CATEGORY:
Blog
[back]
TOPIC:
What Is “Fundamental”? – FQXi’s New Essay Contest
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Oct. 28, 2017 @ 13:45 GMT
We at the Foundational Questions Institute have often been asked what exactly “foundational” means, and what relation it holds to “fundamental” as a term describing some branches of physics. Today we’re happy to turn the tables.
It is time for the next FQXi essay contest, and so we ask,
What Is “Fundamental”?We have many different ways to talk about the things in the physical universe. Some of those ways we think of as more fundamental, and some as “emergent” or “effective”. But what does it mean to be more or less “fundamental”? Are fundamental things smaller, simpler, more elegant, more economical? Are less-fundamental things always made from more-fundamental? How do less-fundamental descriptions relate to more-fundamental ones?
We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.
This year’s contest is part of our program Agency in the Physical World, operated with and sponsored by
The Fetzer Franklin Fund. Help also comes from co-sponsors
The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation.
We are open for entries from now until January 22, 2018. See our
contest pages for the usual rules and timeline. Please share this info with all of your fellow thinkers and writers. Good luck!
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 29, 2017 @ 03:42 GMT
Greetings all...
And thank you Brendan et al. This looks like an interesting topic to consider. I wish everyone good luck at addressing it. I shall be diligent, and try to offer up something worth sharing.
All the Best,
Jonathan
post approved
Joe Fisher wrote on Oct. 29, 2017 @ 15:16 GMT
Dear Dr. Foster,
Please change the scoring of the essays from each voter being allowed to rate an essay from 1 to 10 points, and allow each voter to only be able to award 1 point.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
report post as inappropriate
austin fearnley replied on Nov. 18, 2017 @ 17:12 GMT
You could investigate using the Rasch Model to grade the entries.
There are versions of Rasch analysis which cope with missing data (when judges do not rate every essay). My favourite analysis is free online at
DOS BIGSTEPS Rasch Manual: http://www.winsteps.com/a/bigsteps.pdf, page 26, Example 13. (Freeware).
I have used this analysis in a vixra paper at http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0329v1.pdf. The paper is investigating the Rasch analysis wrt just one validity issue in reporting results and takes for granted that the Rasch scale is a good physical ratio scale. So my paper is not really relevant to promoting its use here, but it does illustrate its usage. The advantage of a Rasch scale is that severe and lenient raters do not affect the results of 'high quality entries'/ 'low quality entries' much. You could even produce a table of rater scores in order of leniency/severity [where the quality of essays rated does not interfere much with the rater leniency/severity scale].
With a 10 point scale, a rater has most weight for discrimination over the whole competition by using 50% ratings of '1' and 50% ratings of '10'.
Rating one entry at '10' and all others at '1' will probably reduce overall weight for that rater but will concentrate all the discrimination weight on the score of just that one entry.
As well as tabulating the severity and leniency of judges, the analysis can reveal inconsistent judges which are say putting entries in the opposite rank order to the overall order of all judges. What you do, if anything, with ratings for very atypical judges is another matter.
The disadvantage of the Rasch scale is a lack of transparency for anyone not familiar with the analysis.
report post as inappropriate
Bashir Yusuf wrote on Oct. 29, 2017 @ 20:00 GMT
Dear Brendan.
This is a quick response of the essay announcement.
I hope that this question can lead good understanding of nature's most important Fundamental issue.
Only questionings without open and awakened mind can't we succeed it.
I have some difficult to understand, the relations of FQXI's Foundational questions and Fundamental of the nature, but I am sure that...
view entire post
Dear Brendan.
This is a quick response of the essay announcement.
I hope that this question can lead good understanding of nature's most important Fundamental issue.
Only questionings without open and awakened mind can't we succeed it.
I have some difficult to understand, the relations of FQXI's Foundational questions and Fundamental of the nature, but I am sure that "Most of the fundamental ideas of science are simple and can be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone".
I hope, FQXI not to be a school of complex Mathematics which finds out allready known answer
However, I will put my entry to this contest, as soon as possible.
In 2010, I explained the Natures fundamental as simplest, smallest thing of all.
On the other hand, Ibelieve that current physics fundamental problems amongst dealing with fundamental terms such as original meaning of "Elementary" "Quanta" "Atom" .
I found that biggest and misleading one off all is the term "massless"
What is Elementary Quanta?
What is Light Quanta?
What is elementary Charge?
What is Photon?
What is Elementary particle?
What is elementary energy?
How these terms are related each other?
Is E=mc^2 fundamentally applicable to all matter?
Why light is affected by Gravity?
What are Gravitational waves?
Why we still discover Einsteins theory?
Why Newtons simple statements Gravity is still most important of all Physical science?
Is any scientific theory that we can overall spectrum of physical sciences?
Which is natures dominant structure/shape at all level?
Which way philosophical/ scientific idiea from the known history we come to here?
Any possibility to continue it?.......
"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Albert Einstein.
In general (when dealing with light EM), I have different actions to Feyman's the three basic actions;
-Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.
-Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.
-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon.
My opinion
-Action #1: A photon does not goes from place to place, but its energy is tranfered as wave(force influence/gravitational wave/dynamics).
-Action #2: An electron does not goes from place to place, but its energy is tranfered as wave(force influence/gravitational wave/dynamics).
-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon's energy, but not photon itself.
Every particle's total energy must contain same quanta (certain quantity), of elementary energy, that equals the total quantity of elementary particle's(Photon's) energy.
Since elementary mass 1.7x10^-36 kg, by dividing any particle's Mass into the elementary mass, we obtain ratio that equals to quantity of photons (note integer number).
Every particle's total mass must contain same quanta (certain quantity), of elementary mass, that equals the total quantity of elementary particle's(Photon's) mass.
Since elementary energy 1.6x10^-19eV, by dividing any particle's energy into the elementary energy, we obtain ratio that equals to quantity of photons (note integer number).
Proton; 938, 272 081 MeV. 938 272 081 particle (Photons). ODD number of photons.
Electron; 0.510999 MeV. 510999 particles. (Photons). ODD number of photons.
Neutron; 939. 565 134 MeV. 939 565 134 particles(Photons) EVEN number of photons.
You may also discuss following from Gravitational angle;
Coulumb's constant?
Universal Gravitational constant?
G wave and EM wave same speed? Why?
Pauli exclusion?
Dimensions in String theory?
.......
Best wishes.
Bashir.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jim George Snowdon wrote on Oct. 29, 2017 @ 20:06 GMT
The Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion about the nature of time.
report post as inappropriate
Sanmay Ganguly wrote on Oct. 30, 2017 @ 18:42 GMT
While describing a physical world, the minimal set of dynamic degrees of freedom required to describe the complete evolution of a system can be termed as fundamental. The list of fundamental quantities changes if we probe a system with different energy scales.
For example, while building a house one can consider each piece of brick (~ 1kg mass ) to be fundamental. While studying the boiling of a glass of water we can safely consider water molecules (~ 10e-23 grams) to be fundamental. On the other hand for studying atomic spectroscopy electron, protons are considered as fundamental objects (electron weighs 10e-31 kg) and lastly when we smash proton beams at Large Hadron Collider at ultra high energy scales, what really fundamental are the tiny objects called quarks & gluons (gluons are massless). Hence what is fundamental depends on which system we are referring to.
Now when we talk about "fundamental questions" etc. we mean a single understanding which will refer to maximal queries.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 31, 2017 @ 14:54 GMT
A reasonable topic again, after five lost years (the last reasonable topic was in 2012: "Questioning the Foundations: Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong?"). I will definitely take part in the contest.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
sherman loran jenkins wrote on Oct. 31, 2017 @ 23:12 GMT
Fundamental is both small and large. The “smallest” bits from which all else is composed. And the structure of those bits which fill the Universe. Nothing we know could exist without the one characteristic of the bits and the Universal restraint that gives space the structure we know. Both the most elemental and the pressure of the total Universe are fundamental to the reality we know.
report post as inappropriate
Kjetil Hustveit wrote on Nov. 1, 2017 @ 09:49 GMT
[fuhn-duh-men-tl]
adjective
1. serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying:
fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
2.of, relating to, or affecting the foundation or basis:
a fundamental revision.
3. being an original or primary source:
a fundamental idea.
4. Music. (of a chord) having its root as its lowest note.
noun
5. a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part:
to master the fundamentals of a trade.
6. Also called fundamental note, fundamental tone. Music.
the root of a chord.
the generator of a series of harmonics.
7.Physics. the component of lowest frequency in a composite wave.
I already love this contest!
report post as inappropriate
Arshi Khan wrote on Nov. 1, 2017 @ 12:28 GMT
Is the space itself fundamental to build up other fundamentals!Or is it the bonds that matter forges, at basic levels. Beyond the four fundamental forces, it would be a dull place if we only had electrons in the universe. For that matter if everything was taken out of the universe, what would remain?Will there be a single equation which would give rise to every other equation!I doubt, but i cannot say either ways!A lovely topic to ponder and discuss.Best of luck to everyone....
report post as inappropriate
sherman loran jenkins replied on Nov. 1, 2017 @ 18:47 GMT
Dull? Not at all. I believe there is only charge and the pressure that restrains and gives structure to space. And that time, matter and all we know derives from this relationship.
report post as inappropriate
thuy lien replied on Nov. 11, 2017 @ 07:26 GMT
The article you shared here is great. This is really interesting information for me. Thank you for sharing!
hotmail.com
report post as inappropriate
Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Nov. 16, 2017 @ 16:53 GMT
CONSCIOUSNESS IS FUNDAMENTAL,
see my book
Physics of TRUTH
attachments:
Physics_of_TRUTH_-_Book_2.pdf
report post as inappropriate
BASILEIOS GRISPOS wrote on Nov. 23, 2017 @ 14:06 GMT
What a nice topic this is. I am expecting to read some nice essays from all over the world.I will submit also my own ideas about this subject, if I have enough time to finish it.
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Nov. 27, 2017 @ 00:35 GMT
Sure is taking a long time to post the first batch of essays.
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Dec. 2, 2017 @ 17:11 GMT
Still waiting .....
report post as inappropriate
Philip Gibbs replied on Dec. 2, 2017 @ 21:25 GMT
They have to have enough essays to get the first batch out. It took a little longer than this last time so don't worry. I have submitted mine and am looking forward to getting started on the discussions.
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on Dec. 2, 2017 @ 21:51 GMT
Dr. Gibbs,
I'm glad to know that you will participate and that you have already submitted an essay. My essay will also be in the first batch of ten. Just the same, it has been five weeks or so since the contest was announced.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Dec. 2, 2017 @ 23:10 GMT
I have one in the works. It is based on something I started three years ago. When Maryam Mirzakhani won the Fields Medal in 2014 I read a couple of her papers. I thought about something I thought was interesting and in 2015 I wrote to somebody about this. Their response was that I had found another way to find the Ryu-Takayangi formula, which was becoming all the rage. It was sort of bitter-sweet in a way. She died this past summer of breast cancer and I was in a lot of ways made terribly angry about that. This was given all the news of the day that looked, and still looks, bleak and then that had to happen. Anyway I worked and developed a related idea, which is what this paper is about. I should have it done in a week or so.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Philip Gibbs replied on Dec. 3, 2017 @ 09:32 GMT
Gary, Lawrence, I look forward to seeing your contributions soon.
Previous contest started 2nd Dec with first essays dated 10th Jan, so it took 39 days for them to appear. We are now at 36 days into this contest, so no need to worry, yet.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Dec. 3, 2017 @ 13:21 GMT
I am having to wordsmith the paper a bit. It is rather mathematical, and I am having to keep this within the size constraints of the contest. This paper will be maybe more mathematical than most I have entered here. Miryam's papers and results are rather dense, involving Teichmueller spaces and the like. Also the Ryu-Takanayagi formula is a bit abstract as well.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Philip Gibbs replied on Dec. 12, 2017 @ 08:25 GMT
I hope they release the essays they have before Xmas otherwise the time for discussion will be limited. If they put a few up it may inspire more people to submit.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Scott S Gordon wrote on Dec. 9, 2017 @ 17:38 GMT
This contest could be the start of a revolution in physics. Imagine getting physics past its current theoretical impasse where an idea comes from a place never expected... and all the thanks going to FQXi and its sponsors, "The Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation" for asking the question - What is fundamental? to everyone, not just physicists.
report post as inappropriate
Bubba Gump replied on Dec. 9, 2017 @ 23:32 GMT
I doubt anything anyone has to opine on this topic is going to revolutionize physics in any way. I don't think that's the goal of these contests. I look at these contest as a way for people to offer food for thought.
My guess is that most of the papers will have little to do with the actual question being asked and will be obscure mathematical monologues that have nothing to do with the subjects or fanciful ideas about what the author thinks is fundamental in the universe.
report post as inappropriate
Victor Usack replied on Dec. 12, 2017 @ 02:34 GMT
Re Scott Gordon. I concur, as do many others, that we are fundamentally missing something. Just finished reading L Smolins The trouble with physics. This amounts to a fishing expedition for a seer to rescue us from institutionalized mindset. Even if one existed, would anyone believe him? Perhaps the distinction between seer and crackpot is strictly a matter of consensus. In my youth I labored under the illusion that mathematical description would provide unassailable proof. How naïve I was and am! On the other hand is the stubborn illusion that we are approaching the conclusion of our investigation of nature: that we fundamentally understand reality. The persistent myth is the triumph of (Galilean) empirical science over the (Aristotelian) power of reason. I for one have no trouble believing fundamental inquiry may lead to “getting physics past its current theoretical impasse”.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 12, 2017 @ 14:03 GMT
Vic,
you are right about it being a fishing expedition. Just keep in mind that free exchange of ideas is a good and wonderful thing, but math is real product.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 12, 2017 @ 21:00 GMT
John, I don't understand why you put the maths in a special product category. Do solutions to problems have to be maths to be real (worthwhile? valuable? ) product? Isn't that a kind of bias that has hampered physics; Cosying up to maths, looking to maths for the answers and cold shouldering the other natural sciences, and philosophy, and minimizing their relevance.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 12, 2017 @ 22:58 GMT
Georgina,
Science is BIG business, if you put your own original mathematics out on the curb...they walk! Read: Mario Biagioli & Peter Galison editing of essays on "Scientific Authorship - Credit and Intellectual Property in Science" it's an historical treasure trove of customs and law that leads up to the bizarre of today's gift economy of career credentials. Major state and non-state actors compete in mortal gamesmanship to 'get the edge' in SciTech. People die, just like Bruce Lee on TV. The ChiCom in concert with the North Koreans (whom are among the most physically ruthless global operatives) are masters of cyber warfare. This ain't Woodstock. If nobody steals your work, it's because it's not worth anything. jr
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 13, 2017 @ 00:17 GMT
John, I don't think the use of ideas can be prevented. Patents for technology monopolize or try to monopolize a development. There are copyright laws. However when the ideas, that may be expressible mathematically, are the IP I don't think you can stop their use. The only way would be never to express them verbally or on any electronic device or potentially accessible hard copy. Probably better out in public and time stamped than never aired and stolen anyway, by anyone/ everyone with the desire and ability to do so. I don't think it is so easy to divide people into goodies and baddies, or those who have a moral right to know and those who don't. In fact the whole idea is to get people to take up the ideas made public, so that they can be applied by those interested, and progress be made.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 13, 2017 @ 01:50 GMT
Georgi,
No offense Kid, but I'd like to introduce you to several of the women I've known from younger days at the Corner Bar. Any one of them could bait you into drawing first blood.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 13, 2017 @ 02:59 GMT
John, I don't understand what you are saying or its relevance.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 13, 2017 @ 16:17 GMT
Livin' my life in a slow hell
different girl every night at the hotel
I ain't seen the sun shine
in three damn days
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Dec. 13, 2017 @ 16:41 GMT
If I may interject...
While on the one hand you can't put a genie back into a bottle, since scientific knowledge can be put to use by anyone - once it is known publicly - there is also a need to safeguard certain information, lest it be used to do harm. You don't want to put a pack of matches and a stick of dynamite into the hands of a child, and some of today's world leaders are barely adolescent in their actions - rather than behaving as adults. So John's point is an important one.
I gave a talk at FFP15 in Orihuela, about how scientists are responsible to help inform the public - because of their superior knowledge - but I was also quite emphatic about the need to safeguard sensitive information as well. Did you know Buckminster Fuller almost committed suicide, because he believed anything he might invent could be turned into a tool of war? He decided instead to design things that couldn't be built yet. So what John is talking about is deadly serious stuff.
Have you ever noticed that around two thirds of the James Bond stories center on the theme of a scientific discovery that was designed to help humanity, but was then stolen by a foreign power or terrorists? It is unfortunate that this is not just a tall tale from the spy novels, but something both governments and scientists have to deal with in real life. And there are protocols for when some things are too dangerous to let out at all, where only a few individuals are qualified to properly assess the danger. That is the relevance.
All the Best,
Jonathan
attachments:
Responsibility_in_Physics.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on Dec. 13, 2017 @ 17:05 GMT
All,
I think I'm with Georgina on this one. Sharing ideas and having one person stimulate another person's thinking is a very good way to leverage skill and knowledge.
And realistically, do you seriously think that any of us is going to have an Einstein moment? You have read the essays posted by some of the folks here have you not? Crackpots, geniuses, and the mentally ill are all comingled here. And no one will really know who is who for many years to come.
Our best hope is to get the big ideas right before the other guys do. And that will require open cooperation.
I'm looking forward to the essay discussion. This is an excellent topic.
Best Regards and Good Luck to All,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 13, 2017 @ 20:12 GMT
Thanks Jonathan, and Georgi, Gary and Steve,
good discussion going (pardon my spiking the punch). Back to Victor Usack's comment on the 12th and my response, 'yes, FQXi is Lee Smolin's fishing expedition'. It's an affiliate of Perimeter Institute which was Lee's ticket into Canada. (He's a naturalized Canadian but the modern American brand, and carries Uncle Sam on his back) So FQXi is a...
view entire post
Thanks Jonathan, and Georgi, Gary and Steve,
good discussion going (pardon my spiking the punch). Back to Victor Usack's comment on the 12th and my response, 'yes, FQXi is Lee Smolin's fishing expedition'. It's an affiliate of Perimeter Institute which was Lee's ticket into Canada. (He's a naturalized Canadian but the modern American brand, and carries Uncle Sam on his back) So FQXi is a portal to Perimeter that is like the flame which attracts moths, and there are a lot of them hitting the security screen under which PI gleams to the naked eye.
Regardless of your socio-political stripe, all must be aware that how you operate on the internet can effect the integrity of privacy not only of your own files but those of others whom have come here, and can't get out without an 'unsubscribe' option. {"It's a Twap !!}So you have to follow the linkages yourself if something you know you should have in cache is missing and leaves you short-changed.
And another thing. I have watched as U.S./Canada relations have changed over 60 years, and the socio-political attitudes evolve. Many repressed, suppressed and oppressed social identities are once again bursting open on the political stage. Yet with a new millennial awareness. The Hillary vs. Donny era is over culturally, both are dinosaurs. The overt hostilities between genders does needs be addressed, and the multi-culturalism championed by Star Trek. What has been of great impact on how I view modern North American cultural goes back to my earliest childhood and a brief visit each summer to Grandpa's cabin in the Great White North. It wasn't advertised to Americans, even trusted ones, but until the jet age it was said that every other Canadian was born within the sound of a train whistle. Canada was still a frontier society, and with that was a gender sterotype with a sexual morality which was engendered until the repatriation of The Constitution in 1982, with a societal expectation of personal responsibility under which the age of consent in Ontario province was 14 years of age. The social progressive era in the U.S. in the 60's especially was starkly different as a result, largely due to the emergence of illegal drug usage which had underlaid both societies much more than most people ever knew. So you can easily see that in Canada in that era teenage sex was not unlawful so there wasn't the corruptive coercion that burgeoned in the U.S. with the advent of drug usage by underage adventurors. The social expectation in Canada was progressing towards a real realization of gender equality, while in the States, that progress became stigmatized as loose morality by association. My personal dilemma was that in that reactionary era when I was trying to position myself for a move to Canada where I could then apply to immigrate from within, I had become a local unwilling 'cause celebre' of draft evasion and a scapegoat for chickenhawks as an easy target. And a sisxteen year old girl with a rebellious streak snuck up on me and tripped me up for a blind date and covered her tracks too well. I took the not at all casual step of doing the socially appropriate and legally responsible thing of taking the precaution to advise her mother and her that I was already in the process of embarking to go to school in another country where I always wanted to live. But rather than dignifying the situation then bowing out gracefully, followed a summer of demands for attention and diversions from the true order of evidence that she had prior knowledge of my intent. To this day she has refused to give acknowledgemnt in any clear way that recognizes my material witness that she had identified as a neighbor girl whom had been the intermediary. and without that I cannot qualify her as a reasonably responsible material witness in matters of Canadian law. And in that turbulent era many of us in a small farming community got dragged down into the coercive corruption where real organized criminal enterprises existed then and continue to proliferate. I have had to endure humiliating personal and social emasculation and desperately restrain my furious anger from confronting directly any among the crowd she went through me to join, lest it forever taint inquiries of me and deny each or any of themselves the constitutional right of unqualified benefit of doubt in their own pursuits. While meanwhile in Canada, I and mine have lost out on half a century of a trillion dollar economic expansion in a region of unparalelled natural beauty. I do not tolerate prick teasing and ball scratching at all. Boys have the right to say no, too. And I'm known to fight large men whom mistake that in me. Broken bones hurt, but no worse than not fighting back. The rule of law that law itself must obey, prevails here. I will accept no gender bias from anyone! Get friggin' real. Learn the conventions of terminology and you might find your biggest discovery is that you haven't discovered anything new., jrc
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
post approved
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 14, 2017 @ 05:30 GMT
John, I reported your post as inappropriate as it is mostly irrelevant to foundational physics, the contest and fQXi.org. It also contains vulgarities that I don't think should be on public display here. You are of course entitled to your opinions about sexual matters but I think it would be better if you aired them somewhere more suitable or kept them to yourself. You might also keep in mind that the FQXi community is multinational. I don't know what the apology about spiking the punch meant but perhaps you were drunk when you wrote that post. Kind regards Georgina
post approved
Victor Usack replied on Dec. 15, 2017 @ 20:51 GMT
RE John R Cox. You are quite right. Without the math we’ve got philosophy. Which to me to seems like the land of no consensus. The difficulty is that the equation has no meaning apart from some conceptual scheme. Suppose I take Newtons law F=ma. Now I take ohms law I=E/R. By this invocation I write IF=ma/R. Now I take the square root of both sides… By the operations invocation, substitution, and cancellation, I can go on like this all day long. But what does it mean? Every genius knows the alternate approach is to adjust the conceptual scheme to correlate with the math. The greatest stroke of genius in my lifetime is the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. (Tegmark) Here we discard the conceptual scheme entirely. But where does that leave us? Paul Davies sarcastically calls this the “Anything goes Universe”; all identification becomes arbitrary. Most people reject an undecidable Universe. Tegmark refers to the preconceived conceptual scheme as “baggage”. The problem I see is realism vs idealism. Tegmarks hypothesis is confined to what he calls the “External Reality Hypothesis” (ERH). What Tegmark does not see is that the ERH is the biggest piece of baggage. His entire theory is inside this giant bag. Inside he points and shouts “get this baggage out of here!”. Unfortunately for me this note amounts to just another bag. I spend my mind in a futile attempt to identify the final bag. I have descended into madness.
Barring that we are left to accept an open ended, undecidable, unknowable universe. But even this turns out to be just another conceptual scheme. Supposing that math will set me free has not worked out. Math will be the real product, after we agree on some conceptual scheme. So far we have not worked that out. Similarly, the essay contest winner will be the one that told the judges what they wanted to here. That’s the way it is.
“this is a fine mess…” Stan Laurel.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 15, 2017 @ 22:04 GMT
Victor,
I have reread your post and still find agreement. Realism vs. idealism, says it quite well. Foundationally we don't know if we know anything, and that was one of the very earliest observations in the evolving theory of knowledge. It does make for some good science fiction and probably is the general level of acceptable proof of many a Bachelor of Science degree, but it doesn't qualify for acceptance in a Masters curriculum. We are indeed in a fine mess, Stan, but must continue in search of a verifiable truth.
Best, jrc
report post as inappropriate
adel sadeq replied on Dec. 16, 2017 @ 17:29 GMT
Victor
I think Tegmark had some theory in mind that resembles mine.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2451
you can run all the programs here, including gravity(derived fro the same system that produce QM)
http://www.reality-theory.net/a.htm
I hope (if I have time) to make a better connection with the mainstream mathematical formalism in the new essay contest.
Note: I think the system is successful because all aspects are emergent but time you might call it ultra emergent!
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 17, 2017 @ 13:51 GMT
Fundamental as distinct from foundational is the question.
Fundamentally we can say that the speed of light is finite at a physical constant value regardless of whatever units of measurement we might devise. The foundational question must be; why(?) that particular velocity and not some other?
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 17, 2017 @ 21:02 GMT
Hi John, so is your mathematical answer to that question going to be your essay entry?
I'd say it's The speed at which a wave of altered distribution can travel through the host EM medium. A quality of the host EM medium's nature. I realize there is no such medium in space-time but this is in the foundational space, rather than emergent seen space; realizing that you will regard that as nothing worthwhile as it consists of vocabulary rather than other symbolic representation. Good, then I won't be 'Bruce Lee-ed'.
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson replied on Dec. 17, 2017 @ 21:25 GMT
Georgina et al,
I will ask you to read my essay when it is posted. I have argued that there is more to the vacuum than simply nothing. I demonstrate how space-time emerges. I used math but less than my previous efforts.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 17, 2017 @ 22:24 GMT
Georgina,
Not necessarily "nothing worthwhile" if you can rationalize it. But if you can, I wouldn't settle for the amount awarded as essay prizes. Your premise suggests that projected EMR interacts with EM already in motion and that manifold profusion results in the empirically measured constant velocity. If that immense amount of math replicated sufficiently across classical spreads would prove out, you would be positioned to make a linear statement of GR. It of course would have to be consistent with Maxwell, or supersede all known applications. But that is what the question poses for a Quantum Mechanical or any Descartes mechanistic Newtonian rationale.
A fundamental question might well be posed as to what the qualifications are physically that influences behavior of EMR. Such as; what is it that makes different frequency ranges interact differently with different material substances, long radar wavelengths penetrate solid earth and walls yet reflect from metallic surfaces, shorter microwaves are absorbed to heat food, and of course the visible octave reflects off most solid materials.
The simple question of distinction was made to illustrate, and most times in physics the foundational question is the elephant sized room swept under the rug. If you are indeed interested, Good Luck, I do not know where you might start to research such efforts but I would think there has long been many. There has not been a Nobel Physics prize awarded to a woman in over 50 years, and only two ever awarded. jrc
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 18, 2017 @ 02:13 GMT
John, I like the question. It is interesting. I haven't thought about it but will.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 18, 2017 @ 03:44 GMT
Initial thoughts john; I have 'heard' that atoms do not reflect em radiation but absorb and re-emit it. I don't know the history of that idea. However i think because atoms are of a small range of sizes and very small they are only able to do that for appropriately sized wavelengths of radiation. An atom can't absorb a radio wave. The microwaves are small enough to pass between (and maybe through the atoms, I don't know I haven't looked into it) without altering them. I understand they heat food by interacting with water molecule bonds increasing their vibration, which in turn vibrates the atoms of the neighbouring food constituents. I guess why radio waves can pass through the solids is they are too big to be absorbed by the atoms but are able to affect the em medium between them which carries it through. Reflection by metal is interesting. Maybe to do with the sensitivity of the medium to the movement of electrons. (Which I propose also gives magnetic and electric fields.Magnetic fields from co-ordinated motion of many electrons in the magnet affecting the medium's distribution, electric field from translation motion of electron/s affecting the medium's distribution) Maybe the un-coordonated motion of the free electrons in the metal is like a barrier to the radio waves.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 18, 2017 @ 18:54 GMT
Georgina,
I wasn't very clear in that, though you got the gist of the material side of the question. There are reams of catalogues of research in both classical and quantum chemistry that examine those characteristic properties. More clearly the fundamental question you had posed would go to the question of "what IS light?" QM treats it in the additive Spin number methodology while classical treats it as a transverse sinusoidal wave and/or a 'hard' particle with associated electrical and magnetic field. Both treat it as 'massless'. So for your suggestion of why (foundationally) the speed of light would be that particular measured velocity could be treated without interaction with matter in space, BUT its behavior with itself would need to be predicated on characteristics observed in material interactions. Still quite a challenge both conceptually and mathematically. It's really one of the foundational questions which underlies the physical spacetime field theories; that being a real physical yet immaterial space and time co-exist existentially, and that parallelized unity becomes self-limiting at light velocity. Lots of room for conjecture on either side of the coin. jrc
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Dec. 14, 2017 @ 17:09 GMT
Still waiting for essays to be posted. There are only 5 weeks or so left for entries with another 4 weeks or so for community voting. I see a great big time crunch about to happen.
report post as inappropriate
Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Dec. 15, 2017 @ 15:41 GMT
I only rate the essays I have read (and often re-read) and understand. As luck would have it, I often do not read the winning essay until after they have won. In short, I only read a small fraction of the essays with less time this fraction will be smaller. I do read and rate essays from authors that have commented on my work (yes, this means I read Joe Fisher's essays which are like a painting by Jackson Polluck in word form).
report post as inappropriate
Victor Usack wrote on Dec. 18, 2017 @ 02:04 GMT
Re- Adel Sadeq: With the holidays here and my own essay efforts underway I have little time to digest this work. Assuming the claims are justified, this is a magnificent conceptual scheme. I hope my admiration counts for something, because if there is value in credibility then I’m broke. I consider folks like you saint like. The desire for recognition and compensation aside, we toil away our lives in the unpromising hope of making a contribution to man’s most noble aspiration. What else will we do? Play golf? A few of us have abandoned the uni-truth and recognize the existence of any number of viable conceptual schemes applicable to mathematics. Sadly there is near zero market demand for novel conceptual schemes because everybody already has one, just ask them, and to be fair I should not exclude myself. I will not dismay you with unsolicited advice. The home run hit will provide something to help with tying GR to QM, reconciling QM with our established sense of reason, unification of the four forces with the particle zoo, explain the seemingly arbitrary constants, or the dark matter problem. As for me, I will run in the opposite direction. In my new essay I launch massive assault on the established conceptual scheme and attempt to convince the reader that everything mom taught you is valid in a limited range of application. In particular realism, and our conception of space. I attempt to apply this madness to effect a simpler approach to General Relativity. Heh. Wish me luck.
report post as inappropriate
adel sadeq replied on Dec. 18, 2017 @ 14:38 GMT
Victor,
Thank you for the reply. Yes, it does help when somebody says that the idea is interesting, that encourages me , even if little. I have been curious about existence ever since I remember, almost obsessed. In the beginning I was just trying to understand what physicists were saying, it was only much later that I thought there must be a more coherent picture.
I think your path is the one I prefer, because if the idea is not all encompassing(excluding cosmology until later) then it is not interesting because present day physics already has this scattered, complicated and incomplete description, not to mention the no resolution as to why existence.
Best of luck with your essay.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Victor Usack wrote on Dec. 18, 2017 @ 02:07 GMT
Re: Jeffrey Michael Schmitz That makes no sense. Jackson Polluck could not have been a cyber bully.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 18, 2017 @ 14:58 GMT
Vic,
what troubles me about cyber bullies is that they completely disregard due diligence and are oblivious to the potential threats that can simply piggy back on their infantile demands for attention. Throw in artificial intelligence and various state and non-state actors that target SciTech sites, and it makes one worry that FQXi's time travelling mailbox in a suburb of Atlanta just had a bad hair day. The FQXi administrators are asleep at the switch. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on Dec. 18, 2017 @ 20:56 GMT
Re. what is light?, i will conjecture mass-less because it isn't differentiated from the EM medium as are things that have mass due to resistance of movement through it, but are instead a form of traveling disturbance of the EM medium. Not having to interact with differentiated matter but doing so when the size fits allowing it. The waves are traveling over the sequence of Now's. Traveling at light velocity away from a source of light no new signal will be received to update the old, so the sensory product that may have showed a clock slowing during acceleration slows to the point of no new information. That isn't slowing of 'time itself' as the craft is still traveling through the external reality in order for the experience to happen. Foundational passage of time, changing of the configuration of all existence, is still happening even when experienced time has stopped. As the rate of photon receipt will be dropping with the acceleration I should think it, will become harder to form the product. Perhaps the rate of photon receipt too low for product formation prior to time seeming to have stopped.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 18, 2017 @ 21:43 GMT
Here necessarily talking about a signal detected by the craft that is interpreted by a human or AI as a time. Human sensory products demonstrate scale relativity, they get smaller the further away from the source material object. At the speed of light the observer, using human vision, will be near instantly too far away to see a clock, that did not also move in the direction of the craft.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 18, 2017 @ 22:02 GMT
OK,
so the next question is how is it that given the classical spread of a spherical wave where at twice the covered distance the surface of the wave front increases in total area by a factor of 4 (while the volume is a factor 8), that the disturbance still is received by a detector at the same energy level of the emitted photon? How does it go from a spherical wave to a linear projection yet still behave as if it is a transverse wave in the ubiquitous EM medium?
I was surprised to realize when I returned to reading physics about a decade ago, and dusted off my yellowed paperback of Hawking's 'Brief History of Time', that he skated right over it. Like Pete up on the River accelerating on his racing SkiDoo over a hundred yards of open water when he was running over the ice on the snowmobile (sled) trail (it's quicker to get around when rivers freeze and summer ends). It is really like nobody wants to disturb Neils Bohrs sleep, and challenge the instantaneous Quantum Leap.
well... he might have exaggerated a little bit, but when the ice is wet its hard to tell. Just try to keep the throttle creeping up without the treads starting to churn.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 19, 2017 @ 01:42 GMT
John, If we think about EM radiation spreading out from a source, like a light bulb, it can be thought of as waves spreading out around it. As the distance from the source increases the individual disturbances making up the waves become more thinly spread as the wave front 'surface' is increasing in size. Giving the observed drop in intensity of the visual image generated from the received EM signal. Only a portion of the EM radiation making up the whole spherical wavefront will be received at any location. I doubt that the individual quanta of disturbance identified with a photon (The amount of energy necessary for a single detection by change in an atom) do spread out over space in the same way as the collection of photons making up the light waves. It makes more sense to me that they do not. So there is no diminishing of the intensity of an individual photon (which is already minimal). Individual photon detection is all or nothing unlike the collection of photons making up the emitted light waves, which is divisible, allowing variable intensity with distance.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 19, 2017 @ 02:28 GMT
Georgina,
I'm a little fuzzy but gather that you are saying that the measurable energy loss at the source of emission is an energy pulse that radiates spherically, and it is the receptor rather than the pulsation that reacts as either a ballistic (parabolic) event or as an induction (hyperbolic) event. That while the pulse will disturb the shape of other pulsations there will be no energy interaction between the otherwise separate pulses. Am I understanding your thinking, and is it a new subject of closer thought? jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 19, 2017 @ 03:32 GMT
John, I don't think what is detected as photons are little projectiles but as I said a disturbance of the medium, (outside of the emitting atom.) So use of the term ballistic might be misleading. Photoreceptors respond to the energy of the disturbances arriving, that affect the chemistry of them. That's either enough energy of the necessary frequency or not, not to do with the shape of the wavefronts arriving. The wavefront shape is also irrelevant to the response of photo cell devices too. All that matters is frequency and intensity. What the sensor array receives together will depend upon the shape of the sensor array and its location or orientation relative to the waves incoming. I don't think the individual disturbances associated with photons affect each other but there is behaviour en masse, hosted by the medium that an individual disturbance (associated with a detection called a photon) isn't capable of producing.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 19, 2017 @ 04:11 GMT
Re. is it a new subject...? I think it's the first time I have been asked in depth here what I think about light. I did watch the Feynman lectures a long time ago (several times), in which he talks about things like photo- multiplyers, and is adamant that photons behave as particles. so I have thought about such things.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 19, 2017 @ 04:49 GMT
Georgina,
It is a contentious subject, lot's of differing conjectures abound. We are severely limited by theorizing on the parameterized behavior of just the receiving device. And of course that is constructed of molecular shapes of atomic structures. To be fair, I don't lock myself in to a hard and fast concept and simply play with a set of preferred ideas. Nobody can agree what 'light' looks like. But it is a fundamental question of the foundational one of 'why that speed'. Have fun with it. It's Christmas week, gotta do some catch up. Happy Holidays. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Dec. 19, 2017 @ 14:06 GMT
Georgina,
I think of the photon as a single wavelet. This model keeps the wave nature and the discontinuous nature we associate with a particle.
You are right; it is a wave in a medium ...
Good essay, good thinking,
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Dec. 21, 2017 @ 15:40 GMT
Brendan Foster, Scientific Programs Consultant
Foundational Questions Institute
foster@fqxi.org ;
December 15, 2017
Ref: Why has REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE not been published?
Dear Dr. Foster,
Why have no submitted essays in the ‘What is Fundamental?’ essay contest been published as yet?
Joe Fishe, Realist
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Joe Fisher wrote on Dec. 20, 2017 @ 15:44 GMT
Dear Managing Director Rajanna,
I submitted a corrected version of my essay REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE to Dr. Brendan Foster on November 10th, 2017. Other FQXi.org essayists have also submitted essays. Not one of them has been published, and today the website only mentions the large Grant application.
Are any essays going to be published, and if so, when can we expect them to be published?
Joe Fisher, Realist
Attachment: 12 page PDF copy of REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE
post approved
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 00:06 GMT
All,
It looks like the time crunch is here. Zero essays became 13 essays which are now 26 essays. It is going to be difficult too keep up ...
BTW, there should be a link that goes directly to the essays.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 00:31 GMT
Gary,
click Contests on the horizontal bar at top, the on the left of the page brought up in the uppermost section for current contests click the 'read, discuss and rate essays'. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 02:12 GMT
John,
Yes, I can get there but it takes a couple of clicks. Usually there is a direct link on the FQXi main page.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 5, 2018 @ 21:45 GMT
All,
Wow ... It is almost the close of business on Friday afternoon with 2-1/2 weeks left in the contest ... and there are only 23 entries.
Well, unless something changes, I'll be in the finals:-)
Here's hoping for more entries.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 7, 2018 @ 21:22 GMT
I entered mine two weeks ago. I too am sort of wondering what is up.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 5, 2018 @ 23:07 GMT
Gary,
It is very quiet indeed! Both FQXI and essay writers are hard to find.
Some New Year`s resolutions?
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 6, 2018 @ 16:05 GMT
Although my essay, REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE contained only 17,502 characters when I submitted it on November 29, 2017, because I used exact .25 line spacing, the essay did contain 12 pages of text. When I was informed of this by FQXi.org Project Manager Dr. Brendon Foster, I resubmitted a revised 9 page copy on December 25, 2017. Not only has my 9 page version of REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE not been published, I can get no answer from Dr. Brendan Foster, or FQXi.org Managing Director Dr.Kavita Rajanna, or Editing Consultant Dr. Zeeya Merali as to why my essay has not been published.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 7, 2018 @ 15:49 GMT
Here is a bit of the essay, Information is fundamental by Sergio Michelson that was published on line on December 20, 2017 by FQXi.org
“The final layer of reality You'll notice that while we speak of information, particles and avatars, we don't go into much details as to what the “physical structures” may be that support this world-view and this hypothesis. This is because we don't care what the physical structure is, only that it exists. Why?”
I have pointed out in the Abstract of my essay, REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE that the real visible surface of the earth existed for over a million years before any English language fluent man, woman, child or parrot ever appeared on that surface. The only physical structure that has ever existed am that only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light.
WHY HAS MY 9 page ESSAY NOT BEEN PUBLISHED?
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Ajay Pokhrel wrote on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 14:17 GMT
Hello Everyone,
I submitted my essay 4 days ago with around 4000 words and 10 pages, but it is not published yet. Do you know the reasons behind it? If there are any mistakes by me can I resubmit the essay with correction further?
Kind Regards
Ajay
report post as inappropriate
a l wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 10:25 GMT
As a service to the Community I note that Joe Fisher has been spamming the Contest section by pasting repeatedly a self advertising text. Also, using the same text as an argument he has been rating entries. I believe that such behavior is unacceptable and violates the rules.
I think the Administrators should prevent further disruption and also that they should erase all traces of his activity in this section
(I have removed a couple of them but there are many more.)
report post as inappropriate
Giovanni Prisinzano wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 20:27 GMT
Dear Brendan,
The header of the current contest forum shows: “Spring 2017". Cannot you correct?
Kind regards,
Giovanni
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 12:48 GMT
Are there ever extensions granted please? I've put in a good deal of work, but struck down by a tummy bug at the moment. I cant finish my essay in this state
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 04:31 GMT
I want to wish good luck...
To all those who wanted to get their entries in on time; I hope you make it. To all those who do; I want to thank you for coming and welcome you to the field. My essay has yet to post, but I have faith the FQXi folks will post it, because they have had long enough to determine if it exceeds the formatting guidelines or whatever. I also know there are some exciting submissions from friends and colleagues yet to post, that may be thought provoking and are sure to be significant. So I look forward to a very interesting field of entries and some wonderful discussions, before this contest wraps up.
I want to wish good luck to all.
May the best essays win!
Warm Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 13:39 GMT
Dear FQXi,
The onslaught of 1 rating has begun! :-) I just got a 1 and came down from 7.4 in five ratings to 6.3 in six ratings. And I figured the highest rating essay [Hossenfelder] also got a 1 rating and is down from 7.9 in ten ratings to 7.3 in eleven ratings. Other essays have been attacked too. Whoever has given these meaningless 1s should be exposed and disqualified from this contest. And seriously, these torpedo 1s should be removed from everyone's score. We must not let the culprit go scot-free this time. These kind of participants ruin an enjoyable contest.
Thanks,
Tejinder
report post as inappropriate
a l replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 22:12 GMT
On Jan. 18. I already alerted the Administrators and their reluctance to act now adds insult to injury.
report post as inappropriate
Philip Gibbs replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 09:08 GMT
I too have had a 1 already and am braced for more of them, but I have come to accept it as part of the contest. They tend to even out once all the scores are in. I think these low marks come from authors down the bottom who feel discouraged by the marks and comments they have received. I have won some prizes in the past and now enter the contest purely for the discussion. I hope to find time to read some of the essays down the bottom to see if I can find some words of encouragement. Every contestant has put work and thought into their essays and even if their ideas are far from the mainstream there is always something worthy in their efforts.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 13:30 GMT
Dear Philip
There are two aspects to these contests from my point of view.
One is scoring. I don't think the 1 all coming from bottom essays maybe one or two. The majority of them are non passionate and non participate in discussions. I think it mostly comes from upper to upper middle who get high scores for different reasons mostly from political/social plays. I have given low score rarely in two situations, like these consciousness related physics which I abhor. Also when contentless essays that shoot to the top crowding the good ones or lets say much better ones.
The second, although it is expected, I think many of the good essays are swamped by too much philosophical essays, narrow line concepts( I still prefer to the former) and such that the reader does not have the proper time to examine the good ones, and the good one need some time. Case in point has been Sean Carroll's essay, had I not scored him highly it would have been sitting at the bottom. Yours too, you picked up raters only after I propelled you( I am not looking for favors believe me). My essay (and very few others) is hopeless, those who know physics some don't know programming or it takes lots of time, or highly biased towards mainstream toolkit. Many many others are physics philosophers and they live in their brain mostly. Yet others(majority) are mainly homemade physics philosophers they hit and run. Of course, That is all fine.
But for some of us we do it for joy and curiosity and I use the occasion to gather more information and scrutinize my system and that's all.
report post as inappropriate
adel sadeq replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 13:32 GMT
That was me up there. I am not a coward, except when I am being chased by a knife:)
report post as inappropriate
Jochen Szangolies replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 12:11 GMT
I had actually thought that it's a lot better with the one point ratings this year, but maybe I've only gotten lucky up to now. Anyway, if you think that an essay that's so far gotten a high average rating in fact deserves a much lower one, you should at least have the guts to make your point in discussion---who knows, maybe you just misunderstood something, and it's not all those who gave it a high rating that are wrong.
But yeah, I also don't see any real way to get rid of these problems, other than hoping that others will rate fairly in response.
report post as inappropriate
adel sadeq replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 20:08 GMT
I have already made my position clear in in this thread which everybody can see, and about 30% maybe are the consciousness people in the contest. Just calculate the risk:) I have also said rarely, maybe one or two per contest, I guess I was just very dissatisfied, I only scored people with clear physics entries which are few by nature of the contest and ignore the rest. I have also in previous contests gave many people my piece of mind thinking that they will debate fairly, how wrong could I have been. Some I did not even rate, but their answer came quickly:(
I think this year, just a guess, that administrator( or some good Samaritan) gave a rough rate early on preempting the score 1 trolls. I also noticed that every time you go to a level, lets say, 5.5 to 7, somebody in that group cuts you down. of course if you stay at the 20% bottom then nobody cares.
And just like score 1, it is clear that people, especially this year, score people horrifyingly high for so many( and I mean many) undeserving essays (my opinion of course). Case in point, many well known authors with good entries with dismal number of raters and rating.
That said, I have read just about all the essays with reasonable scrutiny, I doubt anybody can say that.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 10:13 GMT
As i wrote on Brian Josephson’s essay page, why not argue for the complete elimination of this nonsensical voting process? Instead of complaining about some nonsensical votes, arguing for the elimination of the entire voting system may make more sense (except you are within the leading group…). It is cristal clear for me that most actions in the contest are centered around gaining high votings, arguments more and more vanish and most contestants fall into deep sleep, as the ‘case’ for the right answers to the contest’s question solely in terms of votings seem to be settled for them and no further arguments are needed.
report post as inappropriate
Jochen Szangolies replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 13:17 GMT
Another point of view would be to try and build up better statistics---if one has say 10 votes around 7 points, a single vote of 1 carries a disproportional impact. But too few people are voting in order to get rid of such outliers, or at least, rob them of some of their power. So go out and vote---I've been trying to do the same!
report post as inappropriate
Philip Gibbs replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 17:42 GMT
There has been a lot less low voting this year. The median score is significantly higher than the last few contests. I don't know what caused the change but it is an improvement.
As to the suggestion of eliminating voting, I see where this comes from but each year when the deadline for voting passes the comments stop dead. I fear that without author rating there would be very few comments and the nature of what would appear might be less helpful to authors. I enter the contests purely for the feedback and opportunity to compare ideas, so this would kill the contest for me.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 18:16 GMT
Jochen,
Hmm, if the answer to the contest’s question would be a matter of statistics, we could eventually figure it out with more certainty by asking huge populations of scientists and philosophers. I am therefore nonetheless not convinced of a voting process. What does my voting add, even if I upvote someone with, say 10 votes of 2, unless there is a transparent discussion for all voters...
view entire post
Jochen,
Hmm, if the answer to the contest’s question would be a matter of statistics, we could eventually figure it out with more certainty by asking huge populations of scientists and philosophers. I am therefore nonetheless not convinced of a voting process. What does my voting add, even if I upvote someone with, say 10 votes of 2, unless there is a transparent discussion for all voters for why one has voted the way one did. For me, these scores do not add anything substantial to answer certain scientific or philosophical questions. They are, just like in elections, motivated even by some irrationality to be conform with an already established statistical pattern.
Philip,
“There has been a lot less low voting this year. The median score is significantly higher than the last few contests. I don't know what caused the change but it is an improvement.“
Yes, because someone / some people have given initial ratings right after puplication that were centered around a value of 5 points. But you are right, not many people took the action to immediately downvote them. In fact, they are quite stable until publication I think. I haven’t yet examined if that has contributed to their frequency of exchanging some arguments.
Nonetheless, my opinion is that the contest is disturbed by the voting system. If there would be less entries, but of better quality and furthermore no voting process but the fact that all entries are subject to the expert panel’s final evaluation, then every contestant would eventually make more sensible comments. Eventually not that quantitatively extensive as for example Eugene Klingman does, but nonetheless the chance of being finally evaluated would prevent all the negative dynamics of the voting process and this seems for me to be reason enough to abandon it. I deduce this from many entrants that do almost not participate in discussions or even replies on their own comments pages. One can speculate about their motivations for having submitted an essay at all.
I for myself take the term ‘contest’ as literally in the sense that I would like to see different ideas being selected more or less reasonable on the basis of more or less reasonable arguments. Your personal motivation for being a contestant is perfectly o.k. and I think if FQXi should ever consider to eliminate the voting process, it could make its decision dependend on a voting for or against such an elimination. Since it has all the email-adresses of all the contestants since 2008, this would be easy to execute.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Priyanka Giri wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 06:52 GMT
Dear Dr. Foster,
I wrote an essay for fqxi for the first time, titled “Fundamental is a relative concept “. My essay rating was 6.8 but somebody gave 1 and now it is 5.8. This is unfair. Essays should be rated according to their contents.
I hope that you will do something about it.
Best,
Priyanka Giri
report post as inappropriate
corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 12:26 GMT
strange thing to get rated with lots of one's and ten's for the same idea. even more strange is the fact that low grades come "in the last minute". I am sure that all the participants are honest and therefor it must exist a strange force with wich we must we must "fight". Or maybe we must embrace it and become the force itself
Silviu
report post as inappropriate
Domenico Oricchio replied on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 15:06 GMT
In this case, if a case of downgrading is reported to the FQXi (especially in the final part of the context), and the FQXi can verify this misbehavior (I am not evaluating the quality of the essay, but a one is an extreme vote for an english illitterate, not scientific, crazy scientist, and this is certainly not the case), then FQXi should react.
There may be the possibility of a strong response, for an ethics lesson, for people who do not understand that it is important for a young scientist to get a final contest, rewarding a woman for her youthful efforts and demonstrating that the scientific environment is hospitable.
Regards
Domenico
report post as inappropriate
Domenico Oricchio replied on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 15:26 GMT
I made a mistake, I thought the vote had come in the last days of the context, February 1st is a generic day for a low vote.
I use the most recent first option to read the posts.
Regards
Domenico
report post as inappropriate
Domenico Oricchio wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 14:01 GMT
It may be useful to publish the whole list of votes in the “This essay’s rating Community” in the page of the authors.
Who votes 1, does not vote 1 for himself, and the downgrading is useless, unless one make the trick to vote 1 for another authors; but everything would become more complicated for unfair participants, that come in this contest without ethics, and without appreciable results in their life.
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 13:11 GMT
Dear FQXi Administrators,
Someone should update the date shown as part of the contest description. It is not Spring 2017.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 15:10 GMT
Thanks to Everyone!
I'd like to especially thank FQXi and the contest organizers, the folks at the Fetzer fund and the Gruber foundation. But here's to a lot of interesting conversations that changed the way we think. I enjoyed the camaraderie and I express my gratitude to all those who stopped by my essay page or interacted with me on theirs. Good luck to all the finalists and thoughtful regard for all those who put their ideas on the line in order to participate here.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 19:25 GMT
Brenden and Crew,
Thanks for orchestrating another essay contest.
I believe this one was special because it had a Nobel Laureate as an essayist.
This contest also was special because it had a large contingent of very capable philosophers. Can pigs fly? One of those questions that just makes me grin.
Thank you,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Ajay Pokhrel replied on Mar. 3, 2018 @ 07:01 GMT
Hello Don,
From a high school student to a Nobel laurate.
There is 1 high school student and that is me and a Nobel laureate Dr Brian in the contest.
FQXI is diverse.
Regards
Ajay Pokharel
report post as inappropriate
Lee Bloomquist wrote on Mar. 29, 2018 @ 18:56 GMT
Example: "Force" or "Possibility," which is more "Fundamental"?In an inertial frame tied to a particle at point A, the "Force" on the particle determines which point B the particle will go to.
In classical mechanics, F=ma is, in terms of Hamiltonian dynamics, the solution to a differential equation for the total differential dH/dt, where dH/dt=0 and there are pairs of canonical coordinates. The solution translates into F=ma.
In an inertial frame tied to a particle at point A, the "possibilites" for the particle determine a collection from which one possibility will be selected, called here point B.
In quantum mechanics, the wave function determines a collection of possibilities from which a point B will be selected when the wave function "collapses."
In this case, "Force" is "fundamental" by virtue of its being the solution to a differential equation with an initial condition being dH/dt=0.
But "Possibilities" are "fundamental" by virtue of being the collection from which one possibility is selected over others.
Instead of the solution of a differential equation, the possibility selected may be studied by mathematical game theory.
Evidently in this comparison, quantum mechanics is more "fundamental" than classical mechanics. But then mathematical game theory requires more machinery. There must be a collection of possibilities, a selecting "agent" or selecting "automaton," a utility function for this selector, and rules by which the selector can "take its turn."
So in this example, following the scientific evidence to determine which is more "fundamental," force or possibility, requires more structure in the mathematics.
Then please consider: Added structure in the mathematics might well be required to explain dark matter and dark energy. And perhaps the reason these currently have no explanation in the community is that this fundamentally additional structure has not yet been added to the mathematics.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 9, 2018 @ 07:38 GMT
what is foundamental ? the sphères of course.Have you seen all ? a team of imperial college has proved that electron was spherical ....Good new for my theory of spherisation ,they turn so they are after all these sphères :)
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.