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

vincent douzal: on 4/22/15 at 22:39pm UTC, wrote Dears Anshu, Tejinder, Don't blame your limitations. The essay was...

Tejinder Singh: on 4/22/15 at 13:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Vincent, Thank you for your scholarly and well-written essay. We...

vincent douzal: on 4/21/15 at 14:45pm UTC, wrote Dear `En', So you are curious about my name. The origin is quite obscure,...

En Passant: on 4/21/15 at 13:00pm UTC, wrote vincent douzal wrote on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 21:38 GMT stub Dear En Passant, ...

Michel Planat: on 4/15/15 at 9:55am UTC, wrote Dear Vincent, I have not much to add to what you superbly wrote about my...

Janko Kokosar: on 4/15/15 at 9:40am UTC, wrote Dear Vincent As, I read you, it seems to me, that anyway we write about...

vincent douzal: on 4/13/15 at 22:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Janko, Thank you for your kind comment, and since you are pointing...

Michel Planat: on 4/13/15 at 13:09pm UTC, wrote Dear Vincent, Thank you for all. I am working at your generous comment on...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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:...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Steve, Sabine Hossenffelder has written an interesting blog post on her..." in Alternative Models of...

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: Making science relative to a cognitive subject by vincent douzal [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author vincent douzal wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 20:38 GMT
Essay Abstract

Departing from perhaps the most basic hypothesis of physics, it is possible to build an alternate theory, no less consistent, with reflective characteristics —once bootstrapped, it gives to a broad extent the ability to analyse its own processes—; in particular the role of mathematics can be interpreted straightforwardly, and it lends itself to applications outside the current domain of physics, e.g., in biology.

Author Bio

Vincent Douzal has a background in biology, mathematics, physics and chemistry from Institut national agronomique Paris-Grignon and École nationale du génie rural, des eaux et des forêts (now both AgroParisTech), and holds a PhD in computer science (on the subject of perception), université Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris 6).

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 15:05 GMT
Dear Vincent,

I like your text and I admit, this thesis is too rarely defended in our essays against the platonic view, that the understanding of perception and the related cognition is necessary to dissolve the apparent contradiction between physics and maths concepts, alternatively to explain the "unreasonable" connection between them.

We need "to produce a formalisation for such a reflective view" and "that time is represented by memory fits exactly with the current definition of a unit of time in metrology". It turns out that, some time ago, I produced a formal analysis of time perception following my practice of time measurements in metrology http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0403020

Later I found that such a formalism, essentially due to Bost and Connes, did well in the context of Riemann hypothesis. This goes in the direction that good mathematical models contain a lot of physics and possibly biology. At the moment, my interest goes far in the direction of the power of permutation groups (here for the Monster Group). I suspect that permutation groups also may play a role in the cognitive field.

Some feedback from you will be welcome. Good luck,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author vincent douzal replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear Michel,

Your comments are challenging, because the content of the article you refer to involves many technicalities that you connect in a broad way, and require much thinking. I shall need more time to ponder it carefully.

However it is striking that you mention many phenomena, like phase-locking (which bear many pertinent analogies in biology, like the capture effect in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Luca Valeri wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 13:21 GMT
Dear Vincent,

Interesting essay. You did not mention quantum physics in your essay. I my opinion quantum theory shifted the focus from the question ‘what is?’ to ‘what is knowable?’. That is the view from a specific reference frame. Do you see any connections between your theory and quantum theory?

Also interesting how you think about time and time measurement. A still open problem in physics. Is it right, that time would be discrete in your theory? Counting of events that happened. As only discrete events can be stored in memory, what is the role of continuity in your model?

As my essay takes in many point a similar view as yours, I’d like to invite you to read my essay and hopefully comment on it.

Thanks

Luca

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author vincent douzal replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 17:51 GMT
Dear Luca,

Here are some answers before I read you prose.

1. Indeed, I did not mention quantum mechanics because this elaborated theory is `at the leaves of the tree', while I really start from the base of the trunk (and even try to show some roots).

However, with more room available, an interesting remark was possible. I noted that mathematically, any structure is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 19:38 GMT
Dear Dr. Douzal,

I have no wish to be disrespectful to you or your essay, but I think abstract mathematics and abstract physics have nothing to do with how the real Universe is occurring for the following real reason:

Do let me know what you think about this: This is my single unified theorem of how the real Universe is occurring: Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author vincent douzal replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 22:41 GMT
Dear Joe,

I feel absolutely nothing disrespectful in your comment.

As must have understood, I chose to describe physics as a disciplined way for men to account for some aspects of their world, and abstract physics looks more and more like mathematics. In this sense, actually, physics cannot be said to rule the universe.

I do agree that (which means: in the framework I have outlined), every event, snowflake or other is primarily unique, and our activity as living beings, especially cognitive beings, compiles an organised view of all these events.

However, I have difficulties following the linking of your ensuing statements, probably because you packed too much in just a few lines. Feel free to elaborate.

Regards,

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 14:48 GMT
Dear Dr. Douzal,

Thank you for not reporting my comment to FQXi.org as being inappropriate in order for it to be classified as Obnoxious Spam.

The full version of my theorem of inert light is contained in my essay, WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL.

Warm Regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author vincent douzal replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 17:43 GMT
Dear Joe,

Apologies. As you can see from my answer, it is obviously a mistake if your comment has been reported as inappropriate.

I am going to write to forums@fqxi.org, to have that corrected.

Regards.

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 08:11 GMT
Dear Vincent,

As you mentioned Poincaré analysis of the perception of weights in "Science and Hypothesis", I remember that I quoted this work in 1996 in a paper in Ann. Telecomm. Already at this time, I mentioned the triply punctured sphere of Grothendieck and many other things about synchronization. You may be interested to have a look at this paper "Synchronization, topology and oscillators" http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02996027. I am also now boosting your paper that is, in my opinion, of great interest in the discussion about the nature of maths and physics.

All the best.

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author vincent douzal replied on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 15:15 GMT
Michel,

Thank you for your warm comments (it seems that your rating is lost in a mass of low tendency, however...).

I have read early your essay, too, and have been looking at a few of your articles, and have jotted notes about it; I only have not secured time to write a proper comment yet.

If you really like the thread, you may take a look at Derek Wises's http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2494, which touches similar topics. I have just posted a comment to it, where you should be in familiar terrain.

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 16:05 GMT
Dear Vincent,

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


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 19:44 GMT
Dear Vincent Douzal

Your essay connects physics with consciousness, similar as in my essay. I have a complementary view, when quantum consciousness and panpyschism are included, but we are almost not in contradiction. My idea is that ''free will'' is esential for consciousness, thus, this means that some things could be added, as ''I have free will, therefore I am.''

It seems that your section 5 is important, but I do not understand everything. Do you write about retroactive inhibition, similiraly as we do not smell something, if we are some time in the same smelly location?

Can you repeat, what do you try to say with homunculus?

Koch and Tononi defend panpsychism, and these two are names in consciousness research, what means turnabout in science world. But they do not include free will in their models and explanations. So this is my contributuion, but free will is given by quantum physics.

Your ideas can be simplified to atomic world, and maybe I do something like this.

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author vincent douzal replied on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 22:02 GMT
Dear Janko,

Thank you for your kind comment, and since you are pointing connections to your essay, iis a good reason to put it duly on my schedule.

I do not stress consciousness so much in the essay, rather cognition.

If I understand your particular strand of interest, and are yet unaware of the following article, you will probably find much interest in it:

John...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Janko Kokosar replied on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 09:40 GMT
Dear Vincent

As, I read you, it seems to me, that anyway we write about the same think from different aspects. Your homunculus means that the same as I claim that explanation of brain processes does not yet give explanation of consciousness.

I read Conway's article and I have it also in reference in some of my papers. It is not completely the same as free will in the brain, because quantum free will should be random. But it seems to me, that Conway's free will is also free will in brains.

My essay.

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 13:09 GMT
Dear Vincent,

Thank you for all. I am working at your generous comment on my blog. You wrote" Abstraction is not easy. The simplest example I can think of is the transition from numbers-of (something) to numbers (`pure')" that reminds me En Passant's short essay. You can expect a reply from him.

It is impressive how many references you red. I am familiar with Recoltes et Semailles. About perception, I was impressed by B. Flanagan. Are perception fields quantum fields? NeuroQuantology 2003; 3:334-364. Since that time I still don't know what to think about Quantum Consciousness but it seems to me quite clear that the subject and the object have to be taken together, as you have written, and this happens in a context.

Best,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 09:55 GMT
Dear Vincent,

I have not much to add to what you superbly wrote about my dialogue. When you write "that physics is by definition mathematical, therefore mathematics has to be efficient" I agree and we are quite close to "Science and Hypothesis" that you also quote at several places.

The group concept: absolutely yes in the Grothendieck's expanded meaning. Quantum groupoid (in Wise's essay): not sure and may be this can be falsified.

A remark: why is it so difficult to find the maths of biology (including at the basic level of DNA and proteins) ?

Why is maths so close to physics? Despite so many essays, I don't consider the mystery is lifted, may be the key is in neurophysiology, ant colonies, human sociology. I like Bach-y-Rita's work.

Thanks for your time.

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


En Passant wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 13:00 GMT
vincent douzal wrote on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 21:38 GMT stub

Dear En Passant,

Your essay is short, but sound on many points.

Few have raised the case of categories (not in the mathematical sense, more in the spirit of Eleanor Rosch or George Lakoff), your qualities.

The connection you express between mathematics and physics states clearly the basic idea of empirical knowledge, with only a pragmatic criterion, under conditions of repeatability or reproducibility.

I won't paraphrase everything, I'd be longer than you.

Very good points.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author En Passant replied on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 07:13 GMT stub

Dear Vincent,

I am glad you understood what I was saying.

And I thank you for reading my essay. You already know that I could not care less about winning anything.

But I am not only studying physics – I have to understand everything. If you would be so kind, could you tell me where your last name comes from?

If I were to place it on a map, it would be somewhere in Western France (similar names also occur somewhere between Turkey and Eastern Europe). If you don’t want to share this info, that’s OK.

En

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author vincent douzal replied on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 14:45 GMT
Dear `En',

So you are curious about my name. The origin is quite obscure, I never found any etymological clue, but the unique source seems to be a small village in Tarn, France. There is a variant with an ending `s'. That's in the vicinity of Albi, and during the cruzade against the Albigeois in the early 13th century, many families moved to the area of Strasbourg for instance, and into the territory of (now) Germany, and perhaps further, areas which were more welcoming for protestants. This seems to be the reason why the name is found also there.

I am learning from you that the name is also found up further in Eastern Europe and up to Turkey.

`En passant', I would not dare asking you the origin neither of your first name, nor your surname...

Regards.

Bookmark and Share



Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 13:51 GMT
Dear Vincent,

Thank you for your scholarly and well-written essay. We appreciate your proposal about `making physics relative to a cognitive subject'. Somehow we missed to grasp [the limitation is ours] as to what stance you are taking with regard to mathematics in relation to cognition, and what makes mathematics so effective in physics. We will be thankful if you could kindly summarise your outlook here.

Best wishes,

Anshu, Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author vincent douzal replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 22:39 GMT
Dears Anshu, Tejinder,

Don't blame your limitations. The essay was required to be clear, the author should have done better, and you are generous to say it is well-written.

1. If you want to reason about the effectiveness of mathematics, to evaluate, or even to measure it, you must endow yourself with a frame of reference where you can measure it; you need a standard to which you...

view entire 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.