Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Joe Fisher: on 3/30/15 at 15:22pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Malys, I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally...

Nick Mann: on 3/13/15 at 22:59pm UTC, wrote Excellent paper. I love the diagram. Can't resist throwing this into the...

Theodore St. John: on 2/24/15 at 12:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Darius Malys, Nice work on your essay. You and I are clearly on the...

Darius Malys: on 2/22/15 at 14:42pm UTC, wrote I am glad that most people find my essay interesting to read.

Darius Malys: on 2/22/15 at 14:33pm UTC, wrote Hi, I agree with you. Physics remains physics, maths remains maths,...

Sujatha Jagannathan: on 2/16/15 at 8:28am UTC, wrote Your framework were interesting to read. Sincerely, Miss. Sujatha...

Richard Lewis: on 2/15/15 at 14:15pm UTC, wrote Darius, I did enjoy reading your essay although I lack a deep...

Akinbo Ojo: on 2/15/15 at 10:57am UTC, wrote Personally, I may not attribute the property of consciousness to a...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 19, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Philosophical Foundations of Mathematical Universe Hypothesis Using Immanuel Kant by Darius Malys [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Darius Malys wrote on Jan. 9, 2015 @ 22:27 GMT
Essay Abstract

Kant's transcendental philosophy is used to answer the questions about the nature of mathematics, how mathematics relates to the physical world, why we are self-aware and perceive ourselves in the world described by mathematics. Kant's architectonic system of reason is used to derive the invariant framework of the mind within which our thoughts originate - the original synthetic unity of apperception. It is the logical framework underlying all our possible knowledge - the framework of the cognitive faculty of understanding. This framework lies at the foundation of our thinking, logic, mathematics, natural language and organization of sense-data (experience). Phenomenal world in space and time is an output of this framework after the synthesis of the productive imagination. The nature of mathematics is discussed as based on this framework from intuitionist and logicist perspectives. Logic defines the structure of space and time.

Author Bio

Darius Malys is an undergraduate student of Mathematics at the University of Glasgow, Scotland. His passion is philosophy of science, especially digital philosophy. He research Kant and German idealism in the context of the present day problems of physics. At the moment he works as a CCTV systems engineer to earn money for studies.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Jan. 10, 2015 @ 13:04 GMT
Darius, thanks for your thought provoking essay, though I do not follow everything Kant said.

Kant is right that our experience is the root of our being. The external world is constrained to meet the requirements of our logical thought, but Kant wants more than that. He thinks temporal causality, space and time must be fundamental because they are how our mind perceives the world. Hume was...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John C Hodge replied on Jan. 10, 2015 @ 17:01 GMT
``Relativity and quantum theory have shown us that the intuitive instincts that are programmed into our mind are not the way the universe works. The only thing we can rely on to understand physics is logic. Our experience is one of the infinite set of logical possibilities that adhere to the rules of mathematical consistency. Those rules are prior, not our thoughts.’’

I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 13:50 GMT
There has in fact been a lot of progress towards combining relativity and quantum theory. True, the work is not complete. If it turns out that finishing requires us to return to concepts of absolute time and space with deterministic realism then Kant will be vidicated. But that is only the view of Kantian extremists and is very far from mainstream thought (you are still welcome to persue that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 14:07 GMT
By the way. I dont think my defense of relativity and quantum theory is in contradiction with encouraging and enabling people to challenge the status quo. As Smolin says, we need to be radical conservatives choosing what to accept and what to reject. We each need to test our own choices for how things work and the best way to do that is by letting those who disagree with us have their say. My own...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 07:57 GMT
Dear Darius Malys,

You have done a very nice job on your chosen topic. I tend to agree with Dedekind, Frege, and Russell that "mathematics is an extension of logic." Considering the time frame, ~1780, Kant constructed an amazing edifice, which in many regards still stands today. But naturally when it comes to physical details his is more metaphorical than actual. I would like to remark...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Darius Malys wrote on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 10:20 GMT
Thank you for your comments.

If you found this essay interesting you might find my full project interesting as well: https://www.academia.edu/8991727/Phenomenal_World_as_an_Outp
ut_of_Cognitive_Quantum_Grid_Theory_of_Everything_using_Leib
niz_Kant_and_German_Idealism

I have been thinking about possible Theory of Everything for 6 years now, and this is my humble...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Demond Adams wrote on Jan. 23, 2015 @ 20:38 GMT
Darius,

Thank you for providing an interesting essay. I have only one concern regarding the suggestion that logic is the fundamental aspect of nature and not mathematics. It would appear we need mathematics to define a statement of logical. Therefore, it would be logical to state mathematics is more fundamental than logic since it is a derivative of logic. It is almost a "chicken and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Darius Malys replied on Jan. 26, 2015 @ 07:53 GMT
hi,

thanks for your comment. If mathematics is fundamental and logic is derived from mathematics, then what is the place of natural language in the hierarchy? Is natural language somehow less fundamental than maths, is it derived from maths??

Bookmark and Share


Author Darius Malys replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 13:36 GMT
in addition to that, if, as you say, logic is derived from maths, then I don't see how to derive fundamental forces of physics from that.

Bookmark and Share



Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Feb. 4, 2015 @ 15:39 GMT
The Leech lattice forms a large error correction code, which can operate on the quantum level. This could form the basis for the ultimate encryption/decryption system. If we should have contact from extraterrestrial intelligence it could be that we decipher their messages using this. If so this would gives some weight to the idea that how our minds operate, or math-linguistics of human thought,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 14:47 GMT
Hello Darius,

I enjoyed the excursion into Kant's world. There are a couple of areas where my model shares similarities, such as building up our framework from time and space, and for the unit to have binary/ contradictory states. We differ in that while you prefer the unit circle, I prefer the extended point (Pythagorean monad) as the unit.

Having said that, may I ask if your Unit...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Darius Malys replied on Feb. 14, 2015 @ 16:35 GMT
Hello,

Pythagorean monad is similar to my monad (unit cell). A point expresses pure consciousness (or pure Reason) which is outside space and time and is eternal. When pure consciousness starts to think it acquires a boundary, that is becomes a unit circle. Time parameter moves around the unit circle which creates the vibration of the unit cell. This vibration (spontaneity - motion of the time parameter) is the process of thinking.

In the beginning 1 circle appears. Dialectic is the fundamental law of our reason. To be self-conscious it needs something other - the 2 circle appears and limits the first. They vibrate at opposite phases. That's the Big-Bang.

I will take a look at your essay when I have time.

7 + 5 = 12 is true because it follows from the fundamental structure of our mind which is at the same time the fundamental structure of space and time. But it is true only for objects in space and time.

Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 15, 2015 @ 10:57 GMT
Personally, I may not attribute the property of consciousness to a fundamental entity like a 'point' or 'monad'. I believe consciousness is a property of composite things.

Then in saying, "7 + 5 = 12 is true", the assumption is that during the mathematical procedure of summation, none of the things to be summed up can perish. This is only very highly probable but not a certainty...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Richard Lewis wrote on Feb. 15, 2015 @ 14:15 GMT
Darius,

I did enjoy reading your essay although I lack a deep understanding of the philosophical references in the essay.

I view the search for understanding as a process involving all the tools we have at our disposal including, logic, mathematical models, scientific observations and descriptive models.

I think your analysis goes deeper that this in a search for...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Darius Malys replied on Feb. 22, 2015 @ 14:33 GMT
Hi,

I agree with you. Physics remains physics, maths remains maths, epistemology remains epistemology, etc. They remain in their own field and do their own job.

However, it is one human reason which understands physical reality. Human reason is not separate for each discipline. If human reason one day achieves a final theory of everything in physics with models and equations, it would be absurd that this theory would not touch other fundamental disciplines at all. When we will understand the physical reality completely all fundamental disciplines will be aspects of one model/system/framework - the framework of our reason since all our understanding comes from our reason. This is what I have tried to do with my framework. We have to understand how consciousness gets to experience physical world (phenomena in space and time) and how it gets to understand the physical world through science such as mathematics and physics.

I have found that the structure known as ''flower of life'' is the fundamental structure of our mind and what Kant calls the synthetic unity of consciousness (apperception). It is the structure where our thoughts are formed as waves. It is the invariant structure underlying all our theories. Mathematics is based on this structure. Logic connects unit cells together. Natural language (universal grammar) is based on this structure. This structure is also the fundamental structure of space and time. Unit cell (unit circle) is the fundamental building block of physical reality and expresses pure consciousness. It is equivalent to string in string theory or loop in quantum loop gravity, etc.

Mathematics provides the framework for objects in space and time. Physics moves energy within this framework. Different modes of vibrations of cells and their groups gives different particles. Unit cell is a unit of sensory information. The framework is synthesized by the imagination and this yields experience of 3D world. So we can see how consciousness, human cognition, physics, mathematics, natural language, information theory relate together in one system of human experience of the phenomenal world.

Yes, philosophy is often quite hard to understand. Not because it is really difficult, but because philosophers often write in very confusing style and reading them is time consuming. Nevertheless, such philosophers as Kant are really worth studying.

Bookmark and Share



Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 08:28 GMT
Your framework were interesting to read.

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Darius Malys replied on Feb. 22, 2015 @ 14:42 GMT
I am glad that most people find my essay interesting to read.

Bookmark and Share



Theodore St. John wrote on Feb. 24, 2015 @ 12:02 GMT
Dear Darius Malys,

Nice work on your essay. You and I are clearly on the same page regarding your view of space and time: “Space is the form of all appearances of outer sense (A24, A26). Time is the form of inner sense (A33) and is the form of all appearances whatsoever (A34). Therefore a unit cell of our framework must have two forms of receptivity – inner (time) and outer (space)”. In fact, I think I have a good model, which I posted at http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0045 called the space-time-motion model, which represents space as outer potential that is transformed into actual (past) as inner time. You may enjoy it if you get a chance to read it.

I went a different route for this essay and wrote what I consider a more entertaining twist - sort of a blend of Knights of the Round Table and Lord of the Rings (See Doctors of the Ring - The Power of Merlin the Mathematician to Transform Chaos into Consciousness). It is based on my space-time-motion model, which I invite you to read and let me know what you think (email to stjohntheodore@gmail.com). Of course, I also invite you to read and rate Doctors of the Ring if you get the chance.

Respectfully,

Ted St. John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Nick Mann wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 22:59 GMT
Excellent paper. I love the diagram. Can't resist throwing this into the mix. Kant could be eloquent:

"In order to prevent any misunderstanding, it will be requisite, in the first place, to recapitulate, as clearly as possible, what our opinion is with respect to the fundamental nature of our sensuous cognition in general. We have intended, then, to say that all our intuition is nothing but the representation of phenomena; that the things which we intuite, are not in themselves the same as our representations of them in intuition, nor are their relations in themselves so constituted as they appear to us; and that if we take away the subject, or even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear; and that these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us."

This could have been Bohr, who was fundamentally a Kantian. And really, nothing that the Sage of Köningburg wrote has been much improved upon. You mention Wittgenstein. Here he is, the only time I know of talking largely about quantum physics and sounding pretty Kantian actually:

"The views of modern physicists (Eddington) tally with mine completely, when they say that the signs in their equations no longer have 'meanings', and that physics cannot attain to such meanings but must stay put at the signs. But they don't see that these signs have meaning in as much as -- and only in as much as -- immediately observable phenomena (such as points of light) do or do not correspond to them.

"A phenomenon isn't a symptom of something else: it is the reality. A phenomenon isn't a symptom of something else which alone makes the proposition true or false: it itself is what verifies the proposition."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 30, 2015 @ 15:22 GMT
Dear Mr. Malys,

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.