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

Steven Andresen: on 2/23/18 at 13:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Christophe If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in...

Christophe Tournayre: on 2/18/18 at 20:28pm UTC, wrote Thank you for your feedback.

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/1/18 at 0:28am UTC, wrote Hi Christophe Tournayre you said "I answered your comment in...

Joe Fisher: on 1/31/18 at 16:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Fellow Essayists This will be my final plea for fair treatment., ...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 1/30/18 at 22:58pm UTC, wrote Hi Dr. Christophe Tournayre Wonderful analysis using and creating...

DIOGENES AYBAR: on 1/27/18 at 12:12pm UTC, wrote Dear Christophe; Your essay is a tour through a labirinth without entrance...

Georgina Woodward: on 1/25/18 at 5:25am UTC, wrote Christophe, thank you so much for your replies, I appreciate you taking...

Christophe Tournayre: on 1/24/18 at 10:10am UTC, wrote Hi Georgina, I will make the distinction between two points of your...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Reality Fans, The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.”..." in First Things First: The...

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Georgina Woodward: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...


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
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Creating perspective on set theory by Christophe Tournayre [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Christophe Tournayre wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 21:56 GMT
Essay Abstract

In this essay, I aim to create perspective on set theory. The first section takes a look at set theory, how it has been defined and its applications. The second section tries to introduce volumes on set theory.

Author Bio

Independent researcher, passionate by insights.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 08:35 GMT
Hi Christophe Tournayre,

Is there really any application of naive or other set theory (ZFC, NGB, etc.)?

I admire your excellently designed pictures. On my first glance I read "Hasenbrater, Pfeffer und Salz". On the second one I didn't see anything.

You concluded:

I tried to highlight how set theory is fundamental to us.

The core speculation is that energy degradation is applicable to all components of our universe, including physical laws and logic.

I think that there is value in trying to see the same things from a different angle.

I agree with your first sentence and with your last one.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 13:42 GMT
Hi Christophe,

you have written "As 0 and 1 are the same thing, logic as pure information, cannot exist". Which follows on from your earlier statement "0 and 1 are equals. They are both a defined set." Rather than being the same 0 and 1 are representing non existence and existence, or (no current) off and (current) on, and maybe other contradictions. I would say the symbols are comparable in some ways such as they are both numerical symbols for example or both represent quantity, (if we allow that no quantity still is a kind of quantity). But they 0 and 1 are not just different but opposites. Existence can not be non existence and off can not be on. So the mathematical equals symbol doesn't work. I feel certain about that. I found this paper When is one thing equal to some other thing? Barry Mazur (2007) www.math.harvard.edu/~mazur/preprints/when_is_one.pdf But it is more complicated than I thought and I'm too tired to search it for corroboration of my decision.

You say a set can not be independent of its environment but you include information and logic. I think maybe you are confusing the pure information or logic with its carrier, current/s, nerve impulse/s or writing that is hosted by something brain computer, paper.The information itself or the logic itself doesn't posses energy to loose. They aren't material things but states and ideas.

I do agree with your "I think that there is value in trying to see the same things from a different angle."This competition is very helpful with that. I think you have chosen an interesting topic to focus on.

Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 07:28 GMT
Hi Christophe,

I think I understand what you meant by environment now. Not the physical environment but the analytical environment; I would say context. That is to say, the set is not only its members but the boundary of the set that marks what is and isn't included, and the 'space/environment' is the context. So a description can be given like; 'this is the set of caged birds exhibited at the show', or 'this is the set of caged birds that will be included in the encyclopedia'. Which could be same birds but different contexts. The birds set members alone are not supplying enough information to understand the representation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Christophe Tournayre replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 10:09 GMT
Hi georgina,

Thank you for your comments. Yes, I am talking about the analytical environment, not physical. In my view, talking about a static analytical environment compared to a dynamic physical environment is misleading. In a chess board, dynamics are taking place and there is nothing physical.

Bookmark and Share


Author Christophe Tournayre replied on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 12:59 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I will two examples to highlight the relationship:

- When we draw the movement of an object (physical environment) on a graph (analytical environment). The fixed frame is represented by the graph. There is nothing analytical about object. The graph is only acting as a point of reference.

- In the chess game, it is the opposite. There is a dynamic information movement (analytical environment) on a board (physical environment). The fixed frame is represented by the board. There is nothing physical about chess. The board is only acting as a point of reference.

In my view, in these two examples, we are dealing with the opposite end of the same curve. Both environments are linked and interdependent.

Bookmark and Share



Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 18:35 GMT
Christophe,

1≠ 0 may be read as “I am not nothing”. It is a necessary declaration of existence by opposition ot non-existence. Most of maths is about computing existence in that form. “1” and multiples of it while preserving its integrity... without ever making it turn to “0”; the no magic rule.

Because my essay deals with a bottom-up approach, I use the rule of non-contradiction to define what may exist in the universe and how this existence is affected by context (motion etc.)

Could you look if the set theory, as you understand it, supports the operation of logical substitution in substance as described in my essay, i.e. the NOT function does not specifically say which one replaces the other..Is it because the background is a larger set OR because the complex form came after the background.???

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 20:00 GMT
Dear Christophe,

I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


DIOGENES AYBAR wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 12:12 GMT
Dear Christophe;

Your essay is a tour through a labirinth without entrance and without way out.

It is easy to get lost in simplicity. You did that to me.

Thank you;

Diogenes

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Christophe Tournayre replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 20:28 GMT
Thank you for your feedback.

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 22:58 GMT
Hi Dr. Christophe Tournayre

Wonderful analysis using and creating perspective on set theory Dr Christophe Tournayre………. People should use its full potential…..……..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope you may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 00:28 GMT
Hi Christophe Tournayre

you said "I answered your comment in https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3029"..........But I could not find your answer.

You said....”When I read your essay and if the universe behave as you described, the question that comes to my mind is: Before modern physics was discovered, where do ancient people thinking and actions fit into your theory?”……………..

I will give one example about a temple of God Shiva in Telagana State, Near Hyderabad. It shows the shadow of God shiva linga, any time of day in a year. It is “Chaya Someswara Swamy temple, built around 1000 years back, uses interference of light 600 years before its invention by Newton…. Hope you will spend some time with wiki and Utube links below…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaya_Someswara_Swamy_temple

ht
tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0dditL5HY

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 16:28 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

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 must consist 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


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:24 GMT
Dear Christophe

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....

view entire post


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.