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

Peter Jackson: on 2/23/18 at 16:47pm UTC, wrote Thanks. I'll look it up after the contest. I hope you get time to read...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 2/23/18 at 15:40pm UTC, wrote Dear A. Losev, the physical space is a fundamental , which according to the...

a l: on 2/15/18 at 21:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Giovanni, thank you for your kindness. I shall try to find some time...

Giovanni Prisinzano: on 2/14/18 at 18:23pm UTC, wrote I apologize for writing your name incorrectly, Giovanni

Giovanni Prisinzano: on 2/14/18 at 18:17pm UTC, wrote Dear A. Losey, a very nice and insightful essay, one of the best in the...

a l: on 2/7/18 at 0:06am UTC, wrote Hi Peter, the ref is from a rather improbable place: Alexandre Kojeve,...

Peter Jackson: on 2/6/18 at 21:07pm UTC, wrote Hi 'A'. No Name admitted? Nicely written & interesting, I also appreciated...

Joe Fisher: on 1/29/18 at 21:38pm UTC, wrote Dear Fellow Essayists This will be my final plea for fair treatment., ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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: A Fundamental Loop by A. Losev [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author a l wrote on Jan. 9, 2018 @ 21:06 GMT
Essay Abstract

In a bootstrapping view of reality physics, mathematics and cognition are deemed to be equally fundamental. Democritus, Pythagoras and Anaxagoras are taken to be originary figures and historical aspects are sketched.

Author Bio

Mathematics and physics at the local University. Landed a job at some Institute. Read books.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 18:41 GMT
Losev

Thank you very much for this interesting and very thought provocative essay. It was very fun to read your article.

I agree to most of it. In my opinion nothing is really fundamental. However, TIME is the concept that comes nearest to it.

Good luck and thanks.

John-Erik Perszon

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author a l replied on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 10:53 GMT
Thanks for the kind words ('fun' is the one I really value).

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 03:22 GMT
Hi A. Losev,

About crow intelligence A thought experiment on the intelligence of crows. TED talk by Joshua Klein Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 03:33 GMT
PS. your essay is full of interesting ideas. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author a l replied on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 10:58 GMT
Thank you for your interest. I do not really get the point from your link but if you deem it important, it would be good to read more about it.

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 23:08 GMT
Hi A. Losev, your characterizing birds as unintelligent was factually incorrect. I understand you probably intended it as a flippant fun comment but in doing so you have treated the whole class of birds as one and deemed them stupid. You might as well have said mammals are stupid, ignoring the superior intelligence of the exceptional ones. Some species of the crow family have been found to have problem solving and tool use on par with the Great apes.

The link is of an amateur who has studied crow intelligence and proposes it is put to use helping mankind rather than mankind seeking to exterminate the crows which are thriving due to adaption to human civilization.

Birds that are not affected by light pollution or artificial living conditions will have better calibration of their circadian rhythms than humans living in artificial conditions. I would say therefore they are mentally more attuned to what is really fundamental, foundational passage of time, than people.

Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 04:57 GMT
Dear A Losev,

It is hard to argue with your statement that "in the bootstrapping view of reality physics, mathematics and cognition are deemed to be equally fundamental." Your high-level analysis is well written, comprehensive, treating fundamental, secular and mystic views. I will focus on your statements that relate to my own essay. You mention

"Just when relativistic physics almost succeeded to banish time…"

and

"When in 1922 Bergson opposed Einstein, the gist of the debate became his thesis that humans built clocks because they knew time and not that they inferred the existence of time from functioning clocks."

My essay revisits the historical development of Einstein's ideas of time. I hope you will read it, enjoy it, and find it worth commenting on.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author a l wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 17:59 GMT
Thank you for reading and commenting. It seems that we share some interests and I hope to find the time to come back your remarkable essay which I have already read.

The Bergson-Einstein debate should be seen neither as a clash between two personalities, (which is the sensationalist approach) nor between science and non-science (which is the standard one). It is an incompatibilty between two philosophies, e.g. phemomenology and positivism. A key issue is the notion of 'the given'.

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." This Einstein quote is fairly well known and even if it is just a kind of 'pious lie', it remains as a popular epitome for the relativistic views.

"To know 'what time it is' consists in noting a correspondance, not between a clock indication and some other clock indication, but between a clock indication and the moment where we find ourselves" («Savoir l'heure qu'il est» consiste а constater une correspondance, non pas entre une indication d'horloge et une autre indication d'horloge, mais entre une indication d'horloge et le moment ou l'on se trouve). Bergson is on record for saying this in the presence of Einstein at the 'Seance du 6 avril 1922'.

A theory, even if its is a perfect one, still has to be distinct from reality - the map is not the territory, that is, the whole point is the difference: information is part of the world but somehow it is a separate part. Without the separation it does not exist as such. The distinction between a theory, its interpretation(s) and the world is actually a concrete instance of the otherwise much discussed Semiotic Triangle. One cannot dismantle it without lapsing into some kind of sub-rationalism and this has been my topic.

Bookmark and Share



Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 16:49 GMT
Dear A. Losev,

I have enjoyed reading your pretty essay. In particular your last line caught my attention - where you suggest that the loop between physics, maths and mind indicates that nothing is fundamental. On the other hand I suggest in my essay that finding the common ground for the physical and the mathematical world [and mind] is *the* fundamental :-)

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 21:07 GMT
Hi 'A'. No Name admitted?

Nicely written & interesting, I also appreciated (and agreed) the philosophical aspects, your hypothesis and conclusion.

But might you think there could something fundamental and unifying (i.e. using just a Bergson 'absolute' time') that we haven't yet discovered as we're not yet at that stage of intellectual evolution?

Can you point me to who/where made the lovely "reference frame is a Cartesian subject in disguise' comment? I agree and have specific descriptions of reference frames and Cartesian systems as real equivalents (and planes forming 'TZ' bounded spaces NOT wire frames!) which seem to resolve many stupidities.

Great job. Re the first question above I hope you'll read my own essay, carefully, as (after touching lightly on philosophy) it does shockingly identify a sequence appearing to achieve that aim. (if you like maths see Declan Traills code and plot of same).

Well done and very best.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author a l replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 00:06 GMT
Hi Peter,

the ref is from a rather improbable place: Alexandre Kojeve, L'idée du determinisme dans la physique classique et dans la physique moderne. (Paris, 1990). I do not have a copy and cannot supply (just now) an exact quote; the context was a contrast between classical and quantum mechanics or rather between a descriptive view of physics and the operational one. It has been written in the 30's by a young philosopher who was perfectly aware that mathematics and physics are not 'given' in the same way. He was a Hegelian but apparently he has not been satisfied by the monism induced through a standard philosophical recipe that turns any problem into a synthesis. My position is even more radical as I prefer to consider a structure that is a heterogeneous whole.

Thanks for reading and commenting. a.l.

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 16:47 GMT
Thanks. I'll look it up after the contest.

I hope you get time to read mine, but if so do so carefull as it proceeds to the classical derivation of QM as there are 5 varied concepts to link. Unfortunately most just skim it (or not read it at all!) and I'ts been hit with a bunch of 1's. C'est La vie!

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Giovanni Prisinzano wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 18:17 GMT
Dear A. Losey,

a very nice and insightful essay, one of the best in the contest, in my opinion.

The historical-philosophical references to Pythagoras, Democritus and Anaxagoras are outlined in a very original and sometimes brilliant way, in a perspective that identifies in the loop connection between maths, matter, and mind the Leitmotiv (as well as the main mystery) of human knowledge. And it is hard to deny that it is so.

Sincere congratulations,

Giovanni

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Giovanni Prisinzano replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 18:23 GMT
I apologize for writing your name incorrectly,

Giovanni

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author a l replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 21:55 GMT
Dear Giovanni,

thank you for your kindness. I shall try to find some time to write a comment to your essay which I have read. You bring out nicely the ambiguity of 'what is fundamental' (is it ontology or epistemology?,) something that needs more space than I have been able to give it here.

Best

a.l.

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 15:40 GMT
Dear A. Losev, the physical space is a fundamental , which according to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes, is a matter and back, matter is a physical space. Time is a synonym for universal total movement of the physical space. Thus, physical space is the Foundation for fundamental theories.

New Cartesian Physics needs your support to develop further. Visit my page and give your assessment there. FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

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.