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

Neil Bates: on 6/3/14 at 20:03pm UTC, wrote Malcolm, it is bold just to ask if we are using "wrong math," since...

Malcolm Macleod: on 6/2/14 at 3:35am UTC, wrote Hi Margriet! I have worked on a model of the universe and it gives some...

Malcolm Macleod: on 6/2/14 at 3:27am UTC, wrote Hi Peter, Thanks, I read your paper, as an actual attempt to solve an...

Peter Jackson: on 5/28/14 at 18:54pm UTC, wrote Malcolm, Very interesting approach and undoubtedly true. I would of course...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 5/23/14 at 15:57pm UTC, wrote Dear Malcolm , Sorry for the long silence ! In my essay I open this year ...

Malcolm Macleod: on 5/21/14 at 10:09am UTC, wrote Hi Aaron, You are perfectly correct of course. Furthermore I have been...

Malcolm Macleod: on 5/21/14 at 10:03am UTC, wrote Hi Petio, I don't know what FQXI policy is towards alternate ideas, I...

Margriet O'Regan: on 5/21/14 at 9:20am UTC, wrote Hello Malcolm, One of the truly yawning chasms in our current knowledge is...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, re. your ""one huge mistake"- they are describing non-existent..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "They are proud, because they have solved some problems, which are..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, I do have an interest in the history, but not as much as I used..." in First Things First: The...

Georgina Woodward: "The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment presents 3 causally linked state..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Roger Granet: "Well put! Physics is hard, but biochemistry (my area), other sciences..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...


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 19, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: Are we using the wrong mathematics? by Malcolm Macleod [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Malcolm Macleod wrote on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 11:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

We live in a universe that appears to operate smoothly according to a set of laws which we do not fully understand. Furthermore we have 2 completely different and apparently opposing sciences to describe this universe – the life sciences; biology, organic chemistry, and the physical sciences; inorganic chemistry, physics... And so we may ask, is it not redundant to have 2 completely different sets of laws to govern a single universe, especially as biological systems clearly integrate seamlessly with physical systems. We know there is a biological science, we ourselves are evidence of this, and so if there is only 1 set of laws that govern our universe, then I submit that these laws may be the laws of organic systems, in other words, the physical sciences may themselves be life sciences.

Author Bio

The author is a radio engineer working on ultra wide band software radio. This has led to an interest in wave models of the universe concerning which he is currently writing a book comparing ancient thought with modern observations.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



sridattadev kancharla wrote on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 17:54 GMT
Dear Malcom,

A wonderful essay indeed. We need to reconsider our mathematical foundations to understand the universe we live in and I have put forth absolute universal mathematical truth

zero = i = infinity

which concurs with your writings in many ways. Please note the universal iDNA series in the above blog which is based on Fibonacci series.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Malcolm Macleod replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 11:32 GMT
Thanks!

I have also looked closely at the concept of zero and have written about this both from the philosophical and mathematical angles. Curiously we can make an atom from zero, and this would seem to resolve such problems as what constitutes empty space within the atom and how electrons 'jump' between orbitals... even more curiously we can also use the same formulas for gravitational orbitals... so you may find this interesting as it relates to your work...

Plato's Cave online

Cheers,

Malcolm

Bookmark and Share



Turil Sweden Cronburg wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 17:37 GMT
Hello Malcolm. I want to say that while I wasn’t able to translate the complex math that you included, I appreciated your essay and it’s novel proposal, and I wanted to ask about the different spirals you used to illustrate your ideas. First, you talked about the Fibonacci version, and then you include a more tightly wound version in the second and third illustrations on page 6. Are you postulating that the universe is a Fibonacci spiral or a more tightly wound one?

Also, I’ll add that my own research on development, especially development of consciousness, suggests that animal brains grow in well defined stages that appear to very accurately follow the Fibonacci sequence. In humans, that means we start with the first nine month gestation period being the first unit (1) of the sequence, and continue on in the sequence with each unit (1, 1, 2, 5, 8, 13...) being multiplied by a nine month period giving us stages from -9 months to 0 months, 0 months to 9 months, 9 months to 27 months, and so on). You can see some of my work related to this at http://www.thewiseturtle.com . I have no idea why we’d grow in this pattern, but all the evidence I’ve seen so far in neurological and psychological studies has fit into this pattern very nicely, so it seems to be a reasonable way to look at things.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Malcolm Macleod replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 11:45 GMT
Hi Turil,

Thanks for the input.

There is actually much more to the spiral than I have mentioned here, and it is quite fascinating for it reveals much about our universe at the Planck level... I have put a semi-technical (without the math) introduction online (p120), although this chapter is built upon the earlier chapters - and so I would recommend that you read these first if you have the time...

Plato's Cave online

I hope this may even give some ideas to further your own work...

Cheers,

Malcolm

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 18:25 GMT
Mr.Macleod,

Your abstraction filled essay was truly remarkable and I do hope that it does well in the contest. As I have gone to great pains to point out in my essay, REALITY, ONCE, Everything real and imagined in the real Universe is unique, once. Unique is not an abstract mathematical concept. Unique is not the culmination of an abstract scientific theory. Unique is real, once.

My very best regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Malcolm Macleod replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 11:51 GMT
Hi Joe,

Could you attribute this unique-ness to organic mathematics rather than engineering algorithms, for no 2 organic 'entities' are the same..., and if this is a universal rule then we must ask why. We seem to be on the same wavelength.

Good luck!

Cheers,

Malcolm

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 13:35 GMT
Malcolm,

Uniqueness is not attributable.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 19:12 GMT
Dear Malcolm,

Very important essays and conclusion:

«Consequently I have merely noted here that common geometrical solutions do exist (see also the list of fundamental constants as geometrical forms), and so an analysis of physical systems could lead to a better understanding of organic systems, should the delineation between the organic and inorganic prove to be artificial.»

I think that "the language of geometrical representations" (V. Nalimov. «Self-Aware Universe») and more deeply, "the science of forms" with deep ontological justification could lead to a unified picture of the Universe at all levels of existence of matter. As well said Gregory Gutner : "Event consists in grasping the structure means understanding" (G.Gutner Ontology mathematical discourse). Mathematics together with the ontology of absolute forms of existence of matter can and should "grab" the fundamental structure of the Universe. Here is a very heuristic idea of N.Bourbaki "mother-structures".

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Malcolm Macleod replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 15:30 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

You made this comment...

As for the "protogeometer", then I had a goal to dig up the "beginnings of geometry", to the first signs - prototektons, see the initial "buried meanings". And they are certainly far deep in millennia, long before the Egyptian and Greek geometers.

Can you elaborate? In particular what geometries... and where can you trace their origins. Can they be used to formulate concrete postulates?

I have written extensively about the geometries of the ancients as axioms for a theory of the natural constants as geometric forms. This essay forms a small part of that. I would appreciate any insights you have to offer.

I have an introduction to these axioms: Plato's Cave online

For your reference, from an initial geometry, I demonstrate how to derive in turn each of the constants; G, h, e, me, kB... as geometrical shapes... refer the online calculator. Despite the simplicity of these forms (they can be solved with a shopping calculator), accuracy is within CODATA 2010 and limited only by the precision of alpha, the fine structure constant (i.e.: to 10-digits).

Look forward to hearing from you...

Malcolm

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 15:57 GMT
Dear Malcolm ,

Sorry for the long silence !

In my essay I open this year long way of protogeometer and mark the first signs (prototekton), which he left on the Earth, in particular, found André Leroi-Gourhan in the Franco-Cantabrian caves. The world's first sign system is divided into three classes: the first class belongs to a mythological subject circle. The second class - quantitative signs: unary and double lines, ranks of lines and punctuations. The third class - qualitative signs: triangle, arrow, cross, rectangle, zigzag. It was language in which Space began to talk with Homo - the language of geometrical representations.

In the 2012 essay "Absolute generating structure» I give the interpretation and representation of the first signs - prototektons (circle, straight line, zigzag-wave) through the concepts of "logos" and "vector" and absolute form of existence of matter.

I invite you to comment and appreciate my ideas and my essays from Contests FQXi Essay 2012-2013, in which I give a conceptual structure of the Universe("general framework structure" in the language of geometric representations), based on ontological unification of matter at all levels of being of the Universe as a whole, model of the Universe, unified for physicists and lyricists and filled with the ultimate meanings of the «LifeWorld» (E.Husserl).I greatly appreciated 28/04/14 your ideas .

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Petio Hristov wrote on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 09:50 GMT
Dear Malcom Macleod

I believe that you have remarkable achievements.

I support your understanding that the complexity of the Universe is a function of time and that the physical systems can lead to a much better comprehension of the organic systems and vice versa. And I support the claim that a number of interrelated laws are necessary and that they control the Universe. I admire that you see the Universe as organic.

However I do not agree with your thought that the lack of a fundamental understanding of our Universe is a requirement in order to avoid disasters, already well known in our history. History form the ancient cultures teach us that in order to pass on and wall the cycle of events throughout time, we need to learn how to prevent disasters. This is the point of the left to us knowledge.

Some of our ancestors have left us proof of highly advanced technological civilizations and great knowledge of time. I propose you to look into (Life under ground Cosmic mystery and physical reality by Petio Hristov ) Conversion was known in some ancient cultures. They also had an understanding of the cycle of nature.

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.

I believe that we still have much to talk about.

Petio Hristov

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Malcolm Macleod replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Petio,

I note your introduction;

I study the Universe by working and solving the materials in ancient books... This new outlook upon the knowledge encrypted in ancient writings and images gives me the opportunity to find the hidden meaning in some myths and illustrations left from different ancient cultures. Comparing them I noticed that they complement each other and also that there are some contemporary scientific discoveries which confirm the knowledge of some ancient civilizations.

I have written extensively on this very same subject and indeed your paragraph could easily be the introduction to my book - Plato's Cave online. It relates to your own work and so may give you ideas, likewise I see that you have covered work that I have not and which will be of use to me.

And so I look forward to hearing from you again

Cheers

Malcolm

Bookmark and Share



KoGuan Leo wrote on May. 6, 2014 @ 09:33 GMT
Dear Malcolm,

What a great essay. We have similar perspective derived from different method but a distinction without a difference. I am glad to discover you in this Forum. I rated you a ten (10).

I wish you luck,

Leo KoGuan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Malcolm Macleod replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 12:47 GMT
Dear Leo,

re: your article; I have also taken axioms from the great sages in constructing my theory, of which this essay forms a small part. I have compiled the philosophy into a book form which I think may be interesting for you as it relates to your work, if you can give me your address I will forward you a copy. The mathematical solutions are online.

For example, combining the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



George Gantz wrote on May. 16, 2014 @ 02:33 GMT
Malcom - Thanks for the essay. We are indeed using the wrong mathematics - how many times in these essays have I seen reference to exponential curves in circumstances that are clearly subject to logistic constraints!

I think you are on the right track (as is Lee Smolin), and that all of science is, ultimately, about the emergence of higher level systems from evolutionary processes of innovation/mutation, selection and propagation working at the component level. I make the same point In my essay The Tip of the Spear. And yes, that means we need to use the right mathematics!

Good luck - George Gantz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on May. 21, 2014 @ 09:20 GMT
Hello Malcolm,

One of the truly yawning chasms in our current knowledge is a description, definition & understanding of just exactly what an everyday, common, ordinary, garden variety ‘material object’ is !!

Laudably enough but physics has been so preoccupied with the fundamental units of reality, it has entirely omitted to describe, firstly, matter ‘up here’ at the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Malcolm Macleod replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 03:35 GMT
Hi Margriet!

I have worked on a model of the universe and it gives some suggestions as to what life aka the life force ... could be - the mechanism for it. The introduction is online but for the sections that might interest you it maybe easier if I send you a pdf.

I would be interested to hear your reaction.

Cheers,

Malcolm

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on May. 28, 2014 @ 18:54 GMT
Malcolm,

Very interesting approach and undoubtedly true. I would of course think that as it's fundamentally consistent with my own thesis, but the evidence is of course even wider than you had space for.

I argued last year that no two toasters or grains of sand were alike so binary maths used the wrong premises. It scored 2nd so found favour, indeed I proposed replacing the 'Law of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Malcolm Macleod replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 03:27 GMT
Hi Peter,

Thanks, I read your paper, as an actual attempt to solve an outstanding problem it not only justifies a high score but is a fine article.

>I have a heap of other angles on the same theme if you're interested.

I would appreciate that. Maybe easiest if I give you references to my work (and vice-versa). Essentially mine is a geometrical model that reduces the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Neil Bates wrote on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 20:03 GMT
Malcolm, it is bold just to ask if we are using "wrong math," since academics tend to be sure at least they are framing the issues in the right language, in effect. Your ideas should be further investigated - usually, we find benefit in exploring fundamental new perspectives, such as chaos theory and the math that accompanied it. My regards.

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.