CATEGORY:
Blog
[back]
TOPIC:
Trick or Truth? — Essay Contest 2015
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Dec. 16, 2014 @ 02:02 GMT
Physics and mathematics -- It seems impossible to imagine the history of either one without the other. For gravity theory alone, we see so many examples of this -- from Newton creating calculus, to Einstein mining differential geometry.
But how close is this relationship? How deep does it go? Does physics simply wear mathematics like a costume, or is math in the blood of physical reality?
And so, Introducing our
2015 contest topic: Trick or Truth? - The Mysterious Link Between Physics and Mathematics.
Why does math seem so "unreasonably" effective in fundamental physics, especially compared to math's impact in other scientific disciplines? Or does it? How deeply does mathematics inform physics, and physics mathematics? What are the tensions between them -- the subtleties, ambiguities, hidden assumptions, or even contradictions and paradoxes at the intersection of formal mathematics and the physics of the real world?
In this essay contest, we ask all of you to probe the mysterious relationship between physics and mathematics. As always, we are giving away over $40,000 in prizes, including a top prize of $10,000. Please read
the contest pages for instructions, full rules, and a lengthy list of sample questions to start your thinking.
For those of you familiar with our
previous contests, let me mention a couple small but important changes to our rules.
First off, the make-up of our pool of finalists. Our finalist pool this year will consist of the familiar set of 30 top-rated entries (as rated by entrants and FQXi Members) plus auto-inducted Member entries. In addition, our Review Panel this year will have the power to add up to 10 more finalists of their choosing. This new rule means that ALL entries will be eligible for the top prizes. However, only the entries in the base set of 30 have the guarantee that the panel will read them.
Second, inspired by the smooth runnings of our first ever Video Contest (
Show Me the Physics!), we are resetting the prizes. Our First Prize is still $10,000; Second Prizes are still $5,000, and Third Prizes are still $2,000. This year, only first and second prizes will receive Membership nominations. And, in place of the familiar Fourth Prizes, we will give our review panel a pool of money -- $12,000 -- to divide up as they see fit. Prizes could go to best "amateur" entry, most original presentation, deepest insight, or whatever the panel sees fit to do.
The contest is open to anyone, so please share this info with everyone. Good luck and good writing!
adel sadeq wrote on Dec. 16, 2014 @ 20:03 GMT
Hi Brendan,
Is there any special rule regarding linking to external websites, simulation programs , videos and animation. Thanks
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Dec. 16, 2014 @ 21:14 GMT
Hi Adel -- You are certainly free to include hyperlinks in the essay. Those things you link to are not part of the official essay, though, and you should assume that many readers [including the panel] won't follow the links.
I can see it might be fun at some point in the future to have a contest for all-around multimedia content.
Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Dec. 18, 2014 @ 18:56 GMT
Brendan, Wow what a fantastic essay topic, congratulations! After skipping the previous contest I am tempted to try my luck again. While typing this I have mind up a mind - I will be submitting!
Looking forward to some great reading.
Good luck to all.
report post as inappropriate
Chuck Stark wrote on Dec. 18, 2014 @ 19:08 GMT
As a Mathematics undergraduate with a Physics minor, this topic is near and dear to my heart. I'm excited about this one.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Dec. 31, 2014 @ 03:49 GMT
This topic seems rather apt...
I feel like I have a bit of a head start, with more than 25 years already researching this subject - in the context of my discovery that the Mandelbrot Set tells us something about Cosmology. For this to be true; the universe must be inspired by Math, on some level, and the Mandelbrot Set must exist outside of space and time - an example of the External Reality Hypothesis or ERH.
So I guess that tells you a little about what angle I might play this time.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 3, 2015 @ 17:56 GMT
Jonathan,
I look forward to your eventual essay, the subject of an inherent physicality that we express mathematically is perhaps a best chance of a unification of classical and quantum disciplines. I've said it before, and I'll say again; on the one hand we have a causal rationale of a single universe, and on the other hand we have a purely mathematic rationale of probability which without the application of the Born Rule allows any and every possibility to become a separate reality in an explosion of creation of all possible worlds. But we are human, and we want the universe to be perfect and to always operate unerringly according to some inalienable Law. So we have either a causal or a mathematic universe(s). But what if: the physical reality only exists because the universe does NOT always operate perfectly? That all probabilities whether causal or quantum, result from the simple truth that any event that could, should or would occur; simply doesn't, for no reason at all. The entire landscape of probable events would then become altered, and we could reasonably expect that despite there being no way to assign a parameter of probability to what might occur that doesn't, we would still obtain a single physical universe.
Happy New Year, jrc
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 5, 2015 @ 04:10 GMT
John C,
What if we thought of time, not as that vector from a singular, determined past, to a future of multiple possibilities, but simply as an effect of the dynamic interaction of all possible input, by which potential collapses into actual and then fades into residual? The process by which future becomes past, rather than a narrative timeline from past to future.
Then we would neither have to assume a predetermined future, or a past remaining probabilistic.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jan. 5, 2015 @ 16:04 GMT
John M.
You still must differentiate what the dynamic entails for it to be theoretical rather than just musings of the (Beatles) Fool On A Hill. Hence Math, and connectivity. The 'twist' in topology is more simply understood by recognizing that a zero dimensional point IS a 'mapping' strategy, but what it portrays in reality is that at that point there is no loss of continuity from what is inward to what is outward in any one of the epicycles to which you might allude.
How it is that the math we devise, evolves from the biological organism to be able to distinguish between a sphere and a cube (for instance) is a very interesting study in itself. Keeping in mind that we only visually perceive an octave of the electromagnetic spectrum, and in reality that 'light' is just as dark as the rest of it. So being adverse to mathematics is not a valid argument against there being an inherent physical existence of what we formulate as math and geometry which Jonathan has painstakingly studied, investigated and crafted as an External Reality Hypothesis.
HNY-jrc
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 5, 2015 @ 16:41 GMT
John,
That is a much larger topic. I'm certainly not against math, but feel there is a need to recognize that as conceptual reductionism, it is a tool for examining reality, not some divine window into its secrets. For instance, dimensions are a mapping device. Nothing more and nothing less. Three dimensions are a coordinate system and describe space about like longitude, latitude and altitude describe the surface of this planet, not foundational to its existence. As a coordinate system it has to be specified, in order to be of use and as such, multiple coordinate systems can describe the same space, as there is no top down universal frame. So when mathematicians are mapping out multiple frame and frames in action, then they use extra dimensions. In politics, opposing sides use different frames to define the same space, because they perceive the same factors from different directions. Life is complicated and tools to simplify it can be quite useful, if their limits are understood.
Also, mathematically, anything multiplied by zero is zero, so anything, point, line, plane, with a zero dimension is no more real than an apple with zero dimensions.
Black holes are not wormholes into other realities, they are vortices and the mass falling inward is balanced by the radiation emitted outward.
Personally I have a great deal of respect for tools. You can curse the gods and nothing happens, but misuse tools and you can get hurt.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Michał Studencki replied on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 00:42 GMT
@John M: I think that treating time as if it were a separate dimension on its own is the greatest mistake of modern Physics, since from what I figured out myself, time is not a separate dimension, but it is already contained amongst the spatial dimensions we know.
Time is actually a measure of space. If this sounds surprising to any one of you, then I recommend taking a look at the Section 3.3 of my essay ("Mathematics of the Universe").
As to the subject of dimensions in general, I didn't have any more space left in my essay to write about it, but here's how I see it: Everything which can be measured, can be called "dimension" in a sense of "measurable property", but not every dimension is a "place one can go to", which is reserved only for the dimensions of space. But I am also not so sure about whether there are only three of them. I often hear that space has only 3 dimensions, no more, no less. But my view is that dimensions are not something inherent to the space itself, but enforced by our own way of perceiving it. The space itself is
continuous (inifnite-dimensional). But we perceive as many dimensions of space as we can distinguish, which is three at this stage of our evolution, but who knows, maybe somewhere in the future we will learn how to distinguish more?... The traces of these higher dimensions are already there in the quantum realm, for example, e.g. I noticed that the atomic orbitals are just different projections of a hyper-dimensional structure, and therefore their parts can appear as disconnected to us, while they're connected closed loops in higher dimensions. If we ever try to account for these phenomena, we will have to introduce more spatial dimensions to our mathematical thought models of reality.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jan. 1, 2015 @ 06:21 GMT
I like this topic a lot! Looking forward to reading a lot of thought-provoking essays and hopefully to submit one myself.
Armin
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer wrote on Jan. 4, 2015 @ 18:27 GMT
Poetry without language?
And what of prose, fiction, gibberish?
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 5, 2015 @ 02:57 GMT
You seem to imply, Rick..
While one can also write fiction or gibberish; language is essential to poetry. And by extension, given the topic here; trying to do Physics without Math is like writing poetry without language.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 5, 2015 @ 03:57 GMT
Rick, Jonathan,
Which begs the question of whether language/math is foundational to the reality in question, or a notational tool to analyze and record it?
It should be noted that a clockwork universe, spacetime and the Copenhagen Interpretation, as explanation for the mathematical efficacy of epicycles, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, were all based on the premise that the mathematical structure was a direct representation of the physical reality and not simply a map of observed order. We know how the first turned out and given the increasing difficulties with extending the other two to cover a broad range of anamolies and inconsistencies, the jury would seem to be out on their applicability as well.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 13, 2015 @ 23:33 GMT
Hi All,
I would like to point out that the first 2015 essays are now posted, with more to come. As the number of essays becomes overwhelming toward the end of the contest, now is an easier time to peruse these things.
I look forward to a number of remarkable essays I know will be forthcoming.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 15:57 GMT
One week to go everyone---submit essays by 11:59 PM ET next Wednesday. We are already on track for a record number of entries [over 1/2 of all entries arrived in the last week in every past contest].
Christophe Tournayre wrote on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 09:16 GMT
Thank you for organising these contests. It is a real pleasure to read some of the essays. It would be interesting to have similar contests in other fields such as Economics. FQXi is probably not the right place but where else?
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 05:18 GMT
Last year's contest, which I missed, was quite close to economics. You may be interested to read my
review of many essays of that contest, which I structured together with lots of ideas I have on the topic.
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 04:51 GMT
Effectiveness of mathematics! Why?
Why are mathematics so effective in describing physical processes? We may find the answer in the foundation of mathematics. Mathematics is based on logic and this apparent effectiveness only points to one thing: this universe, luckily enough, appears to obey rules of logic. Now, for a universe to obey the rules of logic requires that it be operational on logic i.e. that its constituent and internal rules work by the rules of logic, or better, be actual simple rules of logic, like the rule of non-contradiction.
For a universe to be operational on logic, all of its constituent must be, although different in appearance, of the same nature because we can’t add apples and oranges. Better, it can only work using one cause. This is because no rule of simple logic could decide which of two causes would have priority. All in all, there would be only one type of stuff, only one cause for its spontaneous evolution.
You see, the effectiveness of mathematics is not a question, no. It is an answer, a fact. It is the answer to the question physics does not dare ask because it is outside its mandate; what is the universe made of and what cause makes it evolve spontaneously? Darn! So close and so blind!
The real question. Why does FQXI people exhibit this uncanny ability to present, every time, truly fundamental questions and every time turn down the only possible, yet philosophical answer?
I will go FQXI for a very statement... :-)
Marcel,
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 11:42 GMT
Jim Snowdon,
I had thought of posting this on the 'Q & A with Paul Davies' blog, when I read Marcel's post and decided to post here instead as it appears both your post and Marcel's are trying to address some fundamental questions which are the subject of my current essay.
First, Jim you ask/say:
"Real things exist, they endure, they happen...",
"We do have motion in our timeless Universe".
And Marcel, in your post above you have dug progressively deep to try and gain access to the root, and concluded rightly in my opinion that,
"...all of its constituent must be, although different in appearance, of the same nature",
"All in all, there would be only one type of stuff, only one cause for its spontaneous evolution",
"what is the universe made of and what cause makes it evolve spontaneously?"May I therefore ask you both:
1. Can these 'real things' that exist PERISH?
2. Can 'a universe operational on logic and all of its constituents' PERISH?
IF so, what is the implication for physics and mathematics that the constituents and objects of a Physical or a Mathematical Universe (like that of Max Tegmark) can PERISH?
3. When something PERISHES, has it moved? Or does it remain in its place?
Regards,
Akinbo
*
"How could what IS perish?" -
Parmenides, 515 BCE
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 17:20 GMT
Akinbo,
Time is the loophole in the rule of non-contradiction. You can`t have nothing and something at the same time; so, only time may exist and defeat the testing of the contradiction. If time stopped, existence would stop and the rule of non-contradiction would be safe.
1. yes things may perish, but will not.
2. Not all the universe but, maybe, in black holes time-existence would stop without any trace.
Akinbo, it is like making +1 and -1 from zero. Put them back together and you get back zero or nothing.
But here time separates the +1 and -1 so they never cancel out.
Parmenides would agree!
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 18:45 GMT
Marcel,
I am not convinced that the rule of non-contradiction has a loophole, it only needs more understanding. A duality is possible if logically viewed to exhaustion. Space can be both logically discrete and continuous. Having both discrete and continuous features may on the surface appear contradictory, but a deep examination would reveal that Time can be a separator of the continuous into discreteness. In that sense you could call Time, the 'hole' or loophole as you may prefer.
"You can`t have nothing and something at the same time"
Yes, that is true, but nothing can become something, and something can become nothing. But not being both simultaneously. And not all somethings must have their time stopped at the same time as you suggest.
Our cosmology may be wrong. The universe may be eternally existing and of infinite duration and extent. Parmenides perished 2000 years before so he couldn't have known like you and me of Hubble's discovery.
My preferred cosmological model "is like making +1 and -1 from zero. Put them back together and you get back zero or nothing."
So assuming the cosmological model is correct and the universe and its constituents can (begin and later) perish, will this be a ground to reconsider your agreement with Parmenides?
Do you have an opinion on 3. When something PERISHES, has it moved? Or does it remain in its place?
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Mar. 3, 2015 @ 04:43 GMT
Akinbo,
There is no choice here. Only one substance possible and only one cause for the whole thing (universe) to be operational on logic. Space is but an illusion.
Motion is the result of an illogical situation in the process of resolution. Gravitational fall, for example, is caused by a field in which existence is more probable in one direction. The cause is a differential in the rate of evolution of time. It is logical and therefore scale independant. The same cause for wave to move on the oceans, clouds to move in the sky, for galaxies to form etc.
3- When something perishes, it just vanishes.
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 3, 2015 @ 11:03 GMT
Dear Marcel,
"Only one substance possible and only one cause for the whole thing (universe) to be operational on logic". Makes a lot of sense. Probably the only thing we agree on.
"Space is but an illusion". Newton disagrees, Leibniz agrees. It makes no sense that an illusion transmits light as waves at a characteristic velocity, c (particles travel at varying...
view entire post
Dear Marcel,
"Only one substance possible and only one cause for the whole thing (universe) to be operational on logic". Makes a lot of sense. Probably the only thing we agree on.
"Space is but an illusion". Newton disagrees, Leibniz agrees. It makes no sense that an illusion transmits light as waves at a characteristic velocity, c (particles travel at varying velocities); can vibrate as gravitational waves (when combined with time as spacetime according to GR).
"Gravitational fall, for example, is caused by a field in which existence is more probable in one direction." There is nothing like one direction. Action and reaction are in opposing directions i.e. two directions. When a ball
falls to the ground, the ground
rises simultaneously towards the ball. This is the current physical explanation where space is an illusion. For some of us, who are substantivalists of the Newtonian bent, whatever exists can perish. When the space between ball and the ground perishes, nothing exists between them any longer and they come to rest with respect to each other. Ball does not fall and the ground rise, what separates them vanishes.
3- When something perishes, it just vanishes.When you park your car in the parking lot to do shopping and you come out and it is no longer there, it has vanished. It has moved. There are two types of motion, relative and absolute. Your vanished car may be found later by police in another city. It has moved relatively. Your vanished car may have perished entirely. It has moved absolutely. Relative motion is the illusion. Absolute motion is real and not illusory. In the final analysis, absolute motion underlies all illusory relative motions.
I think all that needs to be said has been said. We agree some areas, and disagree in others.
Let me leave with a quote from my hero...
"…it is clear that they (philosophers) would cheerfully allow extension (space) to be substance, just as body is, if only extension could move and act as body can", p.8
"…space is capable of having some substantial reality. Indeed, if its parts could move…, and this mobility was an ingredient in the idea of vacuum, then there would be no question about it - parts of space would be corporeal substance""And my account throws a satisfactory light on the difference between body and extension (i.e. between a body and a region of space). The raw materials of each are the same in their properties and nature, and differ only in how God created them…", p.18
- Sir Isaac Newton, in
De Gravitatione et Aequipondio Fluidorum (popularly called
De Gravitatione)
Regards,
Akinbo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Mar. 3, 2015 @ 20:39 GMT
Akinbo,
Space: look at a meter ruler. You see it all at ounce. But for a signal to travel from one end of the meter stick to the other, it takes time!
So, my observer point of view is to integrate the whole object inside a moment of perception. That is what we call space. BUT, nature still requires time to travel the meter distance. Therefore, from the point of view of nature, the two point on the meter stick are not at the same moment! No two points on the meter stick are at the same moment! The concept of space that the meter stick represents is an illusion.
In my discourse, I choose the point of view of nature. The distance is in time , not in space. That is called spacetime!
Gravity: - I don`t buy the ground rising thing :-)
Best regards,
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 4, 2015 @ 12:36 GMT
Marcel,
Because the focus of this thread is about the current Essay let us move our discussion elsewhere as I feel uncomfortable. As the song goes, "I always feel like somebody's watching meeee" :)
However, I wonder whether a blind man who cannot see a meter ruler can have a concept of space according to your description of it. Then even if 'you don`t buy the ground rising thing', the oceans buy it as evidenced by the
tides due to the moon.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
S.E. Grimm wrote on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 12:55 GMT
After some years I visite this website again and so I discovered this new contest. Of course it is a very interesting one. But on the other hand: at the internet there are publications to be find that go (probably) byond the recieved essays. I write "probably" because I don't want to offend anybody, but I don't mind if you skip the word. So the problem is not the quality of the essay, the problem is the competence of those who assess essays/publications about this subject. So there seems to be a collective problem: "Why we cannot recognize the truth?" I think this will be a really nice 2016 contest.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 05:37 GMT
Hi Marcus - welcome back, good point re. the extent of information available online. 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, from statistics YouTube, and that's just video. What to read, what to watch?- and still only 24 hours per day. Sometimes it feels to me like we are the rats in a cage just pushing buttons to get a reward, the more we push the more we get, but is it what we really need?
Good essay question suggestion. My first un-ordered thoughts:Information overload, a bias towards familiarity, greater weight/admiration given to celebrity or esteemed viewpoints than 'Joe Public's', The media, avoiding the difficulty of understanding the unfamiliar, personal bias/belief, harder to unlearn what we know than to learn, greater weight/admiration given to own ideas and creations than other people's in general (I'll call that one the origami frog syndrome- My frog is more desirable than yours whatever it looks like). I could probably go on but I don't actually want to write the essay here.
I've tried using diagrams as I have read that people like info-graphics, the mind finds them easier than plain text. I've tried experimenting with colour in the text, also related to the diagrams, to help people keep their bearings when discussing different facets of reality. Whether people actually find it helpful or distracting would be interesting to find out. I find it helpful.
report post as inappropriate
S.E. Grimm wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 12:24 GMT
Well, I was a bit vague, so I will correct my false step. Reality is a system. Denying this fact, is eliminating science. Some ancient Greek meta physicists (philosophers) understood the consequence: we humans can only think what’s available within the system (reality). In other words: we can only express the system.
The internet is “full” of publications from the past and present about the foundations of reality. All those publications hold more or less correct information about the true nature of reality. So when we believe in structural thinking – scientists do – discovering the truth is simple: stick all those useful parts together and the truth about reality is nearly there.
Unfortunately, this has never happen. So we have to conclude that people who assess publications – including the FOXi contest – are inapt to recognize the foundations of reality. Therefore I suggested the 2016 contest: “Why we cannot recognize the truth?”
Personally, I am sure this contest will be a real nice one. Just because everyone is in the same position, no one has ever proved to stand aside. Therefore I expect contributions of all the members of FQI’s Scientific Directorate, the Advisory Council and – of course – all the FOXi members.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 23:38 GMT
Hi Marcus,
I don't think its just a matter of simply joining all of our knowledge together. It isn't all more or less correct as you suggest but a "rag bag" full of true, contradictory, incomplete and false or misinterpreted evidence. I like the site
hyperlipid because it looks at various scientific papers and analyses the conclusions. And often the conclusions are found by the blog author to be wrong -for example because other variables have not been considered or the experiment is founded on false premises.
For a long time saturated fats were demonized by implication of mainstream scientific evidence and there has been political and educational promotion of the 'facts'. There is now a change of opinion happening though I still read contemporary advice from doctors and nutritionists that is out of date.(It now seems that sugar and trans fats are the 'baddies'.
One reason reality is so complicated is that so many interacting variables have a part to play. It used to be thought that the genetic code determined the phenotype and health of an organism but now it is known that it is also how the code is folded and so read that influences outcomes. Recently I read (mercola.com) that intermittent fasting can extend lifespan but not if combined with vitamin C and E supplementation. So the idea that I have had for many years , that vitamins are healthy additions to ones diet is an oversimplification, and may actually be false under certain circumstances. Beta Carotene another healthy supplement is an additional health risk factor for smokers.
I don't think reality is
as simple as a jig saw puzzle but is at least as complicated as a double sided one, without a complete reference picture.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
S.E. Grimm replied on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 17:15 GMT
Georgina,
Science is not a manual. Therefore , reading a publication like a manual is not the way to discover the foundations of reality. You have to read between the lines (trying to see the hidden picture). Anyway, I don’t suggest it is the only way to discover the foundations of our universe. Nevertheless, I think it is time for everyone to look into the mirror. And the first step is to understand what’s wrong about our basic assumptions. The thought that these assumptions are correct, is hilarious.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 09:08 GMT
Hi Marcus,
there was an FQXi essay competition question "Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong?" Did you read any of those essays? What do you consider to be wrong with "our"assumptions. I have found that there is far less consensus than I had once imagined.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 02:53 GMT
I found this paper
Error types by Douglas Allchin
The author says in the introduction "Error is common in scientific practice (Collins & Pinch 1993, Darden 1998, Allchin 2000a).But pervasive error threatens neither the search for trustworthy knowledge nor the epistemic foundations of science. Far from it. Rather, past error-properly documented-is a form of negative knowledge. As such, it may even productively guide further research." Douglas Allchin
I hope the systemic interpretation errors, specifically category and reconciliation errors, that I have pointed out in my essay, can be viewed in such a positive light.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 14:55 GMT
Marcus,
You suggest, “Why we cannot recognize the truth?”. If the truth is recognized, should it be covered up as a secret or made open to the whole world?
Relatedly, if the truth and theory of everything is made known to terrorists or perceived opponents, is humanity safe?
It is my suspicion that the truth (or at least the correct direction to it) has already being recognized but for strategic economic and military purposes, no effort is being spared to conceal it. Hence a conspiracy to conceal it and divert attention and frustrate innocent scientists still searching for it, by denying them grants, refusing publicity of their work, etc. All this may be well meaning, at least in the opinion of Big brother.
You can put yourself as president of a super power nation whose scientists have stumbled on and recognized the truth and reported their finding along with its uses and misuses, and ask yourself what you will do with the finding.
The truth about the theory of everything is known where it matters.
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 15:46 GMT
For What Its Worth-
Paranoia strikes deep, Into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid, Step out of line and they'll come, And take you away.
from the song by: Buffalo Springfield - circa 1967
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 11:04 GMT
Paranoia or Common sense?
JRC, if you are made President of your country, and your scientists stumble upon the theory of everything, will you call a press conference and announce the details to the whole world or keep it as a closely guarded state secret to be exploited in bits for economic and defense purposes?
Will you encourage other scientists to similarly stumble on same or try to divert their attention and frustrate them when they seem to be on the right track?
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 14:48 GMT
Akinbo,
If it were solely my choice, I'd seek billions in allocation to fund redundant work to keep big egos from doing something really dangerous. As usual. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 18:26 GMT
Hello Brendan,
You need to be aware of a technical issue that exists with PDF downloads of the current essay contest. I have tried to download some essay PDF from this Contest to my iPad Air and got Red flag warnings about security risks and were not able to access these. Can you look into this and advice me what I may be doing wrong? Or what I should do right?
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 15:44 GMT
Hi Constantinos -- Will you tell me any specific essays that give you this problem?
Also, have you tried downloading on any other set-up [different network, different computer]?
I checked a few myself, and had no problems--but possibly there are certain essays with issues.
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 20:41 GMT
Brendan,
I have recently gotten the following alert trying to download to my iPad Air the essay PDF for "Why is The Law" and also "Imagination and the Unreason of the Effectiveness of Mathematics" (two just randomly selected among others that worked fine)
warning: Something's Not right Here!
chrome is unable to verify that the URL for this site is correct
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 20:09 GMT
Hi Constantinos -- I am sharing your comment with our webmaster; I'll let you know what we can figure out.
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 20:42 GMT
Hi Constantinos -- are you still having an issue? I am told that this is most likely a problem specific to iOS Chrome, so you may need to try a different browser. There doesn't seem to be anything useful we can do on our side of the connection.
hide replies
Giovanni Alberto Orlando wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 21:15 GMT
Hi all,
Humm ... There are many concepts and conclusions we have today in both Physics and Mathematics and let me add Chemistry (Periodic Table) and Biology (DNA like Multidimensional Communication) that are wrong and inconsistent for several reasons ... 1) The Mathematics we use ... still to send toys to Mars or Land on the Moon ... is based on the four basic Operations: +,-,* and /. Until here we are using simple tools to do complex Jobs.
2) The count Time ... also in Empirical mode ... Seconds, Minutes ... Years. Not with fixed measures like to use phi=0.618 ... the basis of growth ... of Life.
3) Einstein Theory is based ... not only on past two simplicities but it consider other facts like Speed of Light constant, Empty Space ...
Like a conclusion: Science is supported to weak columns and a New Mathematics to explain the correct Universal Design is required and imperative.
This 'New Math' (New for us) is Elegant and Quantum ... like Time, another concept not yet digested in Science and introduced (as a variable) by Professor Einstein.
Thanks very much,
Giovanni
report post as inappropriate
Michał Studencki replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 22:49 GMT
"The Mathematics we use ... still to send toys to Mars or Land on the Moon ... is based on the four basic Operations: +,-,* and /. Until here we are using simple tools to do complex Jobs."
Is it good or bad? (I couldn't get it from your comment.) I think it is good when we use as simple tools as possible to solve the task at hand. Complexity costs more, and every complexity is just...
view entire post
"The Mathematics we use ... still to send toys to Mars or Land on the Moon ... is based on the four basic Operations: +,-,* and /. Until here we are using simple tools to do complex Jobs."
Is it good or bad? (I couldn't get it from your comment.) I think it is good when we use as simple tools as possible to solve the task at hand. Complexity costs more, and every complexity is just multitude of simplicities.
The basic arithmetical operations you mentioned are actually all we need, if you understand them correctly: as geometric operations. For example, multiplication is repeated addition, but not only that – it can be seen in a more general context as a proportion which can be expressed geometrically as geometric similarity of figures, the purpose of which is conversion of units between those similar figures (see Section 2.2 and Fig.3 in my essay). This way it could be easily (and correctly) extended to higher dimensions of geometrical numbers (such as quaternions, octonions etc.). Scalar and vector products are not correct generalizations because they're not multiplication, they don't fulfill its axioms.
Two of the arithmetical operations you mentioned – addition and multiplication – are actually encoded in the very definition of number (if we define it correctly, that is, not with nested sets but with functional operators). Addition comes from the fact that each number is a vector which stores information about how to go from the origin state (0 by default) to the particular state. If the origin state is not 0, but some other number, you get addition.
Multiplication comes from another property of number: that it is a multiple of a unit. By default, this unit is 1 (the "standard" unit), but you can replace it with some other number, and the number will then repeat this number instead, which is multiplication.
The other two operations you mentioned (subtraction and division) are just inverses of the former two (I like to think of them as "magic counter-spells"). Subtraction comes from complementing addition to 0, and division comes from complementing multiplication with the unit (1). This complementing is what Algebra is all about (the modern definition of algebra as just a tuple of operators and their operands lacks this important detail about balance). Division is then repeated subtraction similarly to multiplication being repeated addition.
Also, you forgot raising to powers, taking roots, and logarithms, which are the next level of compression of arithmetics (powers are repeated multiplication, roots are fractional powers, and logarithms are repeated division and arithmetic-geometric proportions).
All these arithmetic operations make a hierarchical structure, they are simply levels of compression in our mathematical notation, but they can be all boiled down to adding up units (pebbles).
The more "advanced" parts of mathematics, such as calculus, differential equations, divisibility rules etc., even geometry, can also be reduced to arithmetics, if understood correctly, because arithmetics is geometrical in its nature. But the emphasis is: if understood correctly. We don't really need new math (as of yet), we rather need to stop and review the mathematics we have, because from what I observe, there is a lot of misunderstanding in it, especially in the basics (and when the bases are unstable, the entire building is shaking, and it can rumble one day).
Sometimes the corrections required are subtle (but important!), as with the definition of power: it is not, as Wikipedia and the textbooks say, multiplication of a number with itself. This definition is wrong. The correct definition of power is: multiplication by the base repeated as many times as the exponent tells us. The difference is subtle but important, because the incorrect definition stops us from seeing why is a^0 = 1, for each a (we don't really need an exception for 0^0 if we understand correctly what it means and how it works geometrically).
But sometimes a more serious correction is required, as it is with calculus. We are told that we need to use infinitesimals and limits, but this leads to many paradoxes and confusion, and is not really needed. When one understands differentiation correctly, one can do calculus with simple finite numbers and ratios, because calculus has nothing to do with infinitesimals – it is rather about ratios and proportions between functions and their values (see Section 4 of my essay). It also comes naturally from the definition of number as vector, because vectors are formulas for change, and changes are described by relative differences (which are differentials, if we are interested only in linear approximations to these differences, or tangents).
Also, the multi-variable (or vector) calculus comes naturally from this fact: it's just calculus on vectors in more dimensions than 1. And the inherent properties of vectors (magnitude and direction) maps directly into the two vector field differentials we know: divergence (stretching of the magnitude) and curl (rotating the direction). We need both for full description of the field (see Section 5 of my essay).
As to the time and how we measure it: notice that we always measure it with motions. If nothing moves, we cannot tell the time passed. But time is actually a measure of distance. If you're surprised by this fact, read my other comment in this thread, and take a look at Section 3.3 of my essay, where I explained it in more detail. It's not good to blame Einstein, since he was perhaps the only person on Earth since the Ancient Greeks who made any progress in understanding time: he noticed that time is inherently connected with space through motion, so if motion is relative, then our measurements of time and space will be relative too. The only detail he missed was the one I describe in my essay: that time is not a separate dimension, but it is already among the spatial dimensions we know. But you're right that a thorough understanding of what that little `t` means in our equations is probably the most important aspect in Physics, because this `t` appears in nearly every physical formula. Incorrect understanding of what it means leads to confusion we have now: confusing time with our psycho-cognitive perception of time, or confusing time with memory of the system, or making a separate dimension of time, which leads to incorrect interpretations of Minkowski's spacetime diagrams, which in turn leads to such absurds like "exceeding the speed of light will cause the time to flow backwards" or "breaking causality" (those are statements made by the most famous physicists! I can make proper quotes if needed).
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 23:36 GMT
Hi Michael Studencki,
While I guess, you are not a professional, you are claiming to understand mathematics correctly. I doubt that you will for instance grasp why I object to "adding up units (pebbles)" and why I consider the essay of Thomas Phipps a key to the insight that length contraction, Poincaré's spacetime, and all that have been unfounded.
If you are really willing and able to reveal a fundamental mistake, please explain what worried the late Einstein: the now. It seems to me, you share his denial of
the border between past and future.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 01:12 GMT
"While I guess, you are not a professional"
You don't need to guess: I stated that explicitly in my bio, because I knew that someone will play this card sooner or later. I haven't followed any formal academic career, I don't have a PhD, this is true. But this doesn't automatically mean I'm stupid or incapable of doing Math or Physics. On the contrary: I spent my all idle time for digging...
view entire post
"While I guess, you are not a professional"
You don't need to guess: I stated that explicitly in my bio, because I knew that someone will play this card sooner or later. I haven't followed any formal academic career, I don't have a PhD, this is true. But this doesn't automatically mean I'm stupid or incapable of doing Math or Physics. On the contrary: I spent my all idle time for digging through books, papers, and on polishing my own ideas when I see there's something wrong with the ones I encounter. This brings us to the next quote:
"you are claiming to understand mathematics correctly"
Yes, but I'm not claiming I'm omniscient or infallible, or that correcting some misconceptions of Mathematics makes me better from others. We're all humans, we can make mistakes, there's nothing wrong with it, but it is better to review the collected knowledge from time to time and correct the errors of the past than complaining that someone is trying to do that. I appreciate how scientists of today are devoted to answering the advanced questions. But there are still some unanswered questions left behind in the more basic stuff, which no one seems to investigate anymore, considering them "too simple to bother with". But I repeat: one cannot build a skyscraper on a swamp. If the bases are unstable, the whole building will shake. Dealing with the advanced stuff before making the basic stuff straight first might be dangerous and pointless, since wrong assumptions can lead to wrong conclusions.
I claim what I claim as a result of many years of investigating these basic stuffs. As with any claim, it is not the claim which is important, but its verification (that is, how much it fits the truth/reality). And if you see anything wrong with my claims, feel free to debunk them. I can make mistakes as well.
"I doubt that you will for instance grasp why I object to "adding up units (pebbles)""
Try me. Unless it is you who thinks of yourself as someone better than me, or of me as being incapable of grasping your vast knowledge. Don't get me wrong, but your tone is very patronizing and scolding, which doesn't seem much professional.
As to the "pebbles", I admit this was an unfortunate shortcut of mind, which I though anyone with enough mathematical background will understand. But if you prefer being picky, then let me explain it a bit further: What I meant to say is that every number is some multiple of a unit, and without defining the unit, one cannot measure anything – every other numbers are undefined in that case. What I didn't meant (and you seem to suppose about me) is that there are only natural numbers or that everything can be reduced to them. In a way, this is true, since we describe non-natural numbers in terms of natural numbers (e.g. rational numbers as ratios of two natural numbers; irrational algebraic numbers as radicals of natural numbers or their ratios, etc.). But I'm not saying that natural numbers are all that there is. I'm fully aware about rational, irrational, algebraic, transcendental, imaginary, complex, etc. But if you read my essay, you'll see that there is also a lot of misunderstanding about these numbers and how are they constructed. If you object my approach, you should object the set-theoretical approach even more, since it boils down to natural numbers and countability of sets, and lacks any notion of magnitude, not to mention direction of numbers. Unfortunately, I don't see much people questioning these basic axioms of modern Mathematics. I see this as an example of how the formal education can shape our thinking in a way that we could be incapable of questioning what the authorities have told us. If it happens that you belong to that group of people who can listen only to what the PhDs are telling them, and consider everything which comes from a non-scholar as false "by definition", then I am sorry, I cannot help you.
"and why I consider the essay of Thomas Phipps a key to the insight that length contraction, Poincaré's spacetime, and all that have been unfounded."
I haven't read Mr. Phipp's paper yet (but surely will when I find some time), but contrary to your strawman argument, I agree (in a way) with what you said about these notions from Relativity. It again boils down to proper understanding. Relativity is not "all wrong", since the formulas are correct, the predictions are correct, confirmed experimentally in labs and in every CRT TV. The problem is with the interpretations of these formulas and experiments, and the incorrect conclusions people draw from these, about the nature of time, space, motion, relativity, consciousness etc. (which does not surprise me, since there's a lot of confusion about time and space already). It is not the "length" which contracts, but matter waves we use to measure lengths. Similarly, it is not "time" which dilates, but our perception of it, which depends on our point of view and relative motion. It is not that the speed of light is "constant with respect to everything", but it is that everything which stretches and contracts to make an illusion of constant speed of light for any observer, which is himself made of matter waves, and these waves follow the Doppler effect too. One cannot observe its own Doppler effects, therefore these effects cannot be detected in "relative rest". Physicists seem to forget that the Michelson interferometer is not some abstract geometrical device, but it is made of matter, which in turn is made of waves, as the light is too, and they both fulfill the same Doppler effect, so their Doppler effects cancel, resulting in no shift in the interference fringes. The problem with Relativity is that we try measuring light and matter with themselves, which makes an illusion which we call Special Relativity, and every single laboratory instrument will confirm us in this illusion. We can escape this illusion only with our minds, by reviewing the axioms.
As to the spacetime, I agree, there's no such thing, because time is not a separate dimension (not in the same way spatial dimensions are) – it is already contained amongst the spatial dimensions, as a measure of the distance traveled by a reference object in motion, which we call "clock". Minkowski's spacetime diagrams are a useful tool for analysis, but we should not see it as anything more "real" than a graph of temperature versus pressure, for example. Temperature and pressure are dimensions too (since they can be measured), but not at the same rights as spatial dimensions, so don't get misled by the fact we use spatial dimensions of the graph to describe them – this is just a geometrical ploy, a mapping which allows us to "see" them and "analyze". Similarly, Minkowski's spacetime diagrams are just for "visualizing" and "analyzing" events, it is not a diagram of reality and it shouldn't be confused with it. I often see well-known scientists saying that when something moves faster than light, it goes "back in time". This is an example of not only confusing the graph with reality, but also of misinterpreting the graph altogether – for something to move "back in time", it has to cross the horizontal axis of the diagram, that is, move with a speed more than infinite (and this would really be absurd). But there's plenty of room between the light cone and the horizontal axis of space. There's no "time reversal" in this area yet. It just extends the range of our consciousness: we can know about the event which occurred before we see the light coming from that event. For someone who can only see the light or other electromagnetic phenomena, this might SEEM as seeing the future, but this is only about how fast one can get some information about the distant event.
"If you are really willing and able to reveal a fundamental mistake, please explain what worried the late Einstein: the now."
Nope, I'm not here to point mistakes, I'm here to present the alternatives which I consider correct. I'm not here to dance to your music either, or starring the strawman you're trying to project upon me. I'd just say that playing the strawman argument, as well as moving the burden of proof to someone else, are considered logical fallacies. Patronizing tone and arguments ad persona (e.g. pointing out my lack of "professional" career) also doesn't help your case. Truth is truth no matter if it came from the mouth of a wise, a fool, or from the beak of a parrot.
"It seems to me, you share his denial of the border between past and future."
Where did you get that from? I nowhere said that.
But before we get into this argument, let's make sure we're speaking about the same things and agree upon the definitions. There's a distinction between what actually happened and our knowledge that it happened. People often use the name "past" to both of them, despite they're two different things. Relativity is all about distribution of information with different media (mostly light), therefore in SR there could be disagreements among the observers about what happened when, and which events belong to their "past".
Once I invented a simple story which explains this:
Imagine you have a friend who is blind. He can know about things only by hearing the noises they make. There's a storm coming, and you've just saw a lightning somewhere far away. The light from it has already arrived to your eyes, but the sound is still approaching. So you tell to your blind friend: "Pay attention, you'll hear a rumble in 3 seconds", and after the 3 seconds, your "prophecy about the future" fulfills, to the amazement of your friend who now thinks you're a psychic, because you "predicted the future". The thing is, this was "future" only to him, because it was outside of his "sound cone", but it was inside of your "light cone", so it is already in the "past" to you. The reality is that the lightning stroke already, for both of you, so it is already in the past. It's just that the difference in the speeds of the signals you use to get that information makes a distinction what is perceived as "past" and "future" by you and your friend.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 02:02 GMT
Hi Michael,
please don't take great offense at Eckard's turn of phrase. His first language is German not English and although excellent at English I think he can sometimes 'sound' rather more severe than he intends to be.
: ) Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 03:17 GMT
Hi all,
My following reply to Matt Visser might hopefully challenge you to substantially criticize every detail:
Dear Matt,
You got me and perhaps may essay repeatedly wrong. I am not David Garfinkle, and I hope you will not go on getting me wrong concerning complex calculus. While complex calculus is an application of complex numbers, theorists like you tend to be not aware...
view entire post
Hi all,
My following reply to Matt Visser might hopefully challenge you to substantially criticize every detail:
Dear Matt,
You got me and perhaps may essay repeatedly wrong. I am not David Garfinkle, and I hope you will not go on getting me wrong concerning complex calculus. While complex calculus is an application of complex numbers, theorists like you tend to be not aware of a few trivial trifles:
You are guessing that what you called an algebraic field extends the real numbers in the sense it offers additional freedom. Actually, the description of a physical quantity in complex domain is subject to Hermitean symmetry which means, it doesn’t convey more essential information as compared with the unilateral and real-valued original function; let’s say of either elapsed or future time. Future processes cannot be measured, past processes cannot be prepared.
Certainly you preferred what I consider the risky habit of introducing a physical quantity within complex domain.
In other words, when writing exp(i theta) instead of cos(theta) you are omitting i sin(theta).
A simple objection against this habit is that it implies an arbitrary and therefore unwarranted and often ambiguous choice of the sign of rotation.
When someone like Schrödinger applied complex calculus on a real-valued function of elapsed time (extending from –oo to 0), he applied as do I Heaviside's trick in order to prepare it for the integration (from –oo to +oo) required by Fourier transformation. In a first step, zeros are attributed to the not yet existing future. The now zero-valued future part is then split into a positive and a negative mirror picture of the originally unilateral function. This creates multiple but necessary redundancies: an even and an odd component, both extending from –oo to +oo. The third step, Fourier transformation into complex domain leads to the mentioned symmetries of real part and imaginary part. An original function of time mutates into complex functions of positive and negative frequency (from –oo to +oo). A function of frequency in original domain gets the so called analytic signal, i.e. two complex symmetrical functions of past and future. So far nothing is wrong. We may benefit from complex calculus in either complex frequency or complex time domain. If no seemingly redundant component was omitted and not just the inverse Fourier transformation but also the inversion of preparing operations were properly performed, we safely arrive back in the original unilateral domain.
Schrödinger’s original communications, in particular his 4th reveal the way he speculatively introduced the complex wave function as a trick to reduce the degree of equation from four to two.
Perhaps not just Dirac ignored that elapsed as well as future time are always positive too when he argued that frequency (and the Hamiltonian) must always be positive. Weyl confessed: So far there is no explanation in sight for the [mirror] symmetry of time in quantum physics. The envisioned symmetry of almost all fundamental particles with their antiparticles was not found.
There was something that puzzled me for a while when I compared cosine transformation in IR+ with Fourier transformation in IR and questioned the unavoidability of ih. Heisenberg’s matrices seem to confirm the necessity of complex calculus in Schrödinger’s picture. Meanwhile I understand that Heisenberg’s square matrices also correspond to Hermitean symmetry in IR. A real-valued alternative corresponds to (triangular) half-matrices with elements only above or only below the diagonal which may reflect the border between past and future.
Accordingly I felt not just forced to criticize Einstein’s imprecise wording “past, present, and future” but also to reintroduce Euclid’s notion number as a measure, not a pebble.
Concerning ict, cf. the essay by Phipps.
Matt, I agree with your statement: “If a well-developed branch of pure mathematics turns out to have some use in the natural sciences, then the natural scientists will quickly appropriate that strain of pure mathematics and turn it into applied mathematics...” Yes, G. Cantor’s well-developed cardinalities in excess of aleph_1 didn’t turn out to have some use in the natural sciences.
Regards,
Eckard Blumschein
P.S.: Michael, I apologize for hurting you. Read my essay(s), and you will find why I reinstate Euclid's notion of number based on the measure one, not as a pebble a la Hausdorff. I did not yet read your bio and your essay. I consider Relativity and the belonging held for real spacetime in contrast to reasonable relativity not as harmless as you seems to describe it.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 03:37 GMT
I would like to highly recommend "The Raven and the Writing Desk" by Ian Durham. As several people have said already it is delightful. Highly entertaining, in the style of "Alice in Wonderland". A dialogue of Hatter, March Hare and Dormouse, examining some interesting ideas pertaining to mathematics and reality.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 14:02 GMT
Hi Georgina, Eckard and Michal,
Re Numbers
and re "The Raven and the Writing Desk":
I have a different view of numbers. I have just posted the following comment on Ian Durham's essay page:
If numbers are representational, i.e. if numbers represent physical reality, then you can't really say that numbers are "abstract concepts". What "tangible reality" does a number represent?
I contend in my essay (Reality is MORE than what Maths can Represent) that numbers MUST represent fundamental physical structures. And, though it's seemingly not a complete solution to the number "problem", I contend in my essay that a natural or a rational number must represent a ratio: a "relationship between information categories" where the category in effect cancels out.
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 19:40 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
I don't think numbers necessarily have to represent fundamental structures but they can represent all sorts of relations. Notation is representational but what it represents is (I prefer) concrete or within the concrete reality. Pi for example is not an actual concrete
thing but a relationship.For analogy a friendship can be actual without being a concrete thing.
Many things in the universe because they are too small or too distant or too fast are not tangible but can be considered to have actual reality rather than being abstract. They appear a little strange, unreal, when distilled out into their pure state but as I said to Johnathan Dickau re. his, also very worthwhile reading, essay I don't think its necessary to distill the maths out and assume it then occupies an abstract mathematical space that preceded its being in the universe. As to your last sentence, I think i should read it in the context of your essay before commenting.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 08:45 GMT
Hi Georgina,
As I responded to Ian who talked about "3 donuts, 3 tortoises, 3 coins". He was talking about subjective structures/relationships that exist in the brain, which one could represent with the written symbol "3" or the spoken word "three". There is nothing abstract about what exists in one's brain, which we subjectively experience.
The point I was trying to make is: what is the reality behind quantity in FUNDAMENTAL physical reality?!! What "tangible reality" does a number represent? We've got to stop always looking to an abstract platonic realm to solve every difficulty.
I contend in my essay (Reality is MORE than what Maths can Represent) that numbers MUST represent fundamental physical relationships. I contend that a natural or a rational number must represent a ratio: a "relationship between information categories" where the category in effect cancels out.
Cheers
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier wrote on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 06:17 GMT
Hi Marcus,
I agree that (for what I can see now) there is a problem with both the average quality of the essays and therefore the competence of the community of their authors rating each other, as I
just explained in this general review of this year's essays with my selection of those I found best. Would you know particular good online publications from elsewhere on the topic ?
About this idea of the possible online presence of good publications outside the contest, and the difficulty to recognize the truth by synthesizing an overload of information in a big world, I expressed a
similar remark in my recent review of last year's contest. Also my section there "A science in its infancy..." replies to your remark about the impression of human inability to find the truth (another aspect is
overpopulation).
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 07:16 GMT
Do not forget the IKEA effect. We all prefer things we have made ourselves especially if we have put considerable effort into it.
IKEA effect by Dan ArielyNo essay deserves a vote of 1. Take a look at the evaluation criteria in the competition guidelines. Essays should be voted according to their own merit not to raise them up or down the rating list in relation to other essays.Doing so undermines the objectivity of the FQXi given voting guidelines, that voters should be using.The positions of essays can change a lot as the competition progresses and more votes are placed especially in the last few days of voting.
From 'Voting' in the competition guidelines-"FQXi expects those providing community evaluations to do so based solely on the quality of the essay assessed. Voting collusion or bartering, mass down-voting, and other such forms of 'voter fraud' will not be tolerated..."
We are also encouraged to be constructive in our criticism and courteous in our interactions on this site. I therefore consider some of your comments in the linked review of this years essays to be highly inappropriate, rude and downright mean. You are personally insulting people who are passionate about their work and deserve respect whether you agree with them or not. Be ashamed.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 08:36 GMT
I would like to second what Georgina said.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 21:05 GMT
I enter essays here not so much for the contest, but to establish possible connections with others and to exchange ideas. I wrote my essay in a day this year. Nobody should count on winning unless they are a member of the Perimeter Institute or FQXi. There is maybe one or two 5th place winners not in that fold. The point is to have a little fun.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 00:46 GMT
Lawrence,
I also don't think terms such as hogswash and cranky that you have used in relation to specific people and personally identified work on your own essay comments page are appropriate. Though you may hold such views in private I don't think a public forum is the place to be so derogatory. My previous message was directed at Sylvain Poirier but it seems he is not alone in feeling the need to insult others.I'm afraid such unnecessary opinions on other people and their essays are an
unpleasant distraction from the good work that you have done on your own essay and discussion about it.
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier replied on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 09:44 GMT
"No essay deserves a vote of 1."
The contest was supposed to be on a serious topic, something about, you know, mathematical physics and some of the deepest questions about it. And some big money is on the table, so that it looks like it officially intends to be something serious. So, when some essays are far from serious in their understanding of the topic, and just tell nonsense about it,...
view entire post
"No essay deserves a vote of 1."
The contest was supposed to be on a serious topic, something about, you know, mathematical physics and some of the deepest questions about it. And some big money is on the table, so that it looks like it officially intends to be something serious. So, when some essays are far from serious in their understanding of the topic, and just tell nonsense about it, I am sorry to not see the sense of giving another vote than 1.
"Essays should be voted according to their own merit" As if a majority of authors had proper abilities to objectively assess the scientific merit of essays. What sort of "objectivity" are you expecting to save in such conditions ? You know Philip Gibbs insisted himself in comment to his own essay that he does not consider the community rating as anything serious. He only told it in such nice words that you are not going to blame him for this. Just because I say the same in different words (i.e. more visibly serious words, as, well, do you mean to be discussing here in a serious way or not ?), am I the one to blame ?
"FQXi expects those providing community evaluations to do so based solely on the quality of the essay assessed". Precisely I care about quality, and I come to explain some problems concerning the proper assessment of this quality that is often not properly going on.
"We are also encouraged to be constructive in our criticism"
I have been very deep and scientifically accurate in many of my criticisms, and I did not see many other people bringing so developed, deep and an accurate explanations on so many issues in comments. I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "constructive". If by this you mean to pretend to see some ideas as true or valuable when they aren't, I must admit I'm not that "constructive".
Now I would like you to understand that, even though I sometimes happened to find funny ways of describing things (not that I looked for that, only that things naturally appeared themselves to me as such) I do not consider myself neither satisfied nor responsible for the sad reality of the things which I found myself in necessity to report in my review, so that I cannot see the sense of feeling ashamed of it as you claim I should feel.
But if you decide that I have no place in this contest just for the fault of working to provide the amount of rational and scientific accuracy I did in my essay and many comments and defending the value of scientific competence above that of "politeness", i.e. hypocrisy and complacency towards ignorance and incompetence, then, after all, regrettably I might admit to take it as such and leave, concluding that, after all, this contest really never intended to be anything else than the way it roughly seems at the moment, i.e. a haven for crackpots, where seriously scientific views, insofar as they are in conflict with these, are not tolerated.
In not so confident hope to be understood,
Sylvain
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 14:56 GMT
Georgina,
I honestly get a bit cranky when I see essays that have blatant nonsense rise to the top. My main criticism is with essays that as Feynman put it try to reduce quantum mechanics to ball bearings and springs. There are a number of essays like that and they generally do rather well, and a few authors are always at the top of the voting selection by community rank. In fact, no matter what the FQXi topic is these authors manage to write much the same thing over again with a slightly different twist. We can all easily figure out who these authors are. This is different from an essay that has an error. Everyone has a right to be wrong on things. I also give some quarter for essays that might not present some topic in the clearest of ways. For instance I tried to explain ideas by Russell and Goedel in rather physical terms, and I admit I did not do the best job of that.
Given the nature of these essay contests I am willing to give loose rein to papers that are more of a philosophical nature that do not touch on the hard scientific aspects of these questions. I don't particularly object to those. My main bone of contention is with people who persist in writing the same rubbish over and over again and they never seem to learn. I don't have time to look this up, but I saw a video (YouTube Vimeo etc) clip of John Cleese on being stupid, and how recognizing one is a bit stupid about something actually requires a bit of smarts. In his Monty Python years he was principal in the infamous skit "Dead Parrot," which if you have not seen this it is a must see video. It tends to display much this sort of behavior. It is a recalcitrance that prevents a person from actually learning things.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 19:43 GMT
Sylvain,
Hopefully a majority will appreciate your and my support for Kadin's opinion concerning growth of world's population. One has just to compare the numbers of people in each city 50 or 100 years ago with the present size of them. Life in mega-slums on cost of exploited environment is perhaps not the best option.
You recommended:
1 Many people would like to use...
view entire post
Sylvain,
Hopefully a majority will appreciate your and my support for Kadin's opinion concerning growth of world's population. One has just to compare the numbers of people in each city 50 or 100 years ago with the present size of them. Life in mega-slums on cost of exploited environment is perhaps not the best option.
You recommended:
1 Many people would like to use contraceptives but cannot access these because of cost. Contraceptives and means of sterilization need to be offered worldwide for free, for those who need.
2 Many people have children just because social welfare is offered for raising children. This should be ended.
3 Many people have lots of children because of religious preaches against the use of contraceptives. Such preachings # Many people would like to use contraceptives but cannot access these because of cost. Contraceptives and means of sterilization need to be offered worldwide for free, for those who need.
4 Many people have children just because social welfare is offered for raising children. This should be ended.
5 Many people have lots of children because of religious preaches against the use of contraceptives. Such preachings should be strongly opposed and denounced as evil.
6 In some countries, especially in Africa, people have children because working children are a means of income and pension welfare. A reliable banking system should be provided to ensure to people safe means of savings so they will be ensured to be taken care of when old if they have no or few children.
7 Abortion should be legalized.
Yes, the possiblity for every women to decide how many children she will have is an important part of what African people called Boko. Haram means: It is a sin.
And yes, secular social security systems as introduced by Otto von Bismarck liberated us from the anchored in old religions strategy to provide maximal power to the elderly by as many children as possible.
Not just Ayatolla Chomenei's doctrine to further double the population of Iran but also the strive for as much economic growth "should be strongly opposed and denounced as evil." Unlimited growth and profit can logically not be a reasonable human right.
Is it really a good example of humanity if refugee camps in Kenia provide to refugees from desert areas the opportunity to rise 16 children as if almost all of them were still at risk of early starving to death? Or is there an obligation to change from rabbit-like behavior, as the pope called it, to responsible parentship?
Eckard
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 22:18 GMT
Sylvain,
I refer you back to the official guidelines. Technically correct and rigorously argued is only one checkpoint within the category of interesting. 1/3 weight being given to relevancy, there is a very long list of possible discussion topics that would qualify as relevant; 2/3 to interest. The other checkpoints in interesting are-
Original and Creative: Foremost, the intellectual content of the essay
must push forward understanding of the topic in a fresh way or with new perspective.
Well and clearly written, so that it is comprehensible and enjoyable to read.
Accessible to a diverse, well-educated but
non-specialist audience.
(My italic emphasis.)
So while it is true there are authors who lack the background to judge technical correctness objectively there are many other important factors that they can judge very well.
You
should feel ashamed that you found it necessary to be so arrogant and unkind in your 'review of this years essays' document.Some tact and decorum would serve you well.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 23:26 GMT
Lawrence, you explain your frustration well.
Just because certain essays get high community votes does not mean they will be the ultimate winners. Though they probably do get a disproportionate number of readers, on the basis of their ranking, detracting possible votes from other essays.The only way around that would be to have the ranking kept invisible, just a random, or author name selection available. That might take away some of the excitement of the live contest though.
I think its nice that there is a diverse, amiable FQXi community at all. To get personal with criticisms, naming names, jeopardises that. A live and let live attitude all round is probably best : )
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 09:23 GMT
Georgina,
You blamed Sylvain for being "so arrogant and unkind". Well, he might already ask himself: Why did the essay by Klingman, an author whom he had put into the drawer of the worst, manage to attract by far the largest number of reactions? Doesn't this activity show widespread interest? However, Sylvain is perhaps much younger than for instance LC. He will hopefully still learn to get independent from what he was trained to take for granted. Progress of science needs independent reasoning, not just democratic balance between traditional tenets. I appreciate that Sylvain still deals with the topic of the contest "How should humanity steer the future", and he supports Alan Kadin's view.
Let me be "arrogant and unkind" too, and challenge you and all others to comment on the essay by Tom Phipps. Well, I do also not like his somewhat bitter tone. However, if he is correct, and I don't doubt he is, then we are forced to reconsider a pillar of modern physics. I am even worse; I even collected a lot of arguments that challenge some putative foundations of mathematics. Sorry for that.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 11:53 GMT
Georgina,
You point out to a number of criteria to judge essays. These criteria have nothing to do with any sort of scientific correctness or competence, so that the technical respect to such rules would logically oblige us to give the highest rates to pure ridiculous bullshit that does not contain any truth and is obviously refuted by all science. Are you serious that you really want the...
view entire post
Georgina,
You point out to a number of criteria to judge essays. These criteria have nothing to do with any sort of scientific correctness or competence, so that the technical respect to such rules would logically oblige us to give the highest rates to pure ridiculous bullshit that does not contain any truth and is obviously refuted by all science. Are you serious that you really want the contest to follow this interpretation of the rules ? If you do, then it will just confirm what I wrote, that is, this contest never intended to approach any truth, but is only here as a stupidity contest that aims to give the prize to the most ridiculously absurd and unscientific views.
As I
explained here in a slightly exaggerated manner, "in these much more widespread and very popular other places dominated by the Forces of Irrationality, the expression "critical mind" is defined to mean "questioning the dogma of 2+2=4"; "open-mindedness" means an enthusiasm in examining large treaties of tens or hundreds of pages developing worldviews where 2+2 may be equal to 5, 9 or 13 (this is no exaggeration: I did read one blogger wanting to offer a new arithmetic rule where (-1).(-1)=-1 just to save us from the need to bother with complex numbers); and many more paradigm shifts are explored, such as visions of a future when mankind would have finally discovered that the Earth is flat and steady at the center of the Universe, or where pink elephants would routinely fly and thus become the main transportation means for the Third Millennium."
Finally, as Eckard Blumschein rightly pointed out, so many of the essays in this competition are actually extremely insulting against the whole scientific community. The main idea which I was bringing in my review, is that this majority of essay authors in their implicit but nevertheless extremely arrogant insults against the whole scientific community, are just plain wrong and ignorant about what they claim to criticize. I am insulting these insults. And I consider that in doing so I am behaving in the most respectful way, since any complacency towards these insults to the scientific community, as if they had any kind of plausibility, would amount to agreeing with these insults, and thus to be also oneself implicitly awfully insulting against the overwhelming majority of professional physicists.
Now, if you believe that you have a much better understanding that I about how to "objectively" measure the value of essays, I challenge you to demonstrate your objectivity by actually specifying :
- What is your list of essays you found best (if you disagree with the list I made)
- How would you rate or qualify the essay "Remove the Blinders..." which is currently among top rated ones
- How can you accuse me of ignoring the official criteria you pointed out beyond scientific correctness : do you consider my own essay as lacking in these aspects (relevant, original, creative, fresh way, new perspective, well and clearly written, comprehensible and enjoyable to read, accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience) ?
- If you found any scientific inaccuracies either in my essay or my many comments to the other essays, then which are they ?
Thanks.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 13:08 GMT
Dear Sylvain,
Something tells me that
my essay in the current contest may fall among those labelled as "pure ridiculous bullshit", "most ridiculously absurd and unscientific views", "only here as a stupidity contest" and "that does not contain any truth and is obviously refuted by all science". Does science already know everything or is it still trying to expand the territory of what is known?
I may be wrong that you take my essay as falling under this category. But if I am right, though it may be telling on your time, I throw a challenge that you prove your categorization. At the end, whether it is the author or the reviewer who is stupid can be publicly judged by all.
Your views on the voting system is noted and shared by many but the venomous way the feeling is put across is what has made Georgina reply with equal venom, which I also don't support.
Best regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear Akinbo Ojo,
In fact no, for the little look I just had on your essay, it seems I would not classify it in the category of obscurantism, but rather outside the conflict :)
I mean that, while you indeed appear as an amateur and the value of your essay may be poor, you are not behaving like those other amateurs who have no sense of their own limits, who develop very big nonsense or make loud claims against the results of modern science, and who treat the whole physics community as nuts. Instead you are rather neutral, restricting yourself to modest considerations. I noted some modest errors in your essay, so that someday I will try to reply to it, since you are asking.
Indeed science does not know everything but a number of things have been established so that it is better for new ideas to remain compatible with established truths than opposed to them.
Then to illustrate my point on classification, you can look at the replies I already made to some of the currently top-rated essays where I show the presence of lots of flaws: those of Alan M. Kadin (refuted in principle by the experimental verification of the violation of Bell's inequalities), Matthew Saul Leifer, Lee Smolin (you may be surprised since he is supposed to be a top level physicist, however I see him not behaving as such in his essay), Edwin Eugene Klingman. Otherwise I also made detailed replies to essays which I see more valuable, such as the one of Philip Gibbs. I tried to especially focus on top rated essays, so as to make a more efficient use of my time, in addition to some currently lower-rated essays which I see more valuable. However since then, the classification changed and new essays appeared on top.
Best regards
Sylvain
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 19:38 GMT
Dear Sylvain,
If you don't mind could you provide a short list of what you called "established truths" that must not be opposed according to your professional way of doing physics.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 22:15 GMT
Eckard Blumschein, thank you for your comments. Immaturity may be a reason but not an excuse. I think the important criteria that Sylvain may be missing in his overly harsh criticism of other authors work is: The work should be- "Original and Creative: Foremost, the intellectual content of the essay must push forward understanding of the topic in a fresh way or with new...
view entire post
Eckard Blumschein, thank you for your comments. Immaturity may be a reason but not an excuse. I think the important criteria that Sylvain may be missing in his overly harsh criticism of other authors work is: The work should be- "Original and Creative:
Foremost, the intellectual content of the essay must push forward understanding of the topic in a
fresh way or with new perspective. While the essay
may or may not constitute original research, if the core ideas are largely contained in published works, those works should be the author's. At the same time, the entry should differ substantially from any previously published piece by the author." and "
Accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature." from the competition guidelines , my bold emphasis
Sylvain Poirier,You wrote "How can you accuse me of ignoring the official criteria you pointed out beyond scientific correctness:" You openly admitted to giving essays a vote of one specifically to alter their position in the ranking against other essays- as we have been specifically asked not to do by FQXi.
Akinbo Ojo, I have not responded to Sylvain with equal venom but pointed out the inappropriateness of his behavior and comments.I have not used profanity or spitefulness. The competition is what it is, a well educated but non specialist level writing contest, despite Sylvain's desire for it to be something else.And it states in the guidelines essay must push forward understanding of the topic in a
fresh way or with new perspective(my bold emphasis). Spitefully attacking other named competitors work because it isn't mainstream enough is not acceptable to me and seems to go against the spirit of the contest -that encourages new ways of thinking about a topic. To then try and defend such behaviour rather than be contrite adds to the shame, in my opinion.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 07:35 GMT
"Some tact and decorum would serve you well."
From where did you get the idea I would care what can "serve" me ? I am not asking for any service. It looked like the FQXI was asking for contributions of understanding on the topic of the connections between maths and physics. If you are interested with my contributions, I am ready to participate. If you are not, then I won't insist and I am...
view entire post
"Some tact and decorum would serve you well."
From where did you get the idea I would care what can "serve" me ? I am not asking for any service. It looked like the FQXI was asking for contributions of understanding on the topic of the connections between maths and physics. If you are interested with my contributions, I am ready to participate. If you are not, then I won't insist and I am ready to stop posting in this community.
"the intellectual content of the essay must push forward understanding of the topic in a fresh way or with new perspective"
I consider that pushing forward radical
misunderstandings of a topic at the antipodes of any proper understanding, no matter how fresh and new it may be, do not count as forms of understanding, whatever the "qualities" they might otherwise have.
Well if you really want to find some defects in my assessment, I can admit the "fault" of praising the essay by Peter Woit which is lacking in matters of originality; I may also have to find a more original essay to include in my top list, when I will take a moment to consider the question.
" You openly admitted to giving essays a vote of one specifically to alter their position in the ranking against other essays"
I didn't. From where do you take the idea that I would have allowed myself to give a rating that I did not otherwise consider objectively deserved independently of its current ranking ?
Now I challenge you to explain to me the following :
1) Do you consider that my essay does not "push forward understanding of the topic in a fresh way or with new perspective" and other qualities you are suspecting me of neglecting in my assessment of other essays (with a lot of faith in your own suspicions) ?
2) If you cannot find such a lack of quality in my essay, then how do you explain the low ranking it has now (which it roughly already had before I published my general review page), if not because many of those who rated it are violating your criteria how to rate essays ?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 09:55 GMT
Sylvain,
I do not accept your challenge. Your attitude makes me inclined to pick any other essay to read in preference to your own. There are a great many to choose from. I might read some of those neglected essays with even fewer votes than my own, maybe they are very good.
I think that regression to the mean means that the higher the number of votes the more representative of general opinion the score is likely to be. With a very low number of votes one or a few aberrant votes can skew the outcome significantly. You have 15 votes in total at this time, more than many others. Be grateful for the readers and voters who have dedicated their time to reading and considering what you have to say.
Goodbye, Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 15:51 GMT
Sylvain,
I find your criticisms rather naive. My curiosity as to how you could link my views with those of Sascha Vongehr, led me to read Sascha's essay -- which I would not ordinarily do, as we are known to be philosophically opposed.
You confuse Sascha's defense of foundational metaphysics rooted in Wittgenstein's philosophy which in turns descends from the Vienna school of logical positivism, with my defense of metaphysical realism which descends from Popper's devastating criticism of the Vienna circle and his precise resolution of Hume's skeptical problem.
You seem to be wound around the stem of your own anti-realist sentiments, to the extent that you reject reflexively any realist perspective. Not a very scholarly approach.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
adel sadeq wrote on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 13:06 GMT
PBS will be having a
special about the subject of the contest.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 20:23 GMT
This contest is just a boy's club: look at the male/female ratio of the entries. The important thing is that male-type views predominate - whether the entrants are male or female. Male-type views are that: with our powerful technologies, we can conquer knowledge and thereby conquer nature.
These views require that nature is a closed system: like the Mandelbrot set, where nothing essentially new happens after the initial setup of the algorithms, laws and initial parameter values. Enthralment to these mechanistic, computational, robotic ideas is destroying our planet. The hubris of it all reverberates everywhere.
The followers of these male-type views are deluded. It's abundantly clear that closed systems are necessarily stagnant and degenerate. In contrast to the absurd schemas they are proposing, the vibrancy of reality is all about the continual input of the truly new.
report post as inappropriate
Michał Studencki replied on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 20:56 GMT
Whose fault is it that there's not so many essays written by women? Is someone stopping women from submitting their papers? In the European Union, there are movements to
enforce equality between men and women by law. These laws would require 50% of the available chairs to be chaired by women in governments, boards of directors in companies etc. They think this will introduce more equality...
view entire post
Whose fault is it that there's not so many essays written by women? Is someone stopping women from submitting their papers? In the European Union, there are movements to
enforce equality between men and women by law. These laws would require 50% of the available chairs to be chaired by women in governments, boards of directors in companies etc. They think this will introduce more equality between men and women, but in reality, this will only cause disaster, because they will hire women only to fill the 50% requirement instead of basing on their competences or skills. There's nothing which stops women from applying for these chairs at present, but from some reason, they don't apply or don't qualify, so
enforcing equality not only won't help, but it will also make it worse.
As to the essays: This is contest is about science, not fighting for women's rights. If I read your essay, I don't care if you're man or woman; the only thing I care is relevancy, originality, or in short "how good it is". If it is not good, the fact that you're a woman or not, won't change anything, so blaming it to women suppression is a cheap excuse.
(Just to be clear: I haven't read your paper yet, so this is only a figure of speech, not a judgment about your paper.)
Re closed systems: Our entire Universe could be seen as a closed system. True, the Mandelbrot's set is a closed system too. But if you start digging into its details, you will see that this closed system is actually infinite in detail and amazingly beautiful, even if it is bounded in a finite region of space. the same applies to our Universe: it is bounded, and its laws could be set and limited, but still they can be combined in an infinite number of ways to produce unbounded complexity and beauty. That's how Nature solves this finite/infinite conundrum. See the last section of my paper for more about that.
Re: robotic male-views which destroy our planet: In a way, I agree. But it is not only men who represent these views. But I'd ask you: what kind of women's views you propose instead? And why do you think such views are reserved just for women? Couldn't there be men who love nature, beauty, symmetry, art etc.? Now
that's stereotypical thinking!
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 22:42 GMT
Michal,
I was talking about male-type VIEWS, not about women's rights. (Male-type views are that: with our powerful technologies, we can conquer knowledge and thereby conquer nature. These views require that the universe is a closed system)
Fact: the Mandelbrot set is 100% boring – nothing new EVER HAPPENS.
I'm saying that the universe is NOT a closed system: closed systems are stagnant and degenerate. The vibrancy of reality is all about the continual input of the truly new.
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 00:04 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
the new can be produced from the existing. Take gene shuffling and recombination in gamete production. That gives diversity by mixing up genes. Nothing added nothing taken away from the code. Then there are the various kinds of code replication error this can include additions and deletions producing yet more variation but nothing has been added or taken away from the universe.
What is necessary for novelty to arise is that the Object (concrete) universe is not a space-time continuum in which all events,including future ones are, but progression through a sequence of unique singular configurations. The Object universe can thus be materially closed, nothing added or taken away, but entirely new arrangements of the existing can form.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 01:03 GMT
For a number of reasons I would concur with the statement that the universe is open. If nothing else it is open with respect to the limits on what is observable. The horizon scale of the observable universe is a very small length compared to the scale needed on the landscape or so called multiverse in order to identify the Einstein-Rosen bridge with the EPR of quantum mechanics.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 03:04 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
I must agree that our universe is definitely not a closed system, because we know it contains life forms - being alive ourselves. I also feel that for humans, and other higher-order sentient beings, creativity and free will are essential qualities that allow us to create the truly new from what already exists. I spend a lot of time with highly creative people, who bring into being things that are truly new, and I study creativity too.
However; for me the Mandelbrot Set is not lifeless at all, and instead is a map describing an endless array of both simple and elaborate dances. Every spot on the Set has what is called a Julia Set associated with it, and these are studied by complex analysis folks, as effective models of dynamical systems. But I have for almost 30 years been mapping behaviors of the Mandelbrot Set that most people don't get to see, by changing the algorithm to reveal the dynamism in the generating process itself.
So while I concur that the universe is open-ended, that condition comes in part from options in how diverse elements of form are arranged or combined. Leonard Nimoy's character Spock spoke of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, or IDIC - which sums up how the universe is open-ended well. I think the Mandelbrot Set describes an infinite diversity well too, but perhaps only living beings can supply the ingenuity to create truly novel combinations from the diversity of forms supplied by nature.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 03:25 GMT
Georgina and Lawrence,
Re "the new can be produced from the existing. Take gene shuffling and recombination…":
Obviously the new must always be produced from the existing, but there is no 100% precise necessity, or platonic-realm law, or any law, that rules every single aspect of such a process. This is NOT randomness occurring, but the INPUT of the truly new. Using your terms, Georgina, I am saying that the "Object universe" is NOT closed.
Note: If "randomness" is some sort of force or causal factor that exists in nature, if "randomness" creates real physical outcomes, then science MUST add "randomness" to its list of "laws". Science hasn't done this because science can't quite believe that the universe could be an open system – science is always looking for "hidden variables" etc. (Naturally, science must continue looking.)
This is quite different to what you are saying, Lawrence, that the universe "is open with respect to the limits on what is observable" and presumably you also mean open with respect to what is predictable.
I'm saying that the universe is open period. Our knowledge, what is observable, and what we can predict is a separate issue that has nothing to do with the essential open character of the universe.
You have both failed to address the issue that closed systems are necessarily stagnant and degenerate.
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 04:38 GMT
Lorraine,
I'm not saying that change is random or that it is controlled by a platonic realm either. Taking the genetic example; it has been shown that some regions are more prone to recombination than others. Control regions tend to stay intact. However when on rare occasion change to one of those regions occurs very large changes to phenotype can result. There is something about those important regions, a material difference, that prevents them being broken up easily. Possibly to do with folding of the genetic material. Allowing potential for very rapid alteration of type through epigenetic changes, when the environment changes, but restrained when current form is well adapted
I'm afraid I don't agree that closed systems are necessarily stagnate and degenerate. That is only the case if a system is too small to maintain itself. For a population to be viable there has to be sufficient diversity. Without that deleterious recessive gene combinations increase and the population is weakened and may continue to decline to extinction. Likewise the energy in a system can become dissipated and no longer able to do work. But if the system is large enough and complex enough small changes can also become large change, the butterfly effect, and 'life' can be breathed back into stagnant regions. There is a big difference between a universe sized closed system and a cardboard box or pond sized closed system.I would argue that dynamic complexity requires a certain scale to continue without becoming stagnant and degenerate overall; arguments based on observation of small closed systems do not necessarily apply.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 05:26 GMT
Lorraine, Lawrence, Jonathan, All
The visible universe, the one we fabricate from received EM data is open in two respects. One is new data not previously received being incorporated into the visible universe fabrication.(It may have been part of the Object universe data pool for a long time but has only just reached the Earth.) So it is new input to the Image -But not to the source Object universe. The second is EM potential sensory data is continually being produced from the interactions of EM with objects in the (Object universe) environment. That new data (newly added to the data pool)can form new images, not previously part of the visible universe, if received by an observer.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 20:41 GMT
How open can it be?
You suggest, Lorraine, that the universe is open in the sense of being non-deterministic in the object realm, not only in the realm of observations, perceptions, and measurements. I agree with that notion, to a large degree, but I think it is not also true that absolutely anything can happen, as though the evolution of the universe from this moment forward is completely open-ended, with no limits. So the question arises of what maximizes freedom of choice or optiony, within the spectrum of what is legitimately possible.
As it turns out; the Mandelbrot Set is notable in part because it is one of Math's answers to that question. The Mandelbrot formula involves multiplying a complex number by itself, then adding the result back to the original number. That is; you square the starting value, then add the initial value. If one were to substitute a higher-order operation, or a polynomial with more terms, the resulting figure turns out to be significantly less complicated and interesting. So by comparison to the Mandelbrot Set; those figures are indeed boring and repetitive.
Still; this does not mean that our fate is somehow pre-determined by the Mandelbrot Set, as we remain free to choose any of a variety of paths and goals. But in my view; the Mandelbrot Set's vast complexity is one of those things that assures our freedom of choice remains open, that the Math which reflects the laws of the universe do not make it a closed system, and so on. So if indeed it is what hold the door open to choice; you are wrong, Lorraine, to declare the Mandelbrot Set 100% boring. If the universe is actually open; the Mandelbrot Set is likely part of the reason why.
All the Best,
Jonathan
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 22:29 GMT
Hi Jonathan ,
I'm curious about what the squaring of the starting value represents in physical reality. Is it squared because the set as usually depicted is 2 dimensional, so what ever value is input is multiplied by the number of spatial dimensions? I have watched 2D depictions of 3D fractals, even animations of travelling within a 3D fractal.Which makes me wonder would the input value be cubed if looking at 3 dimensions? Also how do you reconcile structural change that can be observed by a "stationary" observer with the highly diverse but fixed nature of the set?
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 23:30 GMT
Thanks for asking, Georgina..
Intriguingly, a squared term is maximally complex in 2, 4, and 8 dimensions - because the Mandelbrot Set is defined not only for Complex numbers, but also in Quaternions and Octonions. Most of the 3-d fly-throughs that you see are actually imprecise renderings of a 4-d fractal, or the changes observed as a 3-d projection is rendered while you are moving through the 4-d form - which makes it appear like a morphing animated 3-d object. Most often; what is rendered is a Julia Set, which is a figure associated with a particular spot on the Mandelbrot, as I mentioned above.
Even going into higher dimensions; it seems that the quadratic fractals exhibit the maximum degree of complexity and if you go to a cube or higher, instead of the squared term, you actually get a simpler and more redundant figure. But the 2-d Mandelbrot we are used to looking at is only a shadow or projection of a figure that also lives in 4 and 8 dimensions, and it is really the dynamism observed when these higher-d figures are projected into a 3-d world, which makes the Mandelbrot Set relevant to Physics.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 09:20 GMT
Jonathan, Georgina,
will get back to you ASAP
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 15:47 GMT
Would it surprise you to learn..?
In my view; the feminine archetype comes beyond and before the masculine. In my studies of the evolution of consciousness, this is a persistent and distinguishable feature. And remarkably; when one tries to go from a theory of consciousness derived from refinement of measurement protocols, into higher-order generalizations, it follows automatically that this must be true - for the creative process to unfold naturally.
Specifically; starting from a place of non-separation or indistinguishability, which we could call oneness; openness to the surroundings, or receptivity, leads to consciousness and must precede any action proceeding outward from a given center. Then; the masculine only appears when we make postulates about what's out there, or take steps outward to explore our surroundings. So in this scheme; oneness is gender-neutral, but attributes traditionally identified as feminine must emerge - before masculine attributes can arise.
This is a common view in both traditional and philosophical Taoism, and was widely held by various ancient cultures including Egypt, but does not sit well with most modern religions. Notably; when I wrote an article on this topic, some 15 yeas ago, I received thoughtful and encouraging feedback from people of the Jewish and Christian faith, which was a bit surprising, but I also received objections and threats from a few of my readers who were devout followers of Islam. So I still see this as a controversial topic, even after the DaVinci Code.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 16:19 GMT
Jonathon, and Lorraine and Georgina (I thought that was you!) if you're interested;
I'll post this question on your essay page. Give me a few minutes. ;) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 16:23 GMT
To be specific..
While I've written about some very controversial topics, over the years, the only time I ever received death threats was when I asserted that the feminine archetype was more primal than the masculine. So while I agree with Lorraine's assessment that this contest and the science of Physics in general are dominated by male views, I think this is such a deeply rooted societal issue that what we see here in FQXi events is far milder than the fiercely divisive climate in the general populace.
In an article called "Is God Alone?" I wrote that if there is a Divinity, it must have both male and female attributes, and I asserted that the female face or Goddess must arise before the male face or God - and co-exist throughout eternity, in a kind of divine romance. This resulted in a fair number of e-mails from radical followers of Islam, with both vitriolic objections and threats against my life (and malware-laden attachments), but it is the only time anything like that ever happened to me.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Member Noson S. Yanofsky replied on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 14:12 GMT
Lorraine,
Why not call these two systems "closed systems" and "open systems"? Why do you call them "male-type" and "female-type"? What does this have to do with sex or gender?
Can you give other examples of open systems? Do men not work in these areas of science?
All the best,
Noson
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 02:55 GMT
Hi Noson,
I must admit that I was partly "stirring the pot" and partly serious about "male-type" and "female-type" views. I am serious that in this contest, like any area of life, a preponderance of (any type of) male views will cause a lack of balance! And I am serious that reality is open in the sense of new information continually being input/created by the elements of reality (particles, atoms, molecules, cells and other living things). In my view, many or most of the entries in this contest fail to come to grips with the actual nature of reality. (Also, I contend that that closed (fully pre-specified) systems (like the Mandelbrot set) are necessarily stagnant and degenerate i.e. nothing NEW is happening.)
I (sort of) put 2 and 2 together and came up with "male-type" and "female-type" views ;)
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 05:17 GMT
Sylvain Poirier wrote: "as Eckard Blumschein rightly pointed out, so many of the essays in this competition are actually extremely insulting against the whole scientific community." I never uttered something similar. Naybe, S. P. confused me with someone else as did Matt Visser? Actually, I would already abstain from any comments on "so many of the essays".
Instead, I don't hide my strong support e.g. for the essay by Phipps although the bitter tone of the 90 years old truth seeker might be felt as offending by those who cannot imagine that the logical basis of their most idolized belief might be shaky. Perhaps, S. P. feels "extremely insulted" and considers himself the spokesman of the whole scientific community.
According to my dictionary, an insult is a deliberately rude remark about someone. I see Thomas Phipps Jr. a highly cultivated perfectionist who manages to avoid insulting anybody.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 06:41 GMT
Sorry if I was unprecise in my reference to you so that it seemed to attribute you more than you meant, what I meant was to refer to your claim :
"Let me be "arrogant and unkind" too, and challenge you and all others to comment on the essay by Tom Phipps. Well, I do also not like his somewhat bitter tone."
so you do recognize that at least someone has a bitter tone. Apart from this I do myself consider that a number of other authors, especially Alan M. Kadin and Edwin Eugene Klingman, are implicitly very insulting to the whole physics community even if they do not look like having a bitter tone.
About "established truths" of physics, I would just mention here a big one, that Alan M. Kadin and Edwin Eugene Klingman are foolishly denying : local deterministic realism has been refuted.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 15:07 GMT
There is a sensitive dependence..
Precise definitions of 'local' and 'realistic' are required, and must be applied consistently throughout, because points that are close initially or appear identical, diverge later as any line of reasoning is followed. This could allow two different conclusions, with no logical missteps, because the bounding surface is a chaotic attractor.
Did you grasp that Ed Klingman is using Dirac's criterion Sylvain, instead of Pauli's? If you accept Dirac's formula, it naturally follows that Pauli's criterion in QM has a restricted codomain - which is only reasonable if the Physics of the experimental setup demand it. This is what Edwin Klingman calls into question, and changes the outcome if all other logical steps are the same.
So while, in some limited sense, local deterministic realism has been refuted, this does not speak to all of the subtle questions raised by EPR, and only applies if we use precisely the same definition used by Bell. I do not question that you may be correct; but I am universally skeptical of claims that various principles are decisively proved or refuted, and I look for further evidence that affirms or calls these claims into question.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 15:17 GMT
Jonathan J. Dickau,
Thank you for posting this. Your grasp of theoretical physics is remarkable. Your messages are always worth reading.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 17:21 GMT
Thanks..
I'm only trying to keep things from becoming dogmatic, by insisting on examining all pertinent elements of the basis offered. As usual James; I try to consider each new idea on its own terms first, and then I relate that back to what is known to be factual, what is theorized to be true, and so on. We must always be prepared to examine the roots of our belief or assumptions.
Nobel Laureate Doug Osheroff in "How advances in Science are made" advises folks to always remain a bit skeptical about whatever the current crop of theorists are telling us, because only then can you be sufficiently open to see what nature is showing us. But then; he is mainly an experimentalist.
Mathematically speaking; most people are content to use linear equations as effective models of Physics processes. But as Misha Kovalyov said in a lecture at FFP10; more often the Physics contains non-linear elements, and in general non-linear terms can make for equations that are not solvable. So people make limiting assumptions, plug in numbers and get answers, then forget that the limiting assumptions made result in a limited range of applicability.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 19:14 GMT
Jonathan,
Let's hope that you convinced Sylvain Poirier that he was premature when he meant: "Alan M. Kadin and Edwin Eugene Klingman are foolishly denying : local deterministic realism has been refuted."
S. P. was not at all aware of the many many discussions concerning Joy Christian, etc. here at FQXi.
I was not fully aware that most readers of my essay "Physics suffers from unwarranted interpretations" were wrongly expecting me from the title to directly address the zoo of n mutually excluding interpretations for wave function issues. The reason for me to look instead for a most basic mistake was not just distrust in Dirac and Pauli. Of course, it's true, at least n-1 of n known and mutually excluding interpretations must somehow be wrong. I rather begun my investigation seemingly remote with puzzles that were not convincingly explained to me by the belonging experts, i.e. by otherwise most self-confident mathematicians.
I will read the essay by Maudlin because he prefers a non-numerical geometric approach which seems to avoid, at least to some extent, what I consider the mutilation of Euclid's measures to Dedekind's "densely" arranged pebbles.
By the way, I consider the universe open in the sense of non-unitary (non-cyclic) but closed in the sense the notion universe includes anything; there is nothing outside; even multiverses, parallel worlds, and other speculations should be inside this single notion. Likewise, the property to extend endlessly is an absolutum, not relative, not a quantity. Except for the followers of G. Cantor, there is no hierarchy of transfinite infinities. Every Mandelbrot Set is finite, the idea of them is potentially infinite (open).
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 08:20 GMT
I'm very sorry but I cannot find here any indication to believe that Jonathan's "grasp of theoretical physics is remarkable". It rather seems he is only making up the expression of "Dirac's criterion" to make it look as if there was such a thing he knew about quantum physics that I didn't know that could change the conclusion of the issue at hand, but I see no reason to take this seriously. I do...
view entire post
I'm very sorry but I cannot find here any indication to believe that Jonathan's "grasp of theoretical physics is remarkable". It rather seems he is only making up the expression of "Dirac's criterion" to make it look as if there was such a thing he knew about quantum physics that I didn't know that could change the conclusion of the issue at hand, but I see no reason to take this seriously. I do know quantum physics quite well, including Dirac's equation of the electron and how it is related with the Pauli matrices in classical approximation, which is all out of topic with respect to the issues of non-locality and Bell's inequalities, and I'm confident that anyone who seriously knows quantum physics as well would agree with me. So no, I'm not convinced at all. To complete the points I made before in comment to his essay:
First: one of the main problems why I consider his article to be nonsense, is that the whole content of his essay is completely irrelevant to the conclusion he is pretending to make. The whole point of Bell's inequalities and their violation by quantum systems, has absolutely nothing to do with the particular properties of electromagnetism, the interactions between an electron's spin and the magnetic field, and the details of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which is just a possible particular case that may be given for illustration. Actually if I remember well, the experimental verification of the violation of Bell's inequalities was not done with the Stern-Gerlach experiment but with photon polarization. The conclusion of his essay is ridiculous : "
Bell's defenders do not really mean "any" theory — they mean only any theory constrained to produce ±1 results" yes of course because the production of ±1 results is what is observed, so that to explain the observations, may they be with electron spins or with light polarization, the prediction of ±1 results is what is needed. (And
if you consider other scenarii, thus different from what is actually observed, then the whole issue of violation of Bell's inequalities is
no more described by that simple dot product formula, but is much complicated to express).
Given these facts, the whole concept of Bell's inequalities and how the experimentally verified predictions of quantum theory depart from classical realism, can much better be explained (as I
did in my site) by not specifying anything of what a "classical model" may be made of; in guise of a classical model we can as well, much more simply and relevantly, consider 2 people secretly agreeing on a strategy before going their own way, and the "measures" would consist in asking each of them a question. So the point of Bell's inequalities is that it is not possible for a pair of people to elaborate a strategy of readiness to reply questions so as to reproduce the properties of quantum systems. Now it is clear that if even a pair of people elaborating any strategy can't make it then no kind of classical physics system can do it either.
But anyway, all what I might personally try to object to his essay, and how I am not convinced by it, is irrelevant to the larger problem I see, and which is the following: when I say that Ed Klingman's essay is nonsense, it is how I see it but anyway he is the one making claims, not I, so that I have no burden of proof on my shoulders. And this is for the following reasons.
The first reason is that, in general, there is no such a thing as a burden to prove that nonsense is nonsense. The essential character of nonsense is that it does not make any sense to try to refute it, because there is no sense of anything that needs to be replied to. Thus, the lack of clear arguments why something is nonsense, cannot be a point to conclude that it makes sense. Instead, those who are bringing a new claim, and claiming that it makes sense, have the burden of care to make their point clear ; Ed Klingman (and the same for A.M. Kadin and Tom Phipps) is the one claiming to overthrow current science, so that he is the one in need to bring solid arguments to the table, and it looks like he hasn't; if he has any argument, they are quite obscurely written to say the least. But whether or not he has, it cannot be my duty to prove how it goes.
Because secondly, and most importantly, I consider that this essay contest is just the wrong place for such a debate, so that, no matter how valid or invalid this essay may be, the very presence of such an essay in this contest constitutes a violation of the normal standards of scientific methodology. Because the topic he is claiming to address, is quite far from the official topic of this contest, but is instead very much the kind of work which the system of peer-reviewed scientific journals is here for checking and assessing. Thus if he really has sound arguments, then it's just up to him to send them to scientific journals, for proper review. If he didn't, or if he tried but his article was rejected, then coming to send his arguments in this contest is just an illegitimate way to get himself famous for his ideas in the eyes of many people who either participate or read here and who will like his ideas and get the impression that he is having arguments, but in ways disconnected from their actual validity since they have not the competence to find out if it makes any sense or not. Such a fame he got here is just not a valid, scientific kind of behavior. As long as he did not get his ideas published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and accepted by the professional physics community, the presumption of falsity must apply. I must inform you of this fact, and that my personal opinion on whether his essay makes any sense or not, is just irrelevant to the problem. Thus, there is no point here of trying to add still more nonsense to the nonsense as Jonathan did, expecting that either I would be convinced, or that I would have to justify myself further, or that I would be proven wrong if I don't reply in a way that would seem satisfactory in anyone's eyes. All such expectations are themselves nonsense, as I have anyway no reason to waste any more time reading and replying to Ed Klingman's ideas, I have no responsibility in giving him any credibility which he anyway cannot legitimately get from anyone in the present discussion spaces, and I have more serious things to work on.
Now beyond these necessary facts which are not my responsibility, I'm going to be kind and suggest you still another option, for the strange case that the option of publication in scientific journals would not suit you. Or rather, in addition to it, since it should.
Do you know about the community of
Bohmian mechanics. Most or maybe all people there would really love to believe in local deterministic realism, but know they can't because it was scientifically refuted, so they are dedicating all their efforts to develop the most realistic possible views, away from the standard understanding of quantum mechanics, that they did not see refuted yet, even at the cost of a lot of troubles that their solutions have. Now if you have any solution how to understand things in any kind of more realistic manner than usual views on quantum mechanics, and if it has any chance of validity, then these people are surely going to love it and will be much more willing than I to consider the possibility you may be right and to dedicate all the needed care to understand all the details of your arguments. So they are the right people you should try to argue with. I'm not. That is all the best I can tell you.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 16:47 GMT
Gee,
I would think the experiment by J.B. Pors et al on Shannon Dimensionality would have shown people that it's unnatural to assume that QM measurements can always be reduced to 1s and 0s. To state that electrodynamics has nothing to do with QM is patently false. While I once believed that QM is a fundamental theory; I am now of the opinion (along with 't Hooft and other knowledgeable experts), that QM is actually emergent from deeper considerations, largely Classical in nature.
I make no special claims of a remarkable grasp of mathematical and theoretical Physics, because I know some people whose knowledge is so great that it makes me look like a child on the shore playing with pretty pebbles. Unfortunately Sylvain; it looks like you are not their equal. So it would seem that you are the one masquerading as an expert here. Like many others; you have great knowledge in a fairly narrow range of specialization, and you try to force all of the other pieces to fit what you know.
As for myself; I think that point set topology can be misleading, but geometric topology provides a robust framework for set theory to emerge. Similarly; one could work from category theoretic notions, stating that a set is nothing more than a category with a single object, and all morphisms invertible. So I question your qualifications as an expert as well, Sylvain. I mean no offense, but it is apparent that a greater breadth of knowledge will reveal inconsistencies in the framework you are championing - and I predict that you will learn something important when you reconcile that with nature.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 21:14 GMT
"I'm confident that anyone who seriously knows quantum physics as well would agree with me."
No one gets away with that claim. Everyone is obliged to reference those who agree.
"...there is no such a thing as a burden to prove that nonsense is nonsense."
Well that is certainly true. It implies that something has already been proven to be nonsense. If its been proven there is no need to "...prove that nonsense is nonsense."
"...The essential character of nonsense is that it does not make any sense to try to refute it, because there is no sense of anything that needs to be replied to. Thus, the lack of clear arguments why something is nonsense, cannot be a point to conclude that it makes sense."
Of course not. But the circumstance of lack of clear arguments means nothing of value has been accomplished.
"...Instead, those who are bringing a new claim, and claiming that it makes sense, have the burden of care to make their point clear ; Ed Klingman (and the same for A.M. Kadin and Tom Phipps) is the one claiming to overthrow current science, so that he is the one in need to bring solid arguments to the table, and it looks like he hasn't; if he has any argument, they are quite obscurely written to say the least. But whether or not he has, it cannot be my duty to prove how it goes."
Each of them made their point clear from their perspective. Each of them intended to communicate their views to others, therefore, they have done the reaching out. Your perspective is not the universal perspective by which all other views are to be judged. That which you are certainly correct about is your view. All other points of correction must be demonstrated by all persons. References are very helpful at accomplishing that.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 21:33 GMT
Jonathan, I see no interest in your speculative suspicions.
Your way of trying to defend yourself by distorting my explanations into clearly false claims I did not make ("QM measurements can always be reduced to 1s and 0s", "electrodynamics has nothing to do with QM") only shows your inability of rational discussion. Should I help you to correctly interpret what I actually meant instead ?
Even Tim Maudlin, in his replies to comments to his essay, dismisses any proposition of a locally realistic replacement of QM as scientifically refuted. I guess you won't accuse him of dogmatism or anti-realism, or would you ? even if anyway the essays and comments of this contest have no ability to overthrow otherwise well-established scientific conclusions just if any consensus emerged between its participants.
All right, you do not claim to be expert, this needed to be said as someone thought otherwise.
I am indeed not a top expert in quantum physics, however I consider that I know some of its core aspects quite well, enough to not make mistakes on the issues I am addressing. Now if you suspect me of mistakes in my claims or inconsistencies in my views, I challenge you to back up your suspicions by an expert review that would actually, reliably point out what my mistakes would be.
Contrary to many other scientists, my main focus of interest, as I presented in my
site, is not a narrow specialization as you assume, but something much more general : the clarification of a wide range of relatively simpler and more widely useful concepts, so as to rebuild a clean, optimized undergraduate curriculum in maths and physics that would more simply and directly explain some crucial advanced concepts that are not usually presented at that level.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 22:24 GMT
James,
Well all right : after more examination of Ed Klingman's essay, especially his very last sentence which I initially did not pay attention to, I recognized that it is not precisely nonsense but rather precisely well-refuted stuff (sorry I did not properly update my previous reply as I found it... comments on nonsense which anyway remain applicable for any other case of nonsense, and still partially here as not all his ideas are clear). If only he had written his last sentence at the beginning of his essay, it would have made it clearer for those who know the subject that there is no point to read it any further.
If things had to follow your way : if absolute relativism was true, or if science was defined by voting of incompetent people as so many here are, there would be no modern science.
"All other points of correction must be demonstrated by all persons"
Many things were scientifically demonstrated, but what do you mean by "all persons" ? No matter how well-demonstrated something is, we can always find ignorant people who do not know the demonstration. This still does not make ignorance wiser than knowledge.
"References are very helpful at accomplishing that"
I thought the refutation of local determinism was well-known to anyone interested to inform oneself (which unfortunately does not seem to be the case of a number of people here), so that I did not have to give references for that. Should I ? For example... the very presence of a community of supporters of Bohmian mechanics, all motivated by the wish to see the world in a classically deterministic manner, a wish for which they are ready to pay the price of a lot of troubles, including the development of non-local theories as they consider local determinism as refuted. Why would they, unless the evidence of that refutation was there ?
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 22:40 GMT
"All other points of correction must be demonstrated by all persons"
I saw after posting my message that this was poorly phrased. Sorry about that. It was meant to say that everyone must argue in defense of their points of correction. Even this is overstated since one can offer references instead.
Dr. Klingman speaks for himself.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier replied on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 07:57 GMT
James, of course you said some obvious generalities, I'm just not sure for what purpose. Well of course, for "No one gets away with that claim", I did not expect that claim to bring much, so what ? I'm generally skeptical about any possibility to go anywhere in discussions with resolutely ignorant people, who insist on their way of only trying to develop ignorance-based views and vague speculative judgements, having faith that this must be the ultimate way of doing. To tell in exaggerated words to make the idea understandable : By denying the possibility for a string of letters to be more meaningful than another, such people condemn themselves to only work with random strings of letters which have hardly any chance to mean anything. They might not "claim to have the truth" but actually make the discussions hopeless by their intolerance (in the form of their way of polluting discussions with some unfalsifiable attitude of uncertainty and doubt, so as to defeat evidence by dilution) against the possibility for others to have more reliable understanding than themselves. I'm not claiming to have any magic solution to the impossible mission of trying to bring sense among people who just can't get it. After all, Peter Woit may have made the wise choice (even if it seems not really a choice as he is just too busy), deciding to not participate in any discussions here. So maybe I'm just wasting my time replying here indeed...
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 12:11 GMT
"James, of course you said some obvious generalities, I'm just not sure for what purpose. Well of course, for "No one gets away with that claim", I did not expect that claim to bring much, so what ?"
Here was your claim to be correct by proxy: "I'm confident that anyone who seriously knows quantum physics as well would agree with me."
Sylvain Poirier,
My reply: "No one gets away with that claim. Everyone is obliged to reference those who agree."
You haven't referenced anyone.
Then you proceed with a long paragraph of some obvious generalities:
"I'm generally skeptical about any possibility to go anywhere in discussions with resolutely ignorant people, who insist on their way of only trying to develop ignorance-based views and vague speculative judgements, having faith that this must be the ultimate way of doing. To tell in exaggerated words to make the idea understandable : By denying the possibility for a string of letters to be more meaningful than another, such people condemn themselves to only work with random strings of letters which have hardly any chance to mean anything. etc. ..."
I presume that your paragraph is expressing your concern about protecting the integrity of science from unrestricted public discourse by professionals and amateurs. You are invited to be specific with regard to myself. With regard to others, everyone here speaks for themselves.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 28, 2015 @ 19:45 GMT
Thank you for the clarification Sylvain..
I appreciate the time taken, when you calmly point out where people have errors. I think it is only when you seem too lazy for a thoughtful or careful correction of specific errors, and paint with an overly broad brush yourself, that I and others feel the need to jump in to offer corrective comments of our own. If my comments have not been on target, I apologize. I certainly don't want to waste time defeating a straw man, if what you are saying is something different.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 29, 2015 @ 03:41 GMT
Hi Jonathan ,
I have responded to your feedback and question on my essay discussion page. I have clarified the difference between Object and objective reality. Hopefully that will help make it clear that I have categorically shown the Grandfather paradox and associated interpretation of relativity to be founded on a category error,( for starters). I have hopefully also clarified that I have been likening quantum ideas to actualisation in an absolute non relativistic reality not describing them in a relativistic context. I really appreciated the measurement question, so it gets its own dedicated reply. Hope you get the chance to take a look, regards Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 06:30 GMT
What we 'discover' is the
output of our own sensory exploration.
There isn't a scale divide between the quantum realm and macroscopic reality. It's not that a macroscopic object has only one definite appearance but that is how we relate to the objects around us. They are observed with limited single observer perspectives,formed from the limited sub set of sensory data received. Rather than the absolute reality of substantial objects themselves -the simultaneous potential for all perspectives. Thus
not switching from their absolute state to single observed state but always only considering the singular viewpoint (manifestation) as if it is the substantial object itself.
Whereas at the sub atomic scales it is not possible to explore directly with the sense of sight so there has to be a measurement that converts absolute state into observable singular outcome. Not actually wave function collapse but that switch of 'perspective'.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 20:51 GMT
Hi Jonathan and Georgina,
I am contending that Jonathan is genuinely creative of the new with his work with the Mandelbrot set. I.e. what he is doing has not been pre-specified from the beginning of time: reality is such that it allows the input of the truly new (i.e. new specifications) – reality is not a closed system.
On the other hand, Georgina's view of the nature of reality...
view entire post
Hi Jonathan and Georgina,
I am contending that Jonathan is genuinely creative of the new with his work with the Mandelbrot set. I.e. what he is doing has not been pre-specified from the beginning of time: reality is such that it allows the input of the truly new (i.e. new specifications) – reality is not a closed system.
On the other hand, Georgina's view of the nature of reality is seemingly that what Jonathan is doing NOW was pre-specified from the beginning of time. Seemingly in Georgina's view, both "Object reality", and individual "Image reality" has been pre-specified by law-of-nature algorithms/equations/initial parameter values from the beginning of time. In this view reality is fully pre-specified, though presumably what Jonathan does NOW is not necessarily pre-predictable because of complexity. Georgina's view of reality implies that reality is a closed system: despite the surface appearance of amazing variety, no new SPECIFICATIONS have been added since the beginning of time. This "reality is a closed system"/" no new specifications” view describes the only type of reality that would allow our powerful technologies to conquer knowledge and thereby conquer nature. This is the type of view that seems to predominate in this male-dominated contest.
I am contending that reality is genuinely participatory. I contend that Jonathan is genuinely creative of the new: Jonathan is adding new SPECIFICATIONS to reality. But despite the surface appearance of amazing variety, the Mandelbrot set represents a boring system because once it is pre-specified, the outcome is set in stone. The Mandelbrot set is not a system in which the elements of the system can participate in the specifications. Jonathan decides, the pixels don't decide.
I fully agree with you Jonathan that:
". . .the universe is open in the sense of being non-deterministic in the object realm, not only in the realm of observations, perceptions, and measurements. I agree with that notion, to a large degree, but I think it is not also true that absolutely anything can happen, as though the evolution of the universe from this moment forward is completely open-ended, with no limits. So the question arises of what maximizes freedom of choice or optiony, within the spectrum of what is legitimately possible."
I agree with what Johnathan seems to be saying: that creativity/freedom/choice is not possible unless a deterministic structure also exists as the context for the creativity. I content that this creativity is both bottom-up and top-down i.e. particles, atoms, molecules, cells and other living things all participate in this creativity, in their own way.
Cheers,
Lorraine
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 21:59 GMT
Lorraine,
Causality yields determination, not the other way around. Events have to physically happen in order to be determined. The laws might be set, but the input only arrives with the occurrence.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 23:06 GMT
Lorraine,
I now feel that I have been
horribly misrepresented.I certainly don't think what Jonathan or anyone else is doing was pre-specified at the beginning of time. You will see in my essay discussion page -reply to Peter- that I consider hard determinism 'absolutely' abhorrent, incorrect and in need of overthrowing as the accepted wisdom.In that reply I spelled out the great...
view entire post
Lorraine,
I now feel that I have been
horribly misrepresented.I certainly don't think what Jonathan or anyone else is doing was pre-specified at the beginning of time. You will see in my essay discussion page -reply to Peter- that I consider hard determinism 'absolutely' abhorrent, incorrect and in need of overthrowing as the accepted wisdom.In that reply I spelled out the great importance of identifying the category error leading to the grandfather paradox, as it was not discussed in the essay.The essay being 'matter of fact' without discussion of underlying philosophical issues and issues of morality.
I have, in this thread, explained my view of the open and closed universe question. The Object universe is only one configuration that is undergoing change to become the next singular configuration. It is dynamic, ever changing, the previous configuration being the input to the next in a sequence. There is no material input or output
from the universe and in that sense it is closed. However in the sense of being creative it is open because the old is recycled into the new not fixed in time, and there is no concrete future. So unlike the space-time continuum in those respects. I have also explained that the visible universe, the image output of sensory data processing, is open in the sense that new potential sensory data is being received changing the image. With the structure of reality I have illustrated
participation in the creative process is possible, within the material Object reality realm,
precisely because it is not pre-ordained, pre formed waiting to be discovered.
Re-iteration can be seen in the natural world in the ripples in the sand at the sea shore and the erosion of sedimentary rocks revealing their strata as well as fractal dimensions in coast lines and river flows. The mathematics is in nature but may be extracted, 'distilled' out, into its 'unnatural' pure form by the human mind. As has happened with the Mandelbrot set. Neither pre-existing discovery in a platonic realm in pure form and not created entirely by mind alone.In my discussion with Peter Punin I used the analogy of the properties of pure alcohols distilled from nature. We can know their properties without those coming from a perfect realm of pure chemicals or being invented by the mind alone. Nature already has first claim on re-iterative processes. My essay starts The golden ratio and growth, fractal geometry and natural scale invariance: such beautiful correspondence of mathematics and natural forms.....
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 01:08 GMT
But Georgina,
The Mandelbrot set is fully pre-specified. The reality you describe also seems to be fully pre-specified. As mathematician Gregory Chaitin says about the evolution of a rule-based (mathematical) system "anything that ever comes out was already contained in your starting point" i.e. the initial rules/specifications etc. Nothing TRULY new can ever happen because "anything that ever comes out was already contained in your starting point". Anything TRULY new, truly creative, can only be represented by NEW RULES i.e. new "laws" or "mini-laws".
How do you account for new rules? How is "participation in the creative process...possible" in your view of reality? Are you talking about "random" reconfigurations? If so, what is "random"??
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 03:50 GMT
I thank you for your comments above, Lorraine, but I'll stir the pot here..
Life tends to thrive in places where two or more domains are intermingled, as on the shore of the ocean where the aquatic and land-based world overlap. Part of what spurred Mandelbrot to study fractals was extending work by Lewis Fry Richardson, to determine 'How Long is the Coast of Britain?' which was one of the first attempts to mathematically quantify to what extent the two domains (water and land) interpenetrate.
You see; the degree to which the perimeter becomes longer, when using a smaller and smaller measuring rod, determines the fractal dimension of that boundary. Of course; the boundary region also changes if there are waves or other movements and flows of the body of water. But even if that is relatively still, measuring the exact boundary with a small rod can be very time consuming - and it requires some consideration or judgment.
In any case; the fractal dimension allows us to characterize the landscape and find places where life can thrive. I am currently studying how the fractal dimension of interpenetrating domains relates to various kinds of development in a suburban environment. I think humans thrive in closer contact with nature. Has anyone ever noticed how seldom a parking lot for an abandoned store or factory is returned to its natural state? Oh well..
Enough for now,
Jonathan
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 03:56 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
as Jonathan said the Mandelbrot set is infinite.
The rendered output is potentially infinite, limited by computing power only, and the diversity mind boggling.
350, 000 000 iterations There are repetitions of themes but continual subtle and gross changes in appearance with further iterations. Now just imagine the same number of iterations but in the quaternion version.
Likewise the genetic cipher of all Earth life from amoeba to man is a very simple.Just 4 base pairs. Really simple but able to code for all life forms with vast diversity. Completely new forms can arise via new combinations of the code it doesn't require a new cipher to get something completely new. A sculptor can create a sculpture the likes never before seen. It doesn't requires a completely new material with new properties or new rules of behavior, just creativity that puts elements of reality together in ways that haven't previously existed. It doesn't have to be random to be completely new.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 04:25 GMT
Of course..
One can always argue that it is an artistic endeavor by humans, to find interesting spots to colorize or zoom in on - which is reasonable and correct. There are artistic decisions to be made, whenever one is rendering such figures for public viewing. The artist breathes life into the imagery, and gives the mathematical figure a bit of their own particular magic.
But as it turns out; in many cases, spots that display artistically interesting form are also relevant to complex analysis folks studying dynamical systems, via the equivalency of places on the Mandelbrot figure to Julia Sets. I think it's important to point out here that the character of the form at the periphery evolves, as one moves from the cusp to the tail - which is what may make it relevant to Cosmology.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 07:36 GMT
Hi Georgina,
I agree that it is "creativity that puts elements of reality together in ways that haven't previously existed". There are no explanatory gaps in reality: any situation or outcome that does not have a 100% law-of-nature lawful explanation, must still have a causal explanation. I too would describe this cause as "creativity" (on the part of the "elements" of reality like particles, molecules, living things), and not "randomness".
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 07:55 GMT
Hi Jonathan,
Re "Life tends to thrive in places where two or more domains are intermingled":
Currently, what's happening in parks and forests is a bit of a worry (1 & 2), but: “Wolves help trees grow, rivers flow, countless species flourish" (3):
1. Our large local park had been planted with lots of native shrubs by a volunteer group. The shrubs provided food (insects,...
view entire post
Hi Jonathan,
Re "Life tends to thrive in places where two or more domains are intermingled":
Currently, what's happening in parks and forests is a bit of a worry (1 & 2), but: “Wolves help trees grow, rivers flow, countless species flourish" (3):
1. Our large local park had been planted with lots of native shrubs by a volunteer group. The shrubs provided food (insects, seed, and nectar), shelter, and protection for some of the smaller native birds from some of the larger more aggressive birds. The local council came in and gave the park a "clean up” - removing a lot of the shrubs. The park is now much more open with lots of large trees. So the park is currently the domain of the aggressive "noisy miner", a native bird, and other larger native birds like rainbow lorikeets – there are now very few, if any, of the smaller native birds to be seen.
2.
Is Earth running out of wilderness? :
"20% of the world’s forests are the distance of a football field [100 metres] away from a forest edge" and "Seventy percent of forest lands are within a half-mile [800 metres] of a forest edge. That means almost no forest can really be considered wilderness."
"This means that encroaching cities and suburbs, farming operations, deforestation, roads, etc, are fragmenting habitats and making what forests are left less fruitful from a biodiversity point of view. The study looked at the effects of this fragmentation and found that fragmented habitats reduce the diversity of plants and animals by 13 to 75%, with the top of that range mostly found in the smallest and most isolated fragments of habitat.
"" The initial negative effects were unsurprising, " Haddad said. "But I was blown away by the fact that these negative effects became even more negative with time. Some results showed a 50 percent or higher decline in plant and animals species over an average of just 20 years, for example. And the trajectory is still spiralling downward. "
"Another negative impact of this loss of biodiversity and productivity: Carbon sequestration is reduced, so this fragmentation also impacts our climate. "
3.
Wolves help trees grow, rivers flow, countless species flourish (video ):
"It might not seem obvious at first, but wolves can have a huge indirect effect on ecosystems. They aren't just good for reducing deer populations and such; they fundamentally change how these herbivores behave, where they graze and which areas they avoid. This means that trees and plants start growing again in places that were overgrazed, giving shelter to all kinds of species (songbirds, beavers, rabbits). This in turns changes how the local ecosystem works further, providing more ecological niches to more species, until after a few years the area is almost unrecognizably more alive! All this thanks to wolves, this underrated apex predator!
"Check out the great video below to see the chain of events in action after wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone after an absence of about 70 years:
"But remember: This isn't just about wolves. Apex predators everywhere are under threat - just think of sharks - and this will cause negative ripples across all ecosystems..."
Lorraine
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 15:41 GMT
I'm not sure about wolves..
But I've seen, coyotes, foxes, and other natural predators right in my yard. We also have an assortment of raptors who hunt here, some with a wingspan about two meters, including hawks and owls. There is a stream that runs through the property and a wetland further back. I try to reduce the population of invasive species of plants introduced by humans.
On the other hand; misguided attempts to clean up parks and other public properties, by introducing monoculture, are abhorrent to me. I guess most people do not have a great enough familiarity with the wild places, and thus not a clear enough sense of just what a wilderness is, or how to treat a patch of nature like wilderness.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 21:56 GMT
Hi all,
Just checking in. Knowing which way the deck is stacked, I couldn't motivate myself to enter this one.
One would think that with epicycles in the history books, we would be a little bit more careful seeing mathematical models as quite so absolute, but then he who hesitates is lost and math is order, but that doesn't make it the source of reality, only the shell that is left when all that is fuzzy is boiled away.
Man created God in his image. Man created math from his perspective.
It would be one thing if it was even good math, but how can it be logically argued that space expands, based on Relativity, but the speed of light doesn't increase proportionally? More lightyears between us and those distant galaxies is just increased distance. If it were expanded spacetime, the lightyears would be stretched, but then the doppler effect wouldn't work.
Presumably time is symmetric, but don't tell that to physical inertia.
Looking at the human endeavor, it seems the same lessons just have to be repeated every so often.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 21:55 GMT
The view that nature is necessarily dumb, numb, passive and merely billiard-ball reactive lies behind the extreme hubris and presumption that dominates this male-dominated essay contest. It has seemingly never occurred to these dogmatic men that nature is essentially experiential, dynamic and creative of the new.
Perhaps if these men and their followers got out of their ivory towers a bit more, the extreme nonsense and misapprehension of reality that underlies most of these essays would not have occurred. If they did get out a bit more, they might realise that physics is limited to studying the structure that the dynamic, experiential elements of nature have created (where the elements of nature are particles, atoms, molecules, cells and other living things).
And this is physics today: its theories defy reality. Physics can't seem to envision a reality where what people do has any effect that was not pre-specified. I.e. physics can't envision a model of reality where the elements of reality actually participate in the specification of reality.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 22:20 GMT
In my view...
A lot of the bias you point out above has to do with the mindset of people who manage money, and exercise control on what gets funded - out of all the things scientists might want to explore. The way the funding process is handled, and the mindset of the people who generally oversee the selection process, greatly favors a kind of materialism borne of a reductionist and deterministic view - which is dictated by Economics.
So something like String Theory, which purports to show us the smallest possible components of reality, necessarily gets a lot of attention and funding. Likewise; big-iron projects like CERN, where they are looking to probe the highest energy phenomena (and continue the search for evidence of smaller pieces) have a lot of appeal, and give the sense that through incremental progress - the work of Science can get done.
By comparison; highly promising work in Quantum Mechanics has to struggle to get any funding at all, and maybe only if one of the main researchers is someone like Anton Zeilinger who has public appeal (evidently Bono likes his work, and People magazine labeled him someone to watch). As I said in my essay; AZ is one of those people who probably goes to work saying 'maybe this is the day we'll discover something nobody has seen before.' And it is well-known that his lab has seen some major successes, but at FFP11, he told us about the constant struggle to keep the funds flowing.
So it's not just the scientists to blame, but also those who elect what Science gets funding - and by what criteria that funding might be continued.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 22:36 GMT
To be yet more specific and blunt..
The mindset of those in charge (in modern society) seems to be one of prediction and control, which is an attitude that's poisonous to good Science and research progress. I took that subject up, in large measure, with last year's essay (which is expanded a bit in the book chapter to come) - but also in my lecture at FFP11, and somewhat in the one I was slated to give at FFP12.
I label the competitive nature of some scientists and others as an adolescent trait, even if it is seen in adults. If the goal is the perpetual increase of knowledge, then cooperation can carry us further along the way than competition can. However; this is a contest, a competition of sorts - even if it is more of a writing exhibition for some. So not everybody here buys into society's deterministic illusions, but many here are hoping to compete in the arena of ideas offered in this contest and its forum.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 23:11 GMT
Quite so, Jonathan.
But one might have expected that in a "Foundational Questions" Institute essay contest, more attention might have been paid to foundational questions about the nature of reality!!
And more specifically, a model of reality is required whereby the elements of reality actually participate in the specification of reality. Surely this is a fundamental requirement of any such model, if it is not to "defy reality"?!
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 23:31 GMT
Moderator: I believe that the essay "Is 1+1=2 an empirical proposition?" by Yafet Erasmo Sanchez Sanchez just received a one rating with no comment. I do not believe that that rating can be justified. I know others including myself receive one ratings never with comments; however, that is not my concern after all of these contests. But, if that rating for Sanchez's essay is from someone who is establishing a record of handing out one's, then I request this be looked into. I won't be questioning the result. This matter ends for me with this message. Thank you.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 05:01 GMT
Moderator,
I believe that this same essay just received another one.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 11:14 GMT
James,
It gives many individuals a sense of power, in this social game, to "moderate" the results in line with what they think the rankings should be. (I've seen at least one entrant openly admit it.) It has nothing to do with the merit, or not, of the essays' scientific content. If one reads enough essays and comments, the pattern is obvious -- solicit comments and ratings from a significant number of other essayists, wait for a significant spike in the rankings, and then use one's voting power to order the results to favor or disfavor the individuals (the individuals, not the essays) that one wants to keep at the top of the list. Wait for the finale -- that's when you'll see even wider and faster swings, like an eBay bidding war.
The end result is a struggle to elevate personality cults above scientific reason. It's a phenomenon that Einstein consistently warned against.
I've long disabused myself of the notion that the contest is about scientific discourse. There are many prominent scientists and mathematicians in this mix -- FQXi members or not -- with whom one would like to have a spirited debate. Very few of them (there are notable exceptions) are confident enough and honest enough and tolerant enough to carry on a dialogue of ideas when they know they'll be faced with a battle of personalities. Because there is little incentive to reply, and much negative motivation not to, most simply remain silent. I don't blame them one bit.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Michał Studencki replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 12:12 GMT
James, you're right. There are very bad people amongst the contestants, who seem to manipulate the scores by granting the lowest score as soon as someone they don't like raises above 5.0 limit. My and my friends have observed many examples of such activity. One example I present in a comment on my essay's thread here.
I even have a proof that these people are fully aware of what they're...
view entire post
James, you're right. There are very bad people amongst the contestants, who seem to manipulate the scores by granting the lowest score as soon as someone they don't like raises above 5.0 limit. My and my friends have observed many examples of such activity. One example I present in a comment on my essay's thread
here.
I even have a proof that these people are fully aware of what they're doing and do that purposely, as a form of... I don't know... punishment? banishing? to those people they don't agree with. Namely, when I (politely) asked Mr. Sylvain Poirier to review my essay, he replied with a very rude way, calling me "crackpot", "obscurantist" and what not, and paying me justice by rating my essay with the lowest possible score: "1". He admitted he did it on purpose. Quote:
"With your insistence to put forward your nonsense, you are really making me willing to give you rate 1."
And so he did, which lowered my score from 4.9 to 4.5.
I cannot understand such behavior, I was not insisting on anything, I politely asked for review, not even for giving me any score, and I asked only once.
His other "kind words" clearly show what kind of person he really is and what does the "love for science" mean to him. Quoting again:
"You are just a crank like others, what I call "obscurantists"."Not very professional way of reviewing, ain't it?
"You stand with the crowd of ignorants who have no clue about science and pretend to refute it, and dominate this contest by their large numbers. They believe that they are a persecuted minority, now they are happy to find themselves in large number in this contest, and they imagine that it will make them win against the elite of scientists who commit the crime of dominating the world by their higher intelligent that the people decided to dismiss as fake. Just like a Marxist revolution, they believe they will create heaven on Earth by massively standing up and killing the minority intellectuals which they accuse of all their miseries. I stand for science (yes, the Copenhagenists and such)."(Seems like this guy has some serious mental problems, and when he encounters anything he disagree with, he releases a whole lot of aggression and unfounded accusations. I can also see some signs of paranoia.)
"There is no problem about division by zero. There are only idiots who make problems of from this joke by inventing the need of dividing by zero where it does not make sense and they are making up the idea that it should make sense and that we can get an amazing problem to solve by senselessly throwing signs on a paper and insisting it should surely mean something wonderful just because it is senseless, so that it is surely wonderful to wonder what a senseless pack of random symbols absurdly aligned on a piece of paper, like a painting done by the tail of a donkey, should really mean. You can get the same thrill by studying the sentence "This sentence is false", if such nonsense is what you are fond of."(Typical strawman argument, he tried to impute me something which he could then object to.)
"It seems you are inventing problems which do not exist, only because of your own failure to understand what is already clearly understood."Sorry I do not think this is serious.(A remark regarding my statement that differential calculus does not require infinitesimals and limits, since I show in my essay how it can be done with just finite numbers and their ratios, using simple geometry and basic algebra.)
Seeing your essay, it appears that you do not know quantum physics. I think there is not much one can have to say about fundamental questions in these conditions.(Well, he surely knows me better than I do, then, despite he has never met me and he couldn't have any ways to find how much do I know about quantum physics I supposedly know nothing about. But oh well, being judgmental doesn't need proofs.)
I guess that telling about that to the organizers won't change anything (I already did it and nothing has changed under the sun), so I wrote this comment only to make it clear to other contestants who hold to their values and don't use their scores to diss other people.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lee Bloomquist wrote on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 17:59 GMT
Brendon,
Will the essay and comments be archived after the contest is over?
Or, will they be deleted after the contest?
I ask because I've posted links to my essay on other blogs, and if the essay and comments are deleted after the contest I will have to put them somewhere else.
However, would that be a violation of copyrights?
Or, is it OK to copy the comments to another web site and then link all my blog references to the new web site?
L
report post as inappropriate
En Passant wrote on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 08:32 GMT
I would like to nominate Gary Simpson’s comment as being “the best in this contest.” Its timestamp is “Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 24, 2015 @ 21:27 GMT,” on Sophia Magnusdottir’s essay page.
It combines math, physics, (importantly) humor, and a good dose of the human element.
But I have a question for Gary. By any chance, does the “other tribe” live in Tennessee,...
view entire post
I would like to nominate Gary Simpson’s comment as being “the best in this contest.” Its timestamp is “Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 24, 2015 @ 21:27 GMT,” on Sophia Magnusdottir’s essay page.
It combines math, physics, (importantly) humor, and a good dose of the human element.
But I have a question for Gary. By any chance, does the “other tribe” live in Tennessee, Kentucky, or West Virginia? It could hardly be Georgia. They ain’t even got mountains (well, in parts thereof).
For convenience, I copy Gary’s comment below.
“Dear Pragmatic Physicist,
I think that perhaps we are related. My name is Practical Engineer. I enjoyed your essay quite a bit. I especially liked it when the time traveler was introduced to the Fire God.
Myself and my fellow tribesmen have been doing what you describe for a long time although we did not realize that it had any formalisms. We know that certain problems in heat transfer and fluid mechanics and mass transfer can be represented by certain forms of differential equations. We also know that certain electrical devices can be described by the same types of differential equations. None of us are very good with math, but my cousin Sparky can build those electrical boxes really good. So what we do is simplify the mathematical equations into common forms that use dimensionless numbers. My favorite is the Reynolds number but there are others like Nusselt and Prandtl. So cousin Sparky builds the box. Then we measure the voltage and the current at the different points of interest. Then we use the dimensionless groups to convert from volts and amps into mass and pressure or whatever we need to know.
The only problem is that it is a little expensive and slow. And if cousin Sparky makes a mistake then we have to start over.
There is another tribe on the other side of the mountain. We are on friendly terms with them. They aren't very good with math either. They made this thing they call a wind-tunnel. They claim to be able to fly. We think they're crazy.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson”
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
En Passant wrote on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 21:06 GMT
If I were a stock trader looking for undervalued opportunities, I would invest heavily in “Thoughts on a Theory of Theories by Daniel Braun” and “How not to factor a miracle. by Derek K Wise.”
Both of them are undervalued by a percentage sufficient to retire on. I have not rated them as yet (and I am not happy with Mr. Wise not answering any comments).
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier wrote on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 19:35 GMT
Hello. Since I announced my
general review of this contest, I kept reviewing essays and expanded my list of those I found best, which is now more than 20 (ordered into 3 lists), and almost finished (I indicated those I still intend to review). I hope I did not miss any valuable one here. As I initially indicated, I still observe a big discrepancy between community rating and real value, so that the few good essays are now lost and hard to find in a flow of poor ones. So, I hope my review will be helpful for those who wish to mot miss the most interesting essays, and would have a similar sense of scientific quality.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 20:22 GMT
Dear Sylvain Poirier,
Quoting from your chart, leaving out your show of weakness:
"QM: Scientific attempts = Hidden variables, Spontaneous collapse ;
Pure xxx = local deterministic realism, e.g. by E.E.Klingman (calls himself "physicalist" here but expressed spiritualism in another essay)"
Where is spiritualism expressed in Dr. Klingman's essay?
James Putnam
[My followup edit had only to do with capitalizing the 'K' in Dr. Klingman's name.]
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 15:08 GMT
James,
Don't waste your breathe. The Truth is that FQXi operates under tax rules as a foundation which grants tax write-offs to contributing sponsors to promote Public Interest in the sciences. If someone is on a personal mission to reform academia, and purge a public forum of the public, perhaps they are in a position to provide for the financial support to operate as a dedicated Quantum Mechanical peer review journal. Or their own personal blog might just not be as much of a draw as they think it deserves. Who cares? By the way, I found the pdf of your 'A New Gamma', thanks. jrc
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 18, 2015 @ 19:59 GMT
John,
It turns out after reading Sylvain Poirier's website that, I shouldn't pursue this discussion any further. I hope my "A New Gamma" makes some sense for you. Thank you for taking the time to read it.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 18, 2015 @ 20:23 GMT
Sylvain Poirier,
You haven't given references that show support for your view of science. A reference would be a name of a person who shows agreement for one or more of your clearly stated specific positions. Your opinion of this contest and its rating system does not substitute as a response. You haven't given an example of what you call spiritualism. An example would be a quote. You missed the point of my last message, it was the "XXX". I have visited your website and read from it. I oppose your theory for fixing the world. I have read your essay but will not be rating it nor commenting. I did rate Dr. Klingman's earlier essay highly. For reasons that have to do mostly with reading from your website, I have decided to not continue this current discussion.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier replied on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 18:27 GMT
In particular I had already given in my review page the reference of the
foreword by Richard Conn Henry to his edition of A. Eddington's book, clearly stating that quantum physics refutes materialism (please read that whole page for details). I admit that I did not announce it well enough to make it clear how important it is as a scientific reference on this topic, so that you should look at it if you need a reference on that claim. But anyway it exists, and I did provide references, so you can see I'm not making things up remaining isolated in that claim of the opposition between materialism and quantum physics. And you can verify yourself that generally most physicists working on quantum foundations and only looking for materialistic interpretations (since they reject any fundamental role of consciousness by pure philosophical prejudice), admit that they can't find any such interpretation coherent enough to seem acceptable by a majority.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 21:25 GMT
Sylvain Poirier,
You are welcome to the last word.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 11:02 GMT
Dear Sylvain,
Contests FQXi - is primarily a contests of new ideas on fundamental questions. It is very difficult to compare the texts of 200 essays by the presence of new ideas. I believe that a better analysis and comparison is not on the cell «... ism» -Spiritual
ism, Agnostic
ism, Naturalism, Scientism (Platonism), Obscurantism (Anti-Platonism). Idealism, Postmodernism. Materialism, and the comparison of new ideas in visual form as a table. Each author fills in their part of the table. Just so you can see new ideas proposed by all the authors in graphic form on a single sheet.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 11:18 GMT
The generalized author table: new ideas, new concepts, new images, new models...
report post as inappropriate
Sylvain Poirier replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 15:05 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Of course I agree with you, that the right purpose of the contest is about the value of new ideas, no matter the philosophical orientation they might support. When writing this classification, I did not intend to put it forward as any kind of right way to judge the value of ideas. Indeed in my top list I included essays which are in a different category than my own (but still...
view entire post
Dear Vladimir,
Of course I agree with you, that the right purpose of the contest is about the value of new ideas, no matter the philosophical orientation they might support. When writing this classification, I did not intend to put it forward as any kind of right way to judge the value of ideas. Indeed in my top list I included essays which are in a different category than my own (but still on the "scientism" side of my classification, I admit, for reasons you can easily understand) : the essays by Peter Woit and Martin Seltmann which have no mention of consciousness ; the one by Marc Seguin that explicitly supports the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.
Instead, my main goal in developing this classification, was to develop an understanding of what was going wrong : how to explain that some good essays got bad ratings and some bad ones get high ratings. I propose to explain this unfortunate phenomenon as caused to a significant extent by ideological factors, where people are more likely to give higher rates to essays on their ideological side than those on an opposite side, no matter if anyone explicitly provides such a classification or not. And also to point out the incompetence factor. Of course the reality is very complex, and not everything can fit in any simply expressible classification. If anyone else wishes to offer their own classification or description, either a global one or a description of their own "side", they are welcome. I did not intend my picture to be complete or always accurate, however I thought that a partial picture giving a first approximation of some important trends, was better than no picture at all.
Now I am glad to see that the essay by Alexey and Lev Burov, which I added to my top list of best essays when it had a not so good rate (5.0) finally made it to the top 30 of community rating (rate 5.9), and thus will be finalist. However others in my top list (the one by Martin Seltmann which I recently added as I read it, and the one by Peter Woit), are only not far from the top 30 of community rating. I hope they will be added to the list of finalists. As for my own essay, I did my best to fit with the guidelines, offering original and effective answers to many of the questions asked there, with details and scientific arguments in references, so I dare to hope it will be considered as well, in spite of the rather low community rating it still has (it only went up to the top half in the last times, where it was not before).
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 20:05 GMT
Dear Sylvain,
I agree with you, and you did a great job. In your opinion subjective - this opinion and evaluation of one of the 203 contestants. The question is not even in the ratings, and how to see in a compressed form all the new ideas participants of the Contest to better compare the value and importance of the essay for solving fundamental questions?
A total of seven Contests - 1221 essays. What new ideas have been, as you can see them all together? Read all the essays? That's impossible. Even 203 essays is very difficult to read. Therefore, it is desirable to more visual presentation of new ideas along with the essay. In a word: "Show Me a New Ideas!"
Visibility makes it possible to better evaluate the essay. Essays may be weak, but some one idea can be the most important for solving fundamental questions of science.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 04:49 GMT
Hi Brendan..
Now that the ratings deadline has passed, how soon will it be before the full list of qualifiers is known? There never was an announcement of who were the finalists in the video contest. I read in the guidelines that the selection process for finalists is a little different this year, with 30 in the core group and an additional 10 essays to be determined...
If I counted right; simply selecting all entries scoring 5.2 or above yields 41 finalists and includes all of the FQXi member entries. Now that might be too simple, but it would serve the purpose. I seem to have read 'up to 40 finalists' but there were over 200 entries after all. It would be nice to know how high a non-member needs to score, in order to qualify, and also nice to be able to say for sure whether I got in to the final judging.
Since I have many friends in this contest; it would also be nice to know whom to congratulate, or whether it's better to wait until later. Will an announcement be made?
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 05:03 GMT
Oops sorry..
I just checked the FQXi members list. There were entries by Alexei Grinbaum and Sara Imari Walker. I don't know what the minimum number of ratings was, but at least one of those entries is probably an automatic inductee in the finals.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Neil Bates wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 17:39 GMT
Dear Community,
Voting is now over, but discussion should not end with it. I invite entrants and other readers to keep communicating at essays. Maybe, with the pressure about ratings off, we can be more sincere and productive. There are many excellent philosophical meditations and overviews of foundational issues among the essays, and quite a few I think should have been rated higher. If you are more interested in specific physical insights or predictions (or discussions of previous experimental results and their implications, etc.) there are some examples.
Other authors can speak best for themselves, so I note that in the latter category, I offered a possible and novel (as best I know, at this level of combined generalization) explanation for space having three large dimensions in
my essay. It applies known physics, generalizing electromagnetic inertia and mutual interactions between accelerating charges - as well as an intuitively more clear way to appreciate resolution of the "4/3 paradox." There are no new theories or special perspectives etc., although I also address the larger foundational questions. There is plenty of discussion already of some details, and I thank commenters for many fine compliments, challenges, and food for thought.
Last but not least: once again I appreciate the chance to compete with a diverse group of entrants delving into our ultimate mysteries and prospects. This contest included a few notable scientists, many of the often un-sung hard workers in various fields, and gallant and sometimes outstanding work from amateurs and independents, such as myself. Thank you!
Regards,
Neil Bates
report post as inappropriate
Neil Bates wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 17:42 GMT
BTW, I see an edit link near my comment, but I'm sure I didn't from my home laptop at essays etc. (using Chrome.) Is there a browser or OS distinction, whether we can use that? It sure would have helped to have access to it before (and lots of others will agree)! tx
report post as inappropriate
Michał Studencki replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 17:55 GMT
I second that question. I also noticed that my edit button has gone somewhere, despite I'm logged in. A bug perhaps? It might be related to rating, since I noticed that the edit button disappeared after I logged in to the voting system.
Edit: Correction, the edit button works in this forum, but I cannot edit my posts in my essay's thread (there the edit button is not there).
Oh, and since we speak about technical aspects of this website:
There's one little thing that annoys me very much: The linking to posts is broken. A link doesn't work if the referred post is buried somewhere in the hidden thread, so following replies is almost impossible, unless one first unfolds all the hidden threads and only then clicks the link.
There's also problem with linking to particular posts since one has to figure out the correct id for the anchor from other links, such as "report post as inappropriate" etc. It would be better if the headings of the posts, or their timestamps, were clickable links which one could then copy & paste somewhere else as a URL leading directly to that post. Of course it would require solving the former problem first, for the linking system to work.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 8, 2015 @ 03:57 GMT
Since they are not announcing anything..
I want to congratulate everyone for making it into the finals. I am thinking that 5.4 may be the cutoff; but who knows? The rules appear to be written so that anyone can be inducted into the pool of finalists. So I want to thank FQXi and congratulate all of the lucky winners.
Warm Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Alan M. Kadin replied on May. 13, 2015 @ 14:43 GMT
Jonathan,
I think you may be right with your suggested cutoff of 5.4 among non-members for the finals, but that may depend on whether the FQXi administrators strictly follow the rules on auto-inducted member entries. According to the rules, such auto-inducted members must have submitted at least 5 comments on other essays. I identified 15 member essays, of which 6 do not appear to have submitted 5 comments (based on the Search tool on the FQXi website). Of those 6, 4 have community ratings below 5.4, and should thus not be among the base set of 30 finalists. But we may never know, if the FQXi administrators do not release the list of finalists.
Incidentally,
my FQXi essay is rated 5.5, although it was 5.9 prior to the last day of Community Ratings.
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Neil Bates wrote on Jun. 5, 2015 @ 00:43 GMT
Dear Contest Administrators,
I have not yet seen a list (or implied by giving the final specific criterion) of the finalists even at this late date. Maybe I missed something, but looked in the obvious spots. Sure, we can guesstimate from the stated policy about where the cutoff would be. Yet there are variables, and surely everyone would appreciate seeing that announced some time before the announcement of winners. That would be real close to final announcements anyway, but it would be more "businesslike" and give everyone a better picture of how they fit into things. Your, or anyone's thoughts and communications? Thank you.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jun. 5, 2015 @ 01:14 GMT
Neil,
I'd have to go back and check contest rules and subsequent announcements, but if I recall correctly, June 5,2015 is the scheduled date for announcing awards to entrants. jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jun. 5, 2015 @ 18:37 GMT
Neil,
I just researched and the announcement date is tomorrow, june 6. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Neil Bates replied on Jun. 5, 2015 @ 19:23 GMT
John, thank you,
However, I was referring to the larger list of about 40 finalists (or more precisely, the rule that demarcates them) rather than the smaller set of actual winners. Usually the former is released a few weeks after the voting ends. At this late date, I'll just relax and hope I do well.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jun. 5, 2015 @ 20:32 GMT
Good luck Neil!
And good luck to all who entered the contest, especially those who didn't know for sure if they were finalists. And thanks again to FQXi for hosting an event where one does not need to be a professional researcher to participate. Perhaps such a setting is the best chance some of us have to share our ideas with those who do Physics for a living. And of course we get to read about their good ideas too. With luck; we all learn something - amateurs and professionals alike.
Thanks to all who helped make this contest happen.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jun. 7, 2015 @ 17:18 GMT
It would be sweet..
If the organizers know how the evaluation process is going, that information would be good to tell the rest of us. Since June 6th has come and gone, without any information given, it is not unreasonable to expect that some preliminary announcement is made in the absence of final contest results - to inform us of when those results will be made known.
Of course; the FQXi folks may be too busy trying to tally all of the evaluations, so they can get the word out to the winners. But there are others waiting to hear what's up too. I really don't expect to be in the winner's circle this year, but I would be surprised if I have no friends and colleagues to congratulate - once the announcements are made.
So please let us know what is up.
Warm Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
adel sadeq wrote on Jun. 7, 2015 @ 20:49 GMT
Maybe it is a hung jury. The essays maybe are equally good or equally bad.
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Jun. 8, 2015 @ 19:27 GMT
Greetings everyone -- I would like to announce that we wlll announce the winners of the contest on Wednesday at 12 noon ET. I'll post more details as soon I have them. Thanks all for your patience.
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jun. 9, 2015 @ 02:22 GMT
Thanks Brendan..
for giving us something concrete to work with. We appreciate that this is a topic with some unique subtleties, which is near and dear to FQXi members. I and many others look forward to learning the decisions of the advisory panel and I think we all appreciate being kept in the loop.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jun. 9, 2015 @ 02:24 GMT
I should add..
Now we have something to look forward to.
Regards,
JJD
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Jun. 10, 2015 @ 22:12 GMT
Hi all -- The list of winners is
posted here!
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.