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.
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/discuss • winners
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/discuss • winners
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/discuss • winners
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/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
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/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
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/discuss • winners
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/discuss • winners
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/discuss • winners
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/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
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/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
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 4/8/15 at 15:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Spencer, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein...
Eckard Blumschein: on 3/28/15 at 4:48am UTC, wrote Dear Spencer, Between the lines it looks as if you were reluctant to...
Spencer Scoular: on 3/28/15 at 3:39am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard: Thank you for taking time to read my essay and provide...
Eckard Blumschein: on 3/26/15 at 5:20am UTC, wrote Dear Spencer Scoular, Yes, let's "look in the right place". Lee Smolin...
Spencer Scoular: on 3/20/15 at 21:56pm UTC, wrote Dear William: Thank you for your very kind words. To keep the article...
Spencer Scoular: on 3/20/15 at 21:47pm UTC, wrote Dear John: Thank you for your comments. Good luck with your model. Kind...
Joe Fisher: on 3/16/15 at 14:20pm UTC, wrote Even better, my theorem has now been declared "Obnoxious Spam" by FQXi.org....
Joe Fisher: on 3/15/15 at 14:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Scoular, You also wrote: "We may be approaching an important...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...
Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for sharing Georgina,it is nice.Friendly" in Alternative Models of...
Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...
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...
Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...
Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...
Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...
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.
Joe Fisher: on 4/8/15 at 15:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Spencer, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein...
Eckard Blumschein: on 3/28/15 at 4:48am UTC, wrote Dear Spencer, Between the lines it looks as if you were reluctant to...
Spencer Scoular: on 3/28/15 at 3:39am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard: Thank you for taking time to read my essay and provide...
Eckard Blumschein: on 3/26/15 at 5:20am UTC, wrote Dear Spencer Scoular, Yes, let's "look in the right place". Lee Smolin...
Spencer Scoular: on 3/20/15 at 21:56pm UTC, wrote Dear William: Thank you for your very kind words. To keep the article...
Spencer Scoular: on 3/20/15 at 21:47pm UTC, wrote Dear John: Thank you for your comments. Good luck with your model. Kind...
Joe Fisher: on 3/16/15 at 14:20pm UTC, wrote Even better, my theorem has now been declared "Obnoxious Spam" by FQXi.org....
Joe Fisher: on 3/15/15 at 14:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Scoular, You also wrote: "We may be approaching an important...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...
Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for sharing Georgina,it is nice.Friendly" in Alternative Models of...
Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...
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...
Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...
Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...
Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...
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 22, 2019
CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]
TOPIC: Physics, Mathematics, and the Theory of Something by Spencer Scoular [refresh]
TOPIC: Physics, Mathematics, and the Theory of Something by Spencer Scoular [refresh]
Essay Abstract
Physics seeks to model the entire observed physical universe. Mathematical physics, however, can only model what can be quantified. A key feature of the physical universe, the observed Arrow of Time, cannot be quantified. Mathematical physics therefore cannot model the Arrow of Time. As a consequence, a theory of mathematical physics is only ever a Theory of Something – never a Theory of Everything in the broadest sense, since it cannot model the observed Arrow of Time. This means that a single unified theory that models the entire observed physical universe cannot be a theory of mathematical physics. Instead, if it exists, it must be a more general theory of qualitative physics.
Author Bio
Spencer Scoular is a self-funded scientist-philosopher and management consultant. He holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge. His most recent book Beyond the Mathematical Paradigm of Science is a collection of fourteen papers that support the notion that to unify science we need to go beyond the mathematical paradigm of science to a more general paradigm that includes the mathematical paradigm as a special case. He is uniquely qualified to consider how science can represent qualitative nature, since his Cambridge PhD was on the related subject of how various digital sampling strategies can uniquely represent classes of analogue signals.
Download Essay PDF File
Physics seeks to model the entire observed physical universe. Mathematical physics, however, can only model what can be quantified. A key feature of the physical universe, the observed Arrow of Time, cannot be quantified. Mathematical physics therefore cannot model the Arrow of Time. As a consequence, a theory of mathematical physics is only ever a Theory of Something – never a Theory of Everything in the broadest sense, since it cannot model the observed Arrow of Time. This means that a single unified theory that models the entire observed physical universe cannot be a theory of mathematical physics. Instead, if it exists, it must be a more general theory of qualitative physics.
Author Bio
Spencer Scoular is a self-funded scientist-philosopher and management consultant. He holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge. His most recent book Beyond the Mathematical Paradigm of Science is a collection of fourteen papers that support the notion that to unify science we need to go beyond the mathematical paradigm of science to a more general paradigm that includes the mathematical paradigm as a special case. He is uniquely qualified to consider how science can represent qualitative nature, since his Cambridge PhD was on the related subject of how various digital sampling strategies can uniquely represent classes of analogue signals.
Download Essay PDF File
I like to think my STOE model is a first step along the lines you propose. It Scalar Theory of Everything model correspondence to the Big Bang model and to Quantum Mechanics , has explained several problems, and has predicted predictioned.
Because I’m the only one working on it, it takes a long time to cover the ground. My current effort is on the single photon (particle) in interference (double-slit) experiments.
report post as inappropriate
Because I’m the only one working on it, it takes a long time to cover the ground. My current effort is on the single photon (particle) in interference (double-slit) experiments.
Dear John:
Thank you for your comments. Good luck with your model.
Kind regards
Spencer
Thank you for your comments. Good luck with your model.
Kind regards
Spencer
DEar Scoular,
Thank you for your clear writing style! I never had to guess about what you were saying or driving at!
I agree about some newer physics theory not being explicitly mathematical yet being based on empirically sound principles. It is such an exciting idea to take the good of science, which is what it can verify experimentally and with measurement, but to use these findings for support or indication of a real unified understanding of this existence dubbed the universe. On pg 5 your list compares in similarity with what Einstein said could be used as markers in his laymans Relativity publication. The 4-5 are additions that go beyond that but seem solid.
The real nature of time is simply not encoded in the mathematical understanding of the day, or at least as math is used currently. Thank you for your contribution and the straight forward read!
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your clear writing style! I never had to guess about what you were saying or driving at!
I agree about some newer physics theory not being explicitly mathematical yet being based on empirically sound principles. It is such an exciting idea to take the good of science, which is what it can verify experimentally and with measurement, but to use these findings for support or indication of a real unified understanding of this existence dubbed the universe. On pg 5 your list compares in similarity with what Einstein said could be used as markers in his laymans Relativity publication. The 4-5 are additions that go beyond that but seem solid.
The real nature of time is simply not encoded in the mathematical understanding of the day, or at least as math is used currently. Thank you for your contribution and the straight forward read!
Dear William:
Thank you for your very kind words.
To keep the article interesting, I have tried to express the ideas as simply as possible - so your feedback is very encouraging.
I had not read that specific Einstein publication, but am pleased the essay takes his markers further.
Thank you for giving your support to the key messages in the essay.
Kind regards
Spencer
Thank you for your very kind words.
To keep the article interesting, I have tried to express the ideas as simply as possible - so your feedback is very encouraging.
I had not read that specific Einstein publication, but am pleased the essay takes his markers further.
Thank you for giving your support to the key messages in the essay.
Kind regards
Spencer
Dear Spencer Scoular,
Yes, let's "look in the right place".
Lee Smolin perhaps did so, and Pentcho Valev tried to make aware of that. Unfortunately, Lee Smolin's 2015 essay omitted his own arguments, and Lee does not risk responding to any question.
I wonder why you didn't mention the book by Zeh.
If you have objections to my opinion that agrees with Shannon's, you might comment on my essay(s).
Finally, I would like to make you aware of the essay by Phipps. What he presents is not new and now for my taste not sober enough formulated. My readiness to understand it as a compelling refutation of what led to spacetime is based on a late insight of mine:
The expectation of Maxwell and Michelson to find a natural reference point in space was not logically warranted. The only natural point of reference belongs to the border between elapsed and future time scales. I hope we can agree on this qualitative clarification.
Sincerely,
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Yes, let's "look in the right place".
Lee Smolin perhaps did so, and Pentcho Valev tried to make aware of that. Unfortunately, Lee Smolin's 2015 essay omitted his own arguments, and Lee does not risk responding to any question.
I wonder why you didn't mention the book by Zeh.
If you have objections to my opinion that agrees with Shannon's, you might comment on my essay(s).
Finally, I would like to make you aware of the essay by Phipps. What he presents is not new and now for my taste not sober enough formulated. My readiness to understand it as a compelling refutation of what led to spacetime is based on a late insight of mine:
The expectation of Maxwell and Michelson to find a natural reference point in space was not logically warranted. The only natural point of reference belongs to the border between elapsed and future time scales. I hope we can agree on this qualitative clarification.
Sincerely,
Eckard Blumschein
Dear Eckard:
Thank you for taking time to read my essay and provide feedback. I appreciate your links to other essays and works.
Kind regards
Spencer Scoular
Thank you for taking time to read my essay and provide feedback. I appreciate your links to other essays and works.
Kind regards
Spencer Scoular
Dear Spencer,
Between the lines it looks as if you were reluctant to accept my comment as support for your position because my key arguments imply to abandon mandatory tenets. When I pointed you to other essays and works, I hoped your will support them as well as my own contributions.
I reiterate:"If you have objections to my opinion that agrees with Shannon's, you might comment on my essay(s)."
Kind regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Between the lines it looks as if you were reluctant to accept my comment as support for your position because my key arguments imply to abandon mandatory tenets. When I pointed you to other essays and works, I hoped your will support them as well as my own contributions.
I reiterate:"If you have objections to my opinion that agrees with Shannon's, you might comment on my essay(s)."
Kind regards,
Eckard
Dear Spencer,
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
report post as inappropriate
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
Login or create account to post reply or comment.