, indeed, the more urgent one, always. What you say about delving into the nature of human mind is, in fact, indispensable; no matter how fundamental is the problem of consciousness, we still are full of mystery, not as a closed door due to our huge ignorance about reality, but as a wide opened entrance toward a perturbing miracle, the miracle of the unexpected reality. Friendly,

Alex

Bookmark and Share



Janko Kokosar wrote on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 14:16 GMT
Dear Alexandre de Pomposo

It is a very nicely written essay, which merge philosophy and physics. You presented the ways of thinking in history which mean separations from thinking in the past. I expected also that you will write more about consciousness, which is also one of global physical questions which are not yet solved. Otherwise you mentioned Galileo, who said that body is only a illusion. But this is a dualism, which is only one of approaches to consciousness. I think that theory of everything (TOE) will not be explained without introduction of consciousness. If you are interested in my opinion, I please that you read my essay from 2013. Because I think that you have some opinions about consciousness and quantum consciousness.

You wrote that physics is mathematical. I would add that the existence of Planck distance, mass and time leads to description of physical constants dimensionlessly, and so to the fact that physical units are not necessary. For instance, if light speed would not exist, special relativity relation between length and time would not exist. Thus time and distance would be independent physical quantities, and their description would demand physical units, for instance meter and second. Thus those units would be something what cannot be described with pure mathematics. About this it is written also in Duff's paper, and in 5. section of my paper. Alexander Macrae also thinks that information is dimensionless.

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alexandre de Pomposo replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 02:34 GMT
Very dear Janko Kokosar,

It is a very happy coincidence that I just read a book by Jean-Philippe Uzan and Bénédicte Leclercq, The Natural Laws of the Universe, Springer-Praxis, Chichester, 2008. Therefore, while reading your writing I had to review chapter two, Fundamental constants, pillars of the edifice: our world is truly weird as it is fascinating! The text by Duff in What about theories with time-varying constants?, seems to me penetrating, although leaving the open question of the actual nature of time. To me, I hope you’ll agree, the understanding of time is the true problem, particularly its irreversible behavior, pointing out the challenge of the plays of symmetry and antisymmetry in nature.

Your parable of the WC reminded to me the fiction story saying that at the time extraterrestrials arrived on Earth, humankind had already extinguished by means of a “clean” war, this is to say, using neutron bombs. So, the aliens explored the empty cities and were very astonished finding WCs in every house; at the end they concluded that such devices were indeed a sort of “altars” for some kind of religious service, addressed to domestic gods… Well, you certainly know, Janko, that all scientific struggle turns around the hermeneutic problem: interpreting reality, much more than understanding it. We should concentrate our efforts in describing nature, not inventing it. Of course there is a lot to say about that, but whatever we conclude, we all know that WCs are certainly not altars, but a fluid mechanics lab…

All my friendship and best wishes.

Alex

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 10:48 GMT
Dear Alexandre,

I`ve read with interest your essay (the last I read before the closing of the rating phase!). I found it interesting, and it gives me further motivation for looking closer at the work by Prigogine. I feel that these topics are not sufficiently covered in this Contest.

If I may, I have only one minor remark on presentation style: I found some of the passages not completely clear (at least at first reading, but I can`t go through a second one :-)

When discussing possible explanations for the `mystery` of the mix of order and disorder in the universe, which fights against the curse of entropy growth, I`m always a big supporter of the computational universe argument, or the `typing-monkeys` metaphor. When they operate on a typewriter, the output is completely random-like, and different from the natural universe; but when they type a random program into a computer terminal, the output of that program is often structured (with Levin`s `miracoulous` distribution at work).

The computation-oriented view at the complexity of our universe may represent a step forward, or refinement of Galileo`s ideas on the role of mathematics for understanding nature, and is in part discussed in my essay.

I wish I could compare this argument with Prigogine`s theory. Do you see it possible?

Best regards

Tommaso

If you are interested in this possible comparison, you could read (and rate) my essay.

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.