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

corciovei silviu: on 2/27/18 at 11:54am UTC, wrote Mr Gamper Sorry for not having read your paper earlier... You propose a...

Joe Fisher: on 1/28/18 at 16:45pm UTC, wrote Dear Fellow Essayists This will be my final plea for fair treatment., ...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 1/22/18 at 17:50pm UTC, wrote Dear Johan Gamper Avery nice research program you are proposing...

Joe Fisher: on 1/14/18 at 22:27pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Johan Gamper, You wrote: “What is “fundamental” for physics...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 1/13/18 at 21:03pm UTC, wrote Johan Gamper, I too don’t use the word metaphysics (for its bad...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 1/13/18 at 20:37pm UTC, wrote Georgina, You are right! See, Existence and change is what my essay is...

Johan Gamper: on 1/8/18 at 0:35am UTC, wrote Stefan, I’m currently working in a hypothetical-deductive phase. My...

Stefan Weckbach: on 1/6/18 at 19:50pm UTC, wrote Johan, does any of the two levels supply us with a reliable probability...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""At the risk of stroking physicists’ egos, physics is hard" But every..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

George Musser: "Imagine you could feed the data of the world into a computer and have it..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe it is wonderful this,so you are going to have a nobel prize in..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: ""I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant." It is not. It is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Georgina Woodward: "I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


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 17, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Scientific Ontology – “What Is ‘Fundamental’” as a Research Program by Johan Gamper [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Johan Gamper wrote on Dec. 21, 2017 @ 21:02 GMT
Essay Abstract

I propose “scientific ontology” as a research program to determine what is “fundamental”. Since the publication of my article “On a Loophole in Causal Closure”, the perceived monism of the world is no longer certain. In the article, interfaces between universes are shown to be consistent with causal closure via an adjustment in the definition of causal...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Scott S Gordon wrote on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 00:27 GMT
Hi Johan,

You question whether our physical universe is mathematical and therefore will only need to obey mathematical rules with no meaningful initial physical foundation compared to a domain where everything that exists is physical.

You posed the question very well and suggest that we keep an open mind. I found this statement most interesting...

"Scientific ontology...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Johan Gamper replied on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 09:53 GMT
Scott,

I’m saying that the traditional principle of the causal closure of the physical, taken to apply generally as a principle of causal closure of any ontological domain, is neutral as to what “the universe” is. That principle, however, implicates that whatever universe we inhabit, that universe cannot be affected by nor affect any other universe. In effect, therefore, we have what...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 3, 2018 @ 01:54 GMT
Hi Johan, I found your essay very interesting. One thing that I'm not clear on is why you say "If we accept the principle of causal closure, we cannot be sure that the world is physical; it may be mathematical. In addition, if we choose one alternative, we must let go of the other." Why must one be relinquished? It seems to me that the existent universe can have physical reality by which I mean it...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 3, 2018 @ 19:47 GMT
I should have said 'velocity' is velocity of something, relative to the observer or other reference object. The main point being it must pertain to something existent. Adding, because it is the way variables are identified - measured by imposing a particular perspective. Which is another point entirely about the way in which measurement imposes a perspective that gives a singular value...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Johan Gamper replied on Jan. 3, 2018 @ 21:08 GMT
Would you perhaps say that this argument ties over to the question of Agency in the physical world?

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 4, 2018 @ 00:18 GMT
Hi, I see agency requiring a foundational passage of time that provides an open future rather than block time, or space-time continuum. So that the pattern of existence does not just exist, see-able/measureable from many viewpoints but is happening. So it isn't existence with a fixed mathematical structure of relations but one that changes. Not just giving the appearance of change. As I see it,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Johan Gamper wrote on Jan. 3, 2018 @ 02:53 GMT
According to the old definition of causal closure of the physical we had to choose between the one universe and the other if we considered substance dualism. Substance dualism is of the kind that don’t allow you to see different things as “aspects” of one thing . Either they are different or not and not in an easy way but ontologically.

It is like imaginary things and other things....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 3, 2018 @ 04:16 GMT
Thanks for explaining that-interesting. Yet I don't think mathematical 'things 'can exist of themselves . A quantity is a something, a relationship is between existent things or phenomena. Without physical existence there is neither quantity, category or geometry. Though we can think abstractly and use devices that work with abstract entities, sand imagine independent mathematics- yet it requires...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Johan Gamper wrote on Jan. 3, 2018 @ 05:18 GMT
Scientific ontology, on the other hand, is not about what we think or find plausible. My view is that we must accommodate the unlikely event of an interface between universes before we can rule it out. This is to say that the thing we want to rule out must, so to speak, be allowed the best evidence and according to the new definition of causal closure an interface is if not possible at least consistent with causal closure.

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 6, 2018 @ 02:42 GMT
Hi Johan, looking into the idea of causal closure, I find it a strange artificial division of ways of thinking about the universe. My own view is that there cannot be independently existing mathematics. It must have some kind of host. Either embodied by the material structure of existence, or generated as abstract 'things' within wetware or software, or generated as external representations that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 6, 2018 @ 08:55 GMT
Johan, your essay is a very good read in my opinion. It raises the question whether or not the claim a certain substance dualism can be fasified by the available repertoire of the physical sciences, together with modal logics.

The only question I have in mind is that, although it is perfectly reasonable to me that one can change a basic assumption of physics (and therefore changing the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 6, 2018 @ 12:46 GMT
Ups, should of course be read as

"It raises the question of whether or not the claim about a certain substance dualism can be falsified..."

and

"at the end of the day merely resemble an interpretational variety..."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Johan Gamper wrote on Jan. 6, 2018 @ 19:21 GMT
Stefan,

A short reply is that the modal properties apply to both levels. I’m interested in the pre-scientific one (here).

/Johan

Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 6, 2018 @ 19:50 GMT
Johan, does any of the two levels supply us with a reliable probability measure to objectively evaluate the probability for something to be considered as merely possible or moreover rather necessary?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Johan Gamper replied on Jan. 8, 2018 @ 00:35 GMT
Stefan, I’m currently working in a hypothetical-deductive phase. My latest hypothesis (https://philpapers.org/archive/GAMADH.pdf) relates to the possibility of an interface. Regarding scientific possibilities and necessities I think that a world without an interface would not possibly have a cause of a very first thing whereas a world with at least one interface possibly would have a cause of a first thing.

Bookmark and Share



Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 21:03 GMT
Johan Gamper,

I too don’t use the word metaphysics (for its bad reputation)... So, I took Fundamental Ontology (Wiki). But I kept the two pillars of natural metaphysics; substance and cause. My essay is about these two concepts.

So, I believe a good start for your ontological project may be found in my essay.

Good luck,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 17:50 GMT
Dear Johan Gamper

Avery nice research program you are proposing “scientific ontology” to determine what is “fundamental’” as a Research Program by Johan Gamper Best wishes for that…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 16:45 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 11:54 GMT
Mr Gamper

Sorry for not having read your paper earlier... You propose a very interesting concept. I shall be back with further comments. Maybe we can share each other some more ideas.

Just for fun I rated you to see what would have happen in case of... :)

Silviu

silviucorciovei@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.