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 4/1/15 at 18:36pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Tournayre, I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally...

Tejinder Singh: on 2/21/15 at 3:35am UTC, wrote Dear Christophe, Your ideas on contextually, transitivity and complexity...

Christophe Tournayre: on 2/20/15 at 18:32pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe, Agreed. You see the surface of a table, then you walk around the...

Sujatha Jagannathan: on 2/16/15 at 7:24am UTC, wrote Your experimental thoughts shows that its more conditional subjectively. ...

Christophe Tournayre: on 2/15/15 at 15:13pm UTC, wrote Hello Akinbo, Your question is interesting. In my view, if 1 and 2 are...

Akinbo Ojo: on 2/15/15 at 11:55am UTC, wrote I meant 1 electron + 2 electrons = 3 electrons

Akinbo Ojo: on 2/15/15 at 11:40am UTC, wrote Hello Christophe, Thanks for sharing your perspective of things through...

basudeba mishra: on 2/9/15 at 18:07pm UTC, wrote Dear Sir, While essentially agreeing with your views, we would like to put...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Eckard Blumschein: "Steve, As mandatory precondition of my promotion almost half a century..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Robert, You referred to "Philosophers On a Physics Experiment that..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Superpostions are irrelevant to any description of a thing "as it is"; they..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "What exists unobserved is relevant to QM. Whether it is modeled..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "this second law is so important,my theory of spherisation and these quantum..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

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

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

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


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
October 16, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Physics, mathematics: using information theory by Christophe Tournayre [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Christophe Tournayre wrote on Jan. 27, 2015 @ 21:55 GMT
Essay Abstract

In this short essay, I propose to explore the relationship between physics and mathematics using components of the information theory.

Author Bio

I am passionate about insights. In my professional life, I am designing supply chain solutions. I graduated in European Logistics Management.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 28, 2015 @ 21:47 GMT
The Kolmogorov complexity principle is what makes fractals so useful in transmitting information, describing nature. It also means the operation of nature in our scale applies at all scales - see my essay. I use trees use of energy.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Christophe Tournayre replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 21:10 GMT
You said fractal is useful transmitting information. I think it is close to the opposite, it is an open discussion ;-)

Fractals are one information duplicated in every dimension; it is poor in terms of information. That’s why they can be reduced.

If you say: e = the generic information of the fractal. Then you decide to derivate the fractal on it (it is a little bit abstract because I take complex information (e) as referential).

You get: d(e) = 0

(sorry for my poor math formalism)

Similarly, a line in a one dimension environment is a fractal.

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 8, 2015 @ 17:56 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your statement that “mathematical models are applicable to physical objects when the information variance between the two is null” is important because validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality and mathematics is a quantitative description of Nature. Further, measurement is a process of comparison between similars. This implies not “switching arbitrarily any variables in a model”. Reducing to lower complexity is possible only where there is (part) similarity. When the similarities are non-linear, it can be long. The apparent randomness would depend on the pattern of non-linearity – the degree of complexity determines the length of chains.

Your second example is not related to complexity, but to interaction potential. The child is interested only on the objects trying to fit the triangle into the triangle slot, because, as you say, the bright colors have interaction potential for him.

Your statement that “objects that we perceive are contextual”, brings in the concept of mind or its equivalent with memory playing an important role. We may look without seeing, because our mind is elsewhere. The equation is not valid to prove context because it does not have a physical resemblance, whereas all contextual perceptions/operations are related to memory of earlier perception or programming. Transitivity is the degree of interaction potential.

Subject to one exception explained above, we enjoyed your very well written essay. You are welcome to read our essay.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 07:49 GMT
Dear Sir,

We clarify our statement: “all contextual perceptions/operations are related to memory of earlier perception” in the above post. Let us take the example of a dragon – a snake like creature that breathes fire. We know about snakes, fires, breathing and know the mechanism of breathing. But the special relation between them is non-existent, which makes the creature non-existent physically (at here-now). We see many such things in dream, where the constraints of the physical world are not present. But they are physically not possible. That relationship is zero, though the components are true and physical. The computers cannot dream. This is a difference that has to be kept in mind while designing memcomputers.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Christophe Tournayre wrote on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 10:38 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

Thank you for your comment. By context, I mean that there is information defining the object outside the object itself.

In physical science, the standard process is to dissociate the object from its environment to analyze it. For example, we analyze the speed of a car by comparing the object "car" from the object "road" and we exclude everything that is around them. Science has clearly shown that this approach is highly efficient.

This dissociation can be difficult to make or impossible. For example, in social science, objects are interacting with their environments making the dissociation difficult to do. Additionally, dissociating an object from its environment is an arbitrary decision that we make. Clearly, it is efficient but that does not mean that we are not losing information in the process.

Regards,

Christophe

Bookmark and Share


Author Christophe Tournayre replied on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 10:57 GMT
My last sentence was badly written, please replace:

"Clearly, it is efficient but that does not mean that we are not losing information in the process."

by

"Clearly, it is efficient but we could be losing information in the process."

Bookmark and Share


basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 18:07 GMT
Dear Sir,

While essentially agreeing with your views, we would like to put the language differently, as your language can be misleading. In our essay this year, we have defined language as the transposition of information to another system’s CPU or mind by signals or sounds using energy (self communication is perception). The transposition may relate to a fixed object/information. It can...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 15, 2015 @ 11:40 GMT
Hello Christophe,

Thanks for sharing your perspective of things through your essay. You dwell on mathematical relationships in your essay so let me ask:

Does 1 + 2 = 3, have a very high probability of being correct or is it a certainty?

Since you like new insights to consider, I speculate that it is not a certainty that 1 + 2 = 3 but a very, very, very high probability, with the probability increasing with the size of the object being counted and reducing with the size of the object.

In other words, 1 house + 2 houses = 3 houses is more likely to be correct than 1 electron = 2 electrons = 3 electrons.

As I discuss in my essay, it is more likely for an electron to perish than for a whole house during the process of counting to determine the sum total.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 15, 2015 @ 11:55 GMT
I meant 1 electron + 2 electrons = 3 electrons

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Christophe Tournayre replied on Feb. 15, 2015 @ 15:13 GMT
Hello Akinbo,

Your question is interesting. In my view, if 1 and 2 are completely independent, it is a certainty that 1 + 2 = 3. The condition is independence.

Now, you highlight that the nano world do not follow the same rules as the macro world. Experiments seem to validate but why?

I do not know. We can easily see that the distance between 2 houses is longer than the distance between 2 electrons so the degree of independence is higher? The issue with this approach is that distance is not transcendental so there is something more to understand.

I will come back to you if ideas come up. It is not an easy subject!

Regards,

Christophe

Bookmark and Share



Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 07:24 GMT
Your experimental thoughts shows that its more conditional subjectively.

Best of luck!

Respectfully,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Feb. 21, 2015 @ 03:35 GMT
Dear Christophe,

Your ideas on contextually, transitivity and complexity are undoubtedly interesting, and as you say, should be developed further. After reading your essay we understand better your comments on our essay. We agree that decontextualisation is important and relevant for an experimental physicist too - it is something we have implicitly assumed in our essay, but yes a careful examination of this process is called for [from everyday life events to an actual experiment...deciding what experiment to perform]. For instance, if we make the observation "A beautiful bird is sitting on a tree" , a physicist would decontextualise/abstract to first drop the adjective beautiful, and reduce the observation to the prosaic "An object is resting on a surface". And ask as to what are the forces responsible for this equilibrium. A mathematician / biologist / poet would decontextualise differently from a physicist.

We tend to agree with "sufficiently decontextualised as to be transitive" as a good starting point to make the physics - maths connection.

Best regards,

Anshu, Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 18:36 GMT
Dear Mr. Tournayre,

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.