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

Vladimir Fedorov: on 2/24/18 at 13:52pm UTC, wrote Dear Gilbert, I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to...

Steven Andresen: on 2/23/18 at 13:30pm UTC, wrote Dear Gilbert If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Joe Fisher: on 1/31/18 at 16:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Fellow Essayists This will be my final plea for fair treatment., ...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 1/30/18 at 22:00pm UTC, wrote Hi Gilbert Leon Beaudry You are correct in saying “The search for what...

Gilbert Beaudry: on 1/29/18 at 15:31pm UTC, wrote How can something be visible and infinite at the same time? We cannot see...

Gilbert Beaudry: on 1/29/18 at 15:10pm UTC, wrote Science demands that it be described. If you chose not to describe it,...

Joe Fisher: on 1/19/18 at 17:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Gilbert, Reality does not have to be "described." Joe Fisher,...

Joe Fisher: on 1/19/18 at 17:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Gilbert Leon Beaudry, In qualifying the aim of the ‘What is...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: "The acrobats central to the rotation of a platform, share the same type of..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


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
August 24, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: The Science for What is Fundamental by Gilbert Leon Beaudry [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Gilbert Leon Beaudry wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 21:53 GMT
Essay Abstract

Fundamental in science takes on many meanings but, the undercurrent for it must be our foundation for what is the true description of reality, to bring clarity and enable scientist to make accurate predictions. The search for what are the fundamentals of our Universe is accomplished with the optimum fundamentals for what the ventures in science constitutes, in the true quest of the fundamental laws needed for formulating hypotheses that accurately describe the universe or phenomena seen.

Author Bio

Gilbert Leon Joseph Beaudry blogs and promotes open science with public collaboration at www.PhysicsOfUniverse.com and as Astrophysics Research Channel on Google+ and YouTube. On December 9, 2016, at Dallas, Texas, he did an oral presentation, "Energy Radiation vs Thermal Radiation Detected from Electromagnetic Spectrum Observations" at the International Conference on Astrophysics and Particle Physics. He also has submitted to the Open Science Journal a science paper, titled, "Energy Radiation or Thermal Radiation Detected from Electromagnetic Spectrum Observations", that is currently undergoing peer review revisions. Research interest are, but not limited to: Electromagnetic spectrum, structure of the Universe, red-shifting, gamma-ray burst, philosophy of science.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 02:03 GMT
Dear Gilbert Leon Beaudry,

You rightly note that new things can overturn what has previously been accepted as a fundamental concept. For example, Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" overturned our intuitive understanding of fundamental time as universal simultaneity. My essay reviews the historical development of this in a way that you might find interesting, as it deals with several of the topics you have expressed interest in.

I appreciated your discussion of Visual Universe, Detectable Universe, Mathematical Proposed Universe, and Speculative Universe. Einstein worked in the latter two categories to derive his conclusion.

I invite you to read my essay and hope you will comment on it.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 05:14 GMT
When my first post shows up with someone else's first ranking, one might associate them. This would be false. I generally rank essays after I have seen them all, with a few remarkable exceptions. I would not have given you a 3.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Gilbert Leon Beaudry wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 07:30 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I appreciate that, I did think it was a bit harsh, lol. I will certainly read and comment on your essay.

The essay was purposely kept brief hoping the reader would understand the basic concepts for accepting fundamental laws. I didn't get into a deep discussion on the merits of pursuing science by exploratory mathematics and speculation. Einstein was a genius and he was able to convince his mathematics was correct and much has been useful for a number of applications.

The classifications are to be useful in clarifying exactly what kind of Universe is being proposed.

The Detectable Universe gives us theories and hypothesizes that support the fundamental laws for the phenomena described because, they are supported by empirical evident and solid scientific methodologies.

When the underlying fundamental laws for a theory or hypothesis is proposed, one should consider is it speculation, a mathematical proposal, or a first impression without any supported scientific methodologies or empirical evidence.

I also commented that normal science described by Thomas Kuhn, is presently stating fundamental laws they say support the observations, but are unable to provide empirical evident or realities that are believable. They are often problematic puzzling realities but propagated as being true.

I am suggesting that true fundamental laws for those perplexing phenomena are not know, and that the scientist tool box for explaining phenomena is missing the true fundamental underlying laws needed to explain what is being observed.

The conclusions included are, speculation and mathematics is not the empirical evidence needed to support a hypothesis. It's probably useful sometimes, but as I pointed out the experimenters are frustrated they can't find the proof for much of the speculation.

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 17:02 GMT
Dear Gilbert Leon Beaudry,

In qualifying the aim of the ‘What is Fundamental?’ essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: “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.

Real Nature has never had any abstract finite levels.

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical 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.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gilbert Leon Beaudry replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 15:31 GMT
How can something be visible and infinite at the same time? We cannot see into infinity and so your description is flawed.



You also failed to consider what is occurring at the energy detection level, which is energy effecting real matter which is beyond simple illumination.

My essay does describes "the different levels of which nature can be described". It qualifies under the rules and goes beyond making a simple statement of what one claims is the truth. It is a set of observations to determine which Universe is being offered for acceptance.

Your description I would classify as the visual universe - a first impression without any science to back it up.

Bookmark and Share



Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 16:17 GMT
Gilbert,

What is fundamental about the Universe is what it is and does before we even have a look at it. Our senses give us a picture of the universe that does not exist but in our mind.

But logic we trust as the mother of all sciences and truth making activities. In my essay, I show a bottom-up logical creation from nothingness and what existence means in a substantial logical system...

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Gilbert,

Reality does not have to be "described."

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Gilbert Leon Beaudry replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 15:10 GMT
Science demands that it be described. If you chose not to describe it, then you chose not to take part in science.

Some descriptions are closer to the truth that others. The philosophies of physics and science tries to determine with rules that will best describe reality in the best pursue of the truth.

The essay description asked for, "We often consider some of these descriptions “more fundamental” than other more “emergent” ones, and many physicists pride themselves on pursuing the most fundamental sets of rules. But what exactly does it mean?". My essay provided fundamental sets of rules to determined what kind of Universe is being offered for acceptance and weight its relevance in relation to what is the true ultimate description of reality.

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:30 GMT
Dear Gilbert

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 13:52 GMT
Dear Gilbert,

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

It is so close to me.

«Normal science practised by academia tends to continue into a psychological phenomenon that is known as group thinking, which is very dangerous as it also actively suppresses dissenting viewpoints and puts up institutionalizes barriers to block or prevent outside influences».

«Mysteries and abnormalities sometimes exist because of wrong reasoning that cannot soundly resolve the many problems realised. The reasonings are the fundamentals used from the scientist’s toolbox to try to pry open the lid for the real descryption of the phenomenon seen. If those fundamentals are wrong – then the pieces will not come together to formulate the correct hypothesis».

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

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.