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

Luigi Foschini: on 4/20/15 at 8:32am UTC, wrote Thank you very much for your kind post.

vincent douzal: on 4/17/15 at 22:06pm UTC, wrote Dear Luigi, Congratulations for your essay, With very sound ideas,...

Joe Fisher: on 4/3/15 at 16:27pm UTC, wrote I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about...

Luigi Foschini: on 2/27/15 at 7:55am UTC, wrote Thank you for your nice... and abstract post!

Sujatha Jagannathan: on 2/26/15 at 17:18pm UTC, wrote Yes, your trick is deviated from the truth. Sadly, Miss. Sujatha...

Koorosh Shahdaei: on 2/23/15 at 11:34am UTC, wrote Dear Luigi, Thank you for your contribution, I have brought up this...

basudeba mishra: on 2/23/15 at 11:16am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, Though after starting well you deviated from the topic, still it...

adel sadeq: on 2/22/15 at 18:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Luigi, I think you misunderstood the purpose of the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." 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...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

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

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...


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 23, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: The scientific construction of the world by Luigi Foschini [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Luigi Foschini wrote on Feb. 20, 2015 @ 21:38 GMT
Essay Abstract

There is no mysterious link between mathematics and physics, because both of them are human inventions designed to study the world.

Author Bio

Tenured Researcher at INAF Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera (Merate, Italy). I work mainly on active galactic nuclei and relativistic jets.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Paul Merriam wrote on Feb. 20, 2015 @ 23:46 GMT
"As Niels Bohr wrote, physics is

not the study of something given, but rather the development of methods to organise

and to measure the human experience [2]."

If that's true, then all we ask of science is to explain correlations in our inter-subjective reality, and not objective reality.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Luigi Foschini replied on Feb. 22, 2015 @ 13:59 GMT
Well, I don't like the words subjective-objective reality: things are much more complex than this easy dichotomy. But more or less I can say that - yes - we build the world by inter-subjective correlations. I can also cite more of his words:

It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is.

Physics concerns what can we say about nature.


reported by A. Petersen, "The philosophy of Niels Bohr", The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 1963, p. 8.

Bookmark and Share



adel sadeq wrote on Feb. 22, 2015 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear Luigi,

I think you misunderstood the purpose of the contest. The question being asked is why do you think that mathematics(in physics) seems to represent physical reality(not physics) faithfully.

Also you said

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is."

Why? Physics is NOT like asking where does god come from.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 23, 2015 @ 11:16 GMT
Dear Sir,

Though after starting well you deviated from the topic, still it is interesting reading. We have extended your ideas.

Wittgenstein’s definition of thinking is correct, but too sketchy, which you have elaborated. Thinking is a conscious action. Perception requires prior measurement of multiple aspects or fields and storing the result of measurement in a centralized system...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Feb. 23, 2015 @ 11:34 GMT
Dear Luigi,

Thank you for your contribution, I have brought up this question in the forum before, and also would like to ask your opinion in this regard. If we consider general relativity for spacetime curvature around mass (stellar bodies) that causes gravitational lensing, then I would argue for the plasma or dust that exists around luminous stars, and this plasma or dust regardless of its charge would bend the electromagnetic wave as the density of the plasma gets higher when getting closer to the star, which in its turn causes refraction of the light. This was not even touched in general relativity and no corrections are considered either. This means that explaining a physical phenomenon by math doesn’t necessarily tells us the whole story. This is also addressed in my article.

Kind Regards

Koorosh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 17:18 GMT
Yes, your trick is deviated from the truth.

Sadly,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 16:27 GMT
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


vincent douzal wrote on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 22:06 GMT
Dear Luigi,

Congratulations for your essay,

With very sound ideas, clearly stated. I feel very much at home with your exposition.

I completely adhere to your position that we interpret changes of state (information) as signs, that empirical facts do not speak by themselves, nor really exist by themselves, but as a result of an interpretation.

You would probably...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Luigi Foschini replied on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 08:32 GMT
Thank you very much for your kind post.

Bookmark and Share



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.