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 3/31/15 at 15:06pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Ternyik, I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally...

Stephen Ternyik: on 2/23/15 at 5:04am UTC, wrote Hello Akinbo ! Syntropy (negentropy) was researched by E. Schrödinger,...

Akinbo Ojo: on 2/22/15 at 13:20pm UTC, wrote Hello Stephen, Your essay is certainly an interesting new way of looking...

Stephen Ternyik: on 2/16/15 at 10:19am UTC, wrote Yes, Miss.Sujatha Jagannathan ! The mathematical method searches for...

Sujatha Jagannathan: on 2/16/15 at 8:58am UTC, wrote Your approach to the subject is more societal. Good read! Sincerely, ...

Stephen Ternyik: on 2/14/15 at 6:38am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir ! Thank you, I will read your essay and post my impression...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 2/13/15 at 13:40pm UTC, wrote Dear Stephen, Thank you for your kind response. I invite you to also read...

Stephen Ternyik: on 2/13/15 at 12:11pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir ! Spacibo for the Noskov song and your thoughtful response....


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "Hello all, I liked these fuzzballs and this artcile,congratulations to Mrs..." in Fuzzballs v Black Holes

John Taylor: "Tell me what you think of this thought experiment: How significant are..." in Quickfire Quantum Qs

Edwin Pole II: "Sorry for elementary question. Trying to understand quantum theory. Basic..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...

John Taylor: "Tell me what you think of this thought experiment: How significant are..." in Physics of the Observer...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello all, Congratulations to winners and thanks to FQXi for this..." in What Is Fundamental? –...

Hector Zenil: "Thanks. Yes, that link shows the prerequisites. I can add that at times..." in New Online Course:...

Laverne Klein: "Nice one" in FQXi's New Large Grant...

Yahoo support: "I actually did not understand the blog what the author wants to convey, so..." in Co-Travelers


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion
Einstein’s relativity pushes physicists towards a picture of the universe as a block, in which the past, present, and future all exist on the same footing; but maybe that shift in thinking has gone too far.

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.


FQXi FORUM
May 26, 2018

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Tricky Maths and Physical Truths of the Natural Sciences by Stephen I. Ternyik [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 16, 2015 @ 21:13 GMT
Essay Abstract

The role of the mathematical method in modern science is explained; the future prospect of methodical maths is explored, pointing to the creative limitations of the Aristotelian, Gödelian and Einsteinian universe.Formal systems of abstract reasoning are weighted against the balancing function of ethical systems of morality. A natural science of humanity/humanistic science of nature is envisioned as scientific idea and ideal.

Author Bio

Stephen I. Ternyik (b.1960); social science economist (-1985), entrepreneur & researcher (www.stephen.ternyik.scienceoflife.nl ; www.sociostudies.org/authors/ternyik_stephen_i/

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 17, 2015 @ 00:36 GMT
Morality and the other disciplines lack a key component of physics - they lack a measure of goodness with which to compare. In morality I suggest ``survival'' is that standard. Ever hear the truism `` no good deed goes unpunished''? When measured against survival, what is thought a good deed is a bad deed which reduces the survival of the giver. Therefore, it is a punishable offense. After this definition, the measures seem quantifiable.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Jan. 17, 2015 @ 07:44 GMT
The scaling of egosim vs. altruism is indeed an interesting research project and your idea for quantification is surely applicable. In the economic world, for example, this would be the scaling of private wealth maximization vs.public wealth minimation, i.e. your proposal can clarify the roots of social conflicts, war and revolution (with or without terror). It is my hope that humanity can get out of this trap which your are mentioned very clearly.

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 23:47 GMT
Dear Stephen,

You trace the use of math from early astronomy and accounting and along "specific cultural knowledge transfer corridors." And you beautifully mention "hidden interplay of eternal matter and living matter." You observe the efficacy of mathematics in the natural science while noting that humanities and social science lack the cognitive efficiency of methodical math, and thus often get stuck in "endless interpretive linear word chains or quasi-scientific literature."

This is, of course, because counting-based math applies perfectly to the 'eternal matter' or physical universe, while there are no equations which govern the free will of the 'living matter', in which consciousness holds sway. For large numbers of particles, statistics will in most cases suffice, but whether individual or society, the use of statistics on 'living matter' is always conditional, and can never cope with changes occasioned by free will. I'm not optimistic that "a natural science of humanity" is possible, or even convinced that it is desirable. The best we could hope for is probably an economic accounting or optimal resource distribution system, and even this is, as you say, 'tricky'. I touched on some of these issues in my 2014 essay, "The Thermodynamics of Freedom."

I invite you to read my current essay and comment,

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Jan. 19, 2015 @ 05:56 GMT
Dear Edwin ! An economic accounting method that would lead to optimal resource distribution would be a quantum leap forward and I will keep this idea in mind, for further elaborations of the economic problem (e.g.with: www.sociostudies.org). Lib Thims, Institute of Human Thermodynamics (Chicago),can see no free will in human beings; I think that we should talk about degrees of freedom-of-choice.As maths is the grammar of science, the basic grammar of maths is most probably geometry; using such a methodical key to deeper understand the nature of human behavior/action is actually the new frontier of science. And as Bell found out, even 'simple' nature does not behave according to classical physical concepts, i.e. complexity starts without free will/choice. I will surely read into your essays for more Information about your work and ideas; let me also say that I believe in the power of free choice if rationality and morality are balanced via a tricky methodical key. Very best wishes: stephen

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 20:31 GMT
Thanks for your comment on my essay. I found your essay interesting so I commented about survival. I’ve read some of your web site.

The papers 2014 contest paper and Survival is the only moral goal of life

I disagree with Laird Scranton or John deMeo. I prefer Diamond’s history (``The world until Yesterday’’ and ``Guns, Germs and steel’’) instead. Part of farming is to eat animals - just not wild animals. Secondly, history is spread over hundreds of years. The initial farm communities could advance only if the survived against the raiders. All religions have some creation myth and a view of 1) How matter is formed, 2) how the universe formed, 3) how molecules of life form, and 3) how society is formed. But the key ability of science is to place emphasis on predictability (knowledge) and the ability to cause outcomes (wisdom) rather than authority.

Diamond suggests (I interpret) that the producers (hunters to farmers) needed to have some protection and to farm needed some division of labor. For this society grew larger with soldiers and politicians. But excessive taxation created the aristocracy that over taxed and over regulated so society disintegrated. The millennia have seen several attempts to form larger societies. Each step of progress was measured by the power and survivability. You seem to be searching for ``what is the next structure?’’

I see you place great emphasis in drawing analogies of society and some science models. But science begins with a measure. Get the measure right and then apply math and analogies.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John C Hodge replied on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 20:46 GMT
try again

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=694

Surviva
l is the only moral goal of life] Survival is the only moral goal of life


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Jan. 26, 2015 @ 05:07 GMT
Thank you John ! Will read into the 2 papers and be back to you; analyzing societal growth via natural principles is a relatively new direction of scientific research, but the elaboration of proper methodology is already in the making.Best: stephen

Bookmark and Share



Author Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 31, 2015 @ 16:47 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher ! Yes, an abstraction is only a methodical key to sort out data about the real world; for those who suffer, suffering is real and this is the reason why feelings are more real than abtract formulae.It is real that Stephen can wrize to Joe (and vice versa) and to maybe deeper understand the structure of human experiences; the intersection of our perceptions of reality is, of course, not maths or physics, but a mutual intuition that it can make fun and sense to learn from each other.Just as Hungarian mathematician Erdös always said:my mind is open.An open mind needs an open heart and if we opt for free choice, only our heart beat is real.Cordially: stephen

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 15:56 GMT
Dr. Ternyik,

I am afraid your post on my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL offended me. Google had no listing for Kelvin Abraham:/www.tettyonics.com/

RATIONALSCEPTICISM did have an article about Kelvin Abraham at url http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/tetryonics-t
42862.html

How could you be so ignorant so as to believe that my explanation of reality has anything to do with Abraham's mad abstractions that are sillier than the ones you listed in your essay?

An apology would be welcome.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 16:21 GMT
Geometry and graphic illustrations are a methodical way to look at reality; if interpretations are to be valued as mad or silly is not my ball park as I am not interested in the psychopathology of scientific approaches. An open mind does not limit perceptions to self-made postulations of reality, but tries to communicate with the complexity of reality. This may be a painful road, but a more profound understanding of different views is the essence of being and becoming.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 13, 2015 @ 10:13 GMT
Dear Stephen,

I read with interest your essay and your website. Your essay, your ideas are close to me in spirit and focus thoughts on the value of human life. There is no doubt that the picture of the world of physicists and mathematicians should be the same rich senses of life as a picture of the world poets .

Good luck in the contest,

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Feb. 13, 2015 @ 12:11 GMT
Dear Vladimir ! Spacibo for the Noskov song and your thoughtful response. Only the poets can redeem this world, as S.Tchernikovsky stated; but poetry and the maths of probability have a lot in commom, concerning the grammar of life and the living spirit of deep understanding, telepathy included. Will study your ontological approach at vixra. Best wishes and cordially: stephen

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 13, 2015 @ 13:40 GMT
Dear Stephen,

Thank you for your kind response. I invite you to also read my essay

on this contest and evaluate my ideas onto-topological basis of fundamental knowledge.

Good luck in the contest,

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Feb. 14, 2015 @ 06:38 GMT
Dear Vladimir ! Thank you, I will read your essay and post my impression your site. Best wishes and cordially: stephen

Bookmark and Share



Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 08:58 GMT
Your approach to the subject is more societal.

Good read!

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 10:19 GMT
Yes, Miss.Sujatha Jagannathan ! The mathematical method searches for time-consistent truth via tricky constructions; however, as a precise product of the human mind, it is socially contingent on conditioning and conditions, i.e. on time-inconsistent factors like human communication/forms of knowledge transfer, e.g. a good example is the biography and role of Fibonacci in Europe, concerning accounting methods (esp. number system).As a result, I do not believe like Kronecker that maths relates to G-d or divinity;thus the very important question remains: How time-consistent is natural law in relation to the human mind? Thank you for commenting and my very best wishes: stephen

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 22, 2015 @ 13:20 GMT
Hello Stephen,

Your essay is certainly an interesting new way of looking at the picture. I didn't quite get the meaning of what you meant by 'syntropy'. Could you please clarify?

Thanks.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Feb. 23, 2015 @ 05:04 GMT
Hello Akinbo ! Syntropy (negentropy) was researched by E. Schrödinger, A.Szent-Györgyi and L.Fantappie; today, take a look at: www.lifeenergyscience.it ; Dr. di Corpo has also written a book on: The Law of Syntropy. As a physician, you will be surely interested in this look on 'life'. Best: stephen

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 31, 2015 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Mr. Ternyik,

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.