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

lukenlow lukenlow: on 7/2/18 at 11:44am UTC, wrote This is my favorite post on your site, I even saved a link to it so as not...

sussan betcher: on 4/30/18 at 11:48am UTC, wrote Your post had been very informative to know about Modern physics’...

Ashish Kochaar: on 4/20/18 at 5:47am UTC, wrote Calendar May 2018 is one of the very useful thing lkike you have shared...

vikas Singh: on 3/16/18 at 6:43am UTC, wrote Keep checking for more May Calendar April Calendar June Calendar

lionel john: on 3/13/18 at 8:56am UTC, wrote This is a great place to get valuable information regarding various topics...

vikas Singh: on 2/11/18 at 4:34am UTC, wrote click here

vikas Singh: on 2/11/18 at 4:33am UTC, wrote People around the world use calendars to manage their time and other work...

vikas Singh: on 2/10/18 at 7:48am UTC, wrote Keep on sharing more and useful information. http://trackingend.com/ click...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

John Cox: "Ajay, I was just looking in and gave your equation a quick eyeball. I see..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...

Lorraine Ford: "Georgina, 1. What “emerges” from cellular automata algorithms only..." in Agency in the Physical...

Lorraine Ford: "When will people [1] grow up and get over their absurd ideas about..." in Agency in the Physical...

Joe Fisher: "The sad fact is that no physicist has ever studied actual visible physical..." in SciMeter: A New Way to...

My Emilly: "Nice post,i like your article,great way of explanation.Looking for more..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

Chris Roger: "Hi, thanks for your nice article. It's really detailed and helpful gmail..." in What Is Fundamental? –...

Chris Roger: "Superb Information, I really appreciated with it, This is fine to read and..." in SciMeter: A New Way to...

Philip Chester: "Good post. I find out something new and challenging on articles I..." in New Online Course:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Usurping Quantum Theory
The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.

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.


FQXi FORUM
July 21, 2018

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Description Relativity on Mathematics versus Physics: The desired Theory of Everything from Metaphysics by Sascha Vongehr [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Sascha Vongehr wrote on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 01:25 GMT
Essay Abstract

Modern physics’ relativities, especially description relativity, which is slowly accepted through string-theory dualities for example, enlighten the mathematics versus physics dichotomy. Description relativistic metaphysics developed from enforcing consistency between dual perspectives, especially between more physicalist and purely mathematical description (logical realm) and for closely related conceptual dualisms (objective/subjective etc.). Applied practically, for example enforcing consistency between the “timelessness” of the mathematical realm and “flow of time” in causal physics, Einstein-Everett relativity falls out as a priori, metaphysically necessary, as well as scientifically exact, namely with the correct standard quantum correlation. The theory of everything (ToE), whatever mathematical physics it is, is a description. It must effectively describe also itself (everything!). The ToE thus obtains from describing it directly as a description with particular features simply due to being the ToE. Description relative metaphysics becomes or is nothing but the ToE. Obtaining the core of relativistic quantum theory with hints toward quantum-gravity unification and without empirical input confirms that description relative metaphysics obtains the desired ToE. This amazing (though expected) result justifies treating mathematics and physics as self-evidently consistent analytic logic of language somewhat like attempted by Gottlob Frege (1848-1925).

Author Bio

Dr. S. Vongehr, German diploma and BSc in theoretical physics (EM) & MSc (stringtheory) at Sussex University, UK, researched quantum gravity (black holes/two time theory) at the University of Southern California (USC). PhD (USC, 2005) on nanotech experiment and statistics of nontrivial cluster size distributions. Postdocs in neuroscience (USC), Nanotech [Nanjing University (NJU)], and Philosophy of Science (Cosmology, Emergent Gravity, critical Nanotech), NJU. Assist. research professor at National Microstructure Lab., NJU, Theoretical Nanotech and Foundations of Physics. As of 2014, over 50 scientific articles (37 SCI), 3 book chapters, 26 first author

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 05:26 GMT
Dear Sascha Vongehr,

You speak of logic "implying the physical" and state that an "External Reality Hypothesis" before a "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" must lead astray.

I believe that physical universe underlies logic, rather than is "an implication of logic." As I stand in the shower, shampooing my head and moving around with my eyes closed, I am guided by gravity, not by...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 07:26 GMT
"However, the Theory of Everything is precisely the theory that is by 'fundamentally satisfying definition' supposed to take account of – and therefore "allow" – all possible observations O. The correct ToE can therefore by definition not offer something that could be conceivably observed yet also refute the theory!"

Do you imply that the correct ToE would offer both propositions: "The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer" and "The speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer"?

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sascha Vongehr replied on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 15:14 GMT
No, that is not implied. That would not be a possible observation (safe for virtual world setups and suchlike (emergent strata without relativity)).

Bookmark and Share


Author Sascha Vongehr replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 03:56 GMT
IMPORTANT CORRECTION! IMPORTANT CORRECTION!

Also a comment further below indicates that an important sentence early on (page 2) is sadly misleading. The sentence “The correct ToE can therefore by definition not offer something that could be conceivably observed yet also refute the theory” has the “conceivably” modifying “observed yet also refute the theory,” not just “observed” alone. Please simply replace the “conceivably” by “possibly,” because this directly refers to Lee Smolin’s “could be possibly observed and would then refute the theory” quoted immediately before. The "possibly" only modifies "observable" alone. This correction preserves the meaning (no correction of the meaning is necessary), just without my misleading failure of expressing it more abstractly (thus confusing with rather more German than English grammar – sorry about that). So to be entirely clear, the sentence should read: “The correct ToE can therefore by definition not offer something that could be possibly observed yet also refute the theory”

Bookmark and Share


hasan bajwa replied on Jun. 27, 2017 @ 19:15 GMT
Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your blog? My blog is in the very same niche as yours and my users would definitely benefit from a lot of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this okay with you. Thank you! TV Live Online Streaming

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 13:40 GMT
"The correct ToE can therefore by definition not offer something that could be conceivably observed yet also refute the theory!"

Let me give a Wittgenstein type reply to this assertion: this is simply playing with words. Take for example the special theory of relativity. The conceivable observation are speeds higher than the speed of light. If you observe them then the theory no longer describes nature. For QM a falsifiable prediction would be correlations above the Tsirelson bound. For CM a falsifiable prediction would be correlations above the Bell limit.

The fault of the statement is that what can conceivably be observed (for falsification purposes) ARE NOT consequences of the theory (in the STR case above speeds above the speed of light). Looks like the statement got trapped in something resembling "the set of all sets" due to the E in ToE.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sascha Vongehr replied on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 15:08 GMT
Florin, you just got hung up on the word "conceivably" that I used here in an easily mistaken way as I realize now (it is in front of "observed yet also ...", not just in front of "observed"! Just delete "conceivably" if it helps).

Bookmark and Share


Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 15:28 GMT
Let me try this. Do you agree that the correct ToE must imply QM? If yes, here is a falsifiable prediction: no correlations should exceed the Tsirelson bound. Observe them and QM no longer describes nature.

How does this square away with: "not offer something that could be conceivably observed yet also refute the theory!"?

If you remove "conceivably", then you get your tautology: I think therefore I am. If from "A implies A" you get many-worlds, this is simply incorrect. Why? Because this implies that all other QM interpretations should either be inconsistent or should not exist. Well, they do exist, and they are not inconsistent. Show me the money. Show me in any interpretation you want (Bohmian, transactional, consistent history, etc) where they are inconsistent. If you manage to do that this would be a very big deal!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sascha Vongehr replied on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 14:49 GMT
The correct ToE, as I have shown, does imply QM! If you observe something that tells you that some QM2 does not describe nature, then you did obviously NOT have the correct ToE, but some wrong ToE2 (which predicts QM2).

The rest is nothing to do with my essay. Please do not paint straw men but stick to what I actually wrote about. I am in no mood to be told to show "money" about claims that are not mine.

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 14:42 GMT
Dear Dr. Vongehr,

Could you please explain to me why you thought that my comment about the real Universe was inappropriate?

You are I hope aware that suppression of the truth is unethical.

Eagerly awaiting your answer,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sascha Vongehr replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 00:40 GMT
Joe, I have no powers of deleting anything here at fqxi.

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Professor Vongehr,

You titled your essay: “Description Relativity on Mathematics versus Physics:

The desired Theory of Everything from Metaphysics.”

Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 15:35 GMT
Dear Sascha,

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


jenny rao wrote on Nov. 2, 2016 @ 07:30 GMT
We have used this tricks many times and i had been successful always to get clash royale free gems whenever you want.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


hasan bajwa wrote on Jun. 27, 2017 @ 18:18 GMT
Listen to Free Internet FM Radio Live Online Streaming. Enjoy live radio, music online. Bookmark favorite radio stations. Listen to the top-rated and most popular radio stations from all over the world.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


hasan bajwa wrote on Jun. 27, 2017 @ 19:05 GMT
We offer Best Audio Stream of All Radio genres, Enjoy FM Radio Online Streaming as You like, Bookmark favorite radio stations, we provide top-rated and most popular radio stations from all over the world.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ashish Kochaar replied on Oct. 26, 2017 @ 06:25 GMT
Very Thanks for sharing this useful new print calendar

Thanks a lot.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ashish Kochaar replied on Nov. 1, 2017 @ 08:01 GMT
I have left saying about that If you want to know more about me then

Click Here.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


vikas Singh wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 07:48 GMT
Keep on sharing more and useful information.

http://trackingend.com/ click here visit her Go Here Web Link

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


vikas Singh wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 04:33 GMT
People around the world use calendars to manage their time and other work activities.

Click Here and more.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


vikas Singh wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 04:34 GMT
click here

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


lionel john wrote on Mar. 13, 2018 @ 08:56 GMT
This is a great place to get valuable information regarding various topics related to the physics. I think this will be a wonderful site for all the researchers as well as the students who are looking to get details on the subject. Keep sharing more. private tour guide washington dc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


vikas Singh wrote on Mar. 16, 2018 @ 06:43 GMT
Keep checking for more May Calendar

April Calendar

June Calendar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ashish Kochaar wrote on Apr. 20, 2018 @ 05:47 GMT
Calendar May 2018 is one of the very useful thing lkike you have shared above with us in the forum topic.

Thanks for the sharing.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


sussan betcher wrote on Apr. 30, 2018 @ 11:48 GMT
Your post had been very informative to know about Modern physics’ relativities, especially description relativity, which is slowly accepted through string-theory dualities. Google Chrome running out of memory. Keep sharing more such informative topics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


lukenlow lukenlow lukenlow wrote on Jul. 2, 2018 @ 11:44 GMT
This is my favorite post on your site, I even saved a link to it so as not to lose it 192.168.l.254

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.