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

Lee Bloomquist: on 4/15/18 at 12:43pm UTC, wrote I posted an example in the alternative models of cosmology thread: ...

Lee Bloomquist: on 4/11/18 at 7:44am UTC, wrote This is a learning process. My latest posts are in the threads on...

Peter Jackson: on 2/21/18 at 20:20pm UTC, wrote Lee, Yours shouldn't be last! My score going on now. Best Peter

Lee Bloomquist: on 2/12/18 at 2:11am UTC, wrote Note: Before reading the following, please see the linked text for how...

Lee Bloomquist: on 2/10/18 at 21:17pm UTC, wrote IT=(BIT, IT)

George Gantz: on 2/10/18 at 15:22pm UTC, wrote Lee - An interesting start to the essay, but it would have been nice to see...

Lee Bloomquist: on 2/9/18 at 4:32am UTC, wrote Please visit the Wetten interview, equation "it =(qubit,it).

Peter Jackson: on 2/4/18 at 12:46pm UTC, wrote Lee, Fascinating. I'll look it up after the contest. My own essay derives...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "Stefan, Photons are not the only particles that interact..." in Grants awarded for...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, All filtering processes delay signals. There is nothing artificial..." in Dissolving Quantum...

EthelL Marquez: "Looking for experienced lawyers Sydney CBD? Visit The Dymocks Building...." in Quantum Physics, Mini...

Stefan Weckbach: "Robert, thanks again sincerely for your answers. I now am trying to see..." in Grants awarded for...

Eckard Blumschein: "Rob, As you admitted, buffering up signals requires introducing artificial..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Acacia hary: "The article on Quantum Reproduction you share is very attractive. With many..." in Quantum Replicants:...

Leona Halminton: "Thank you for sharing the article, I'm glad to find it here, I hope to know..." in Cosmologists are from...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

Constructing a Theory of Life
An all-encompassing framework of physics could help to explain the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, and free will.

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

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.


FQXi FORUM
December 14, 2018

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Hylozoic universe suggests new future for mathematical game theory by Lee Bloomquist [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Dec. 20, 2017 @ 21:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

"What is fundamental?" Thales— said by many to be our first philosopher and astronomer— concluded that reality exists through an underlying fluid. However, in those days there were no super-conducting fluids, and no quantum, relativistic or string theoretic field theories in terms of which to think. Thales simply thought in terms of water. Close enough. Today that would be the fluid dynamics of fields. However, Thales also thought in terms of "agency" as we would term it today in behavioral economics, experimental and mathematical game theory.

Author Bio

Engineer (ret.)

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Dec. 25, 2017 @ 22:37 GMT
"Professional" means "by convention," the mathematical game of "common information" associated with the philosopher David Lewis, and refined by Jon Barwise in terms of mathematical "situations."

But now we need to know the truth.

I propose two equations:

1. self = (self)

2. self = (thinking, self)

The transformattion of state from (1) to (2) is demonstrated in the following datum.

"Anne took Helen to the water pump outside and put Helen's hand under the spout. As the cool water gushed over one hand, she spelled into the other hand the word "w-a-t-e-r" first slowly, then rapidly. Suddenly, the signals had meaning in Helen's mind. She knew that "water" meant the wonderful cool substance flowing over her hand.

Quickly, she stopped and touched the earth and demanded its letter name and by nightfall she had learned 30 words.

Helen's early writing, which includes words like cold, catch, latch, load, lord, coal, doll, hat, bad, and good-by.

Helen's early writing, completed seven days before she turned seven (the page is dated June 20th, 1887)

Helen quickly proceeded to master the alphabet, both manual and in raised print for blind readers, and gained facility in reading and writing. In Helen's handwriting, many round letters look square, but you can easily read everything.

In 1890, when she was just 10, she expressed a desire to learn to speak; Anne took Helen to see Sarah Fuller at the Horace Mann School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in Boston. Fuller gave Helen 11 lessons, after which Anne taught Helen.

Throughout her life, however, Helen remained dissatisfied with her spoken voice, which was hard to understand.

Helen's extraordinary abilities and her teacher's unique skills were noticed by Alexander Graham Bell and Mark Twain, two giants of American culture. Twain declared, 'The two most interesting characters of the 19th century are Napoleon and Helen Keller.'"

Biography here.

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:35 GMT
Have just read this. It is a nice demonstration. The biology of the transformation is an interesting consideration. To do with sensory response of receptors to stimuli, transmission of sensory information and stimulation of neurons and growth of synapses. I suppose that could ultimately be represent-able in a symbolic language that bridges the gap. There has to be temporal separation between the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 00:57 GMT
Hi Lee, Your essay has left me a bit puzzled. Was the point that, the self of all things is fundamental ( at least to the thing itself) and so self existent rather than dependent on, for example thought or sight for existence. I'd agree with that, though I wouldn't consider the generality of self synonymous with soul. A sentient beings sense of 'I am', more easily identified as a soul, in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:15 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Neither. Thales is fundamental by being the first in Western civilization.

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 3, 2018 @ 03:38 GMT
Yet you acknowledge that science of the enlightenment moved away from more ancient thought. So is your point Thales philosophy ought to be fundamental, as in the foundation, but hasn't been? Or it just is by being fist even though the building was put somewhere else, so to say.

There is some ambiguity in the word 'fundamental'. As it could mean foundational or origin or something like...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 3, 2018 @ 07:11 GMT
A sky scraper is a better analogy. The foundations are obviously foundational but he steel framing is fundamental without being foundational. It can be argued there is no sky scrapper without the foundations of it so they must be fundamental but are they most fundamental? As the steel framing is needed and supports every floor; enabling not just any building but a tall...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 17:04 GMT
wow- might take some time

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 08:58 GMT
Lee, your essay is a bit short and would have benefited from more explanation. In particular the link to the HK video is not explained. Essays need to be more self-contained.

However, there are some interesting ideas here. Your message seems to be that the universe emerges from game theory played between selfs. Is that accurate?

It would have been good to hear more about how...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 16:32 GMT
Yes.

***

Mr. Gibbs,

You write as if you are my assigned judge. Yet as a judge of fundamental physics you make no mention of the two equations in the essay: "self = (self)" and "self = (thinking, self)".

Please consider:

Have you seen these equations anywhere else?

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 18:36 GMT
Lee,

A nice change from most. I suspect Thales was right all along about the 'underlying fluid'. I've certainly found a logical consistency.

I'm also a fan of game theory. Are there any new rules for this one?

And I've checked through your equations and can't find any mistakes. I am therefore I think! (I think). I think and hope as an engineer you may like mine.

Very best

Peter

ps. (I claim not to be a robot but is there really a difference?, ...and if so is that not discrimination?)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 15:31 GMT
Hello Peter,

The equation "self = (self)" is an abstract model of Helen Keller before learning the word "w-a-t-e-r". And "self = (thinking, self)" is an abstract model of Helen after learning the word "w-a-t-e-r."

The Born rule can be modeled as a game with rules called Probability Learning, well studied years ago in the lab. I wrote a little about applying Probability Learning to the Born rule for the contest here about math, titled "Simple math for questions to physicists."

Some might be uncomfortable with the "self" in "self = (thinking, self)". For particles following the Born rule, instead of "self" you could use "it"--

it = (bit, it)

This is the obverse of John Wheeler's idea, "it from bit." (Which Ed Witten talked about in an interview available on the web.)

"it = (bit, it)" says instead that once you have an "it", then "it = (bit, it)" means that a particle following the Born rule produces a stream of "bits" from the "it."

In the interview, Witten also talks about the diagram Wheeler used in conjunction with "it from bit"-- an eye with an arrow of seeing circling around to see itself. So circularity seems to be common to both Wheeler's "it from bit" and the non-wellfounded set "it = (bit, it)."

More on applying non-wellfounded sets to game theory is in the book by Barwise and Moss, "Vicious Circles: On the Mathematics of Non-Wellfounded Phenomena."

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 12:46 GMT
Lee,

Fascinating. I'll look it up after the contest.

My own essay derives the Born rule and uncertainty mechanistically from the 4 part angular momentum (orthogonal orbital velocity) distribution on a rotating sphere surface.

Do give me your response to that.

Thanks

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 20:20 GMT
Lee,

Yours shouldn't be last! My score going on now.

Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 04:32 GMT
Please visit the Wetten interview, equation "it =(qubit,it).

Bookmark and Share



George Gantz wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 15:22 GMT
Lee - An interesting start to the essay, but it would have been nice to see the ideas fleshed out. So perhaps we can think of reality as a "fluid-like" medium of fields, with "stuff" being the flowing motion of the fields. However, the flowing motion shows a quality of "agency" - an intentionality at work. The flowing motion shows what - intelligence? - purpose?

Indeed, I think the findings of complexity theory suggest a flowing intentionality is at work - but the truths are hidden from this in the paradoxes of self-identity and recursiveness.....

Regards - George Gantz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 21:17 GMT
IT=(BIT, IT)

Bookmark and Share


Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 02:11 GMT
Note: Before reading the following, please see the linked text for how manipulations of the text IT=(BIT, IT) produce a stream of bits.-- e.g., IT=(((((((BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT,(BIT, IT))))))).

***

IT=(BIT, IT) as a way to operationalize John Wheeler's IT FROM BIT feels like a science of simplicity.

IT=(BIT, IT) uses only two "words"-- BIT and IT-- while E=MC(squared) uses three-- "E," "M," and "C." A sign of simpicity?

Perhaps another:

If IT=(BIT, IT) were to become an acceptable model of the Universe, someone in engineering would know immediately that something is missing. Nothing comes for free - every engineering project has a budget, every engine needs fuel. But in this equation for the Universe, a stream of bits seems to come out of nothing.

Engineering would suspect there's an engine, somehow invisible to us, which produces this stream. Further there must be fuel-- again somehow invisible to us-- to feed the engine. And again, by the laws of thermodynamics, there must be an exhaust stream-- again, somehow invisible to us. Because every engine is inefficient and as a result, every engine produces an exhaust stream.

Now replace above phrases like "which is invisble to us" with adjective "dark"--

The engine that drives the stream IT=(BIT, IT) is made of matter. Dark matter.

We call the exhaust stream-- which escapes to expand the Universe-- dark energy.

Take one equation; apply the laws of thermodynamics; its a story of dark matter and energy.

When IT=(BIT, IT) these two enter the picture immediately.

Bookmark and Share



Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Apr. 11, 2018 @ 07:44 GMT
This is a learning process. My latest posts are in the threads on alternative models of cosmology and alternative models of reality.

Bookmark and Share


Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Apr. 15, 2018 @ 12:43 GMT
I posted an example in the alternative models of cosmology thread:

Example: "System" or "space-time," which is more "fundamental"?

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.