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.

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

Current Essay Contest

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 2/26/18 at 17:07pm UTC, wrote Jose, You make a brave and well founded "..attempt to formalize a concept...

**Jose Koshy**: *on* 2/24/18 at 5:40am UTC, wrote Dear Steven, I remember that last year we have had some discussions. Your...

**Jose Koshy**: *on* 2/24/18 at 5:07am UTC, wrote Dear Silviu, Thank you for the comments. I will go through your essay...

**Jose Koshy**: *on* 2/24/18 at 5:04am UTC, wrote Dear Fedorov, Thank you for the comments. I have been busy with some...

**Steven Andresen**: *on* 2/23/18 at 13:10pm UTC, wrote Dear Jose If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

**corciovei silviu**: *on* 2/23/18 at 11:38am UTC, wrote Very nice logical journey Mr. Koshy. I fully enjoyed and I think further...

**Vladimir Fedorov**: *on* 2/21/18 at 7:44am UTC, wrote Dear Jose, Here we are again all together. I highly appreciate your...

**Jose Koshy**: *on* 2/17/18 at 14:15pm UTC, wrote Dear Rajpal, The first law of motion is actually a mathematical statement...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Georgina Woodward**: "Non-simultaneity of observation of the same source event can be fully..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Georgina Woodward**: "The stuff perceived via the senses is not the stuff materially existing,..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Daniele Oriti**: "The universe as a quantum many-body system
Speaker: Daniele Oriti | LMU..."
*in* The universe as a quantum...

**Eric Cavalcanti**: "Talk given at QCQMB workshop in May 2021 ..."
*in* Relationship between...

**Lee Smolin**: "International Conference on Advances in Pilot Wave Theory & HQA-2021
..."
*in* Views, variety and the...

**Peter Morgan**: "How much difference do you see between the classical and quantum parts of..."
*in* Learning classical and...

**Markus Mueller**: "Online NITheP Workshop Quantum Thermodynamics
(23-27 November 2020)
..."
*in* On the repeatable use of...

**Markus Mueller**: "Seminar presented by Markus Müller on the 29th of April, 2021, within the..."
*in* Topological Quantum Error...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI**

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

**Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel**

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

**Can Choices Curve Spacetime?**

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

**The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools **

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

**The Quantum Refrigerator**

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi FORUM

September 22, 2021

CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]

TOPIC: Fundamentalism as a metaphysical concept by Jose P. Koshy [refresh]

TOPIC: Fundamentalism as a metaphysical concept by Jose P. Koshy [refresh]

Fundamentalism, the belief that there exists some irreducible basic truths in anything connected with nature, has existed for a very long time. But its significance as a distinct metaphysical concept has not been properly analyzed so far. FQXi now offers the rare opportunity for this. This essay is an attempt to formalize 'a concept of fundamentalism', which can be defined as follows: “Any field of knowledge has some fundamentals, based on which everything in that field can be logically explained, and so by identifying the fundamentals, we can arrive at the truth”.

Doing independent research in theoretical physics. Proponent of 'Finiteness Theory' an alternate model based on the hypotheses that motion (at speed 'c') is a property of matter, and force is reaction to motion. Finiteness Theory is a 'Theory of Everything', the first of its kind that presents a 'complete model' (the main stream, it may be noted, has so far proposed only 'incomplete would-be models' as Theory of Everything).

Dear Dr. Jose P. Koshy,

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

post approved

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

post approved

Hi John,

i enjoyed reading your essay. Your lines of reasoning are easily tracable in a systematic manner, since you define ‘fundamental’ as systematically, deterministically evolving processes of nature.

However, I cannot see why the anthropocentrical demand of knowing as much as possible together with the fact that there could unknowable things beyond our complete reach –...

view entire post

i enjoyed reading your essay. Your lines of reasoning are easily tracable in a systematic manner, since you define ‘fundamental’ as systematically, deterministically evolving processes of nature.

However, I cannot see why the anthropocentrical demand of knowing as much as possible together with the fact that there could unknowable things beyond our complete reach –...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Should of course be Jose, not John - Jose, please excuse the mistake :-)

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Stephan,

Thank you for the long comment posted. I think that long comments imply that the person is interested in a serious debate.

I think the difference between our viewpoints arises from how we interpret determinism. Determinism leads to a unique final state. That does not mean it follows a single predetermined path. It follows multiple paths, but ultimately reaches the...

view entire post

Thank you for the long comment posted. I think that long comments imply that the person is interested in a serious debate.

I think the difference between our viewpoints arises from how we interpret determinism. Determinism leads to a unique final state. That does not mean it follows a single predetermined path. It follows multiple paths, but ultimately reaches the...

view entire post

Hi Jose, thanks for your reply. I conclude that if a deterministic environment (including the brain) allows to some extent genuine choices between alternative paths, the outcome of such a choice cannot have been fixed by some previous deterministic state of such a system. So, what you call some freewill, the choice itself, is not itself determined anywhere in nature. Is this choice - according to your approach - defined as a random event (pseudo-random?) that cannot be traced back to something other or is this choice a real causa finalis that can be traced back to a kind of descriptive dualism, a dualism that is ontologically real in nature? Are there two effective causes in nature, the physical ones and the one that is only available for conscious observers?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Stefan,

The choice is always there. It only implies that there are more than one possibility, and depending on the environment one of the possibilities happen. When a freewill is applied, a slight change happens in the environment favoring one possibility, which sometimes may be the least possible one to happen naturally. That is, freewill does not create any additional possibility....

view entire post

The choice is always there. It only implies that there are more than one possibility, and depending on the environment one of the possibilities happen. When a freewill is applied, a slight change happens in the environment favoring one possibility, which sometimes may be the least possible one to happen naturally. That is, freewill does not create any additional possibility....

view entire post

Hi Jose, thanks for your reply. Albeit i agree that choices are limited by the past and by the conditions of the environment, i have huge trouble to decipher what you really mean by 'choices'.

You wrote

"When a freewill is applied, a slight change happens in the environment favoring one possibility, which sometimes may be the least possible one to happen naturally"

Could you explain what this slight change is, what you physically mean by such a change and how it comes about?

Thanks!

report post as inappropriate

You wrote

"When a freewill is applied, a slight change happens in the environment favoring one possibility, which sometimes may be the least possible one to happen naturally"

Could you explain what this slight change is, what you physically mean by such a change and how it comes about?

Thanks!

report post as inappropriate

You have clearly described the possibility of science,against meta-physical hubris.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jose,

as regards laws I’d like to play on your chess analogy. The termination rule of chess (checkmate) says that the game is over when the king can make no legal move. I found some numbers saying that there are some 1e43 potential configurations of pieces of which 1e34 are checkmate configurations. Let me for the purpose of discussion call this number infinite. Now, while the termination rule is an entirely unanschaulich prohibition (negation) in itself, it allows the observation of an infinity of actual checkmate configurations – when they occur! That is, only the negation of the negation ‘produces’ the actual case. So, I think there is a way from finiteness to infinity.

Heinrich

report post as inappropriate

as regards laws I’d like to play on your chess analogy. The termination rule of chess (checkmate) says that the game is over when the king can make no legal move. I found some numbers saying that there are some 1e43 potential configurations of pieces of which 1e34 are checkmate configurations. Let me for the purpose of discussion call this number infinite. Now, while the termination rule is an entirely unanschaulich prohibition (negation) in itself, it allows the observation of an infinity of actual checkmate configurations – when they occur! That is, only the negation of the negation ‘produces’ the actual case. So, I think there is a way from finiteness to infinity.

Heinrich

report post as inappropriate

Dear Heinrich,

In my opinion, the only way from finite to infinity is attaching a 'clause' for infinity. For example, 'go an adding finite numbers infinitely' takes us to infinity. In the case of chess, the number of possible configurations is a very large finite number as you have pointed out. You add the clause 'let us take this finite number as infinite', and a way from finite to infinite seems possible. Without such a clause, finite things always remains finite. It is just a logical argument; based on it, I will argue that there exists a finite number of finite universes in infinite space. If actually infinite number of universes exist, my inference is wrong. However, it is impossible for us to know that, and so I just depend on logic.

Jose P Koshy

In my opinion, the only way from finite to infinity is attaching a 'clause' for infinity. For example, 'go an adding finite numbers infinitely' takes us to infinity. In the case of chess, the number of possible configurations is a very large finite number as you have pointed out. You add the clause 'let us take this finite number as infinite', and a way from finite to infinite seems possible. Without such a clause, finite things always remains finite. It is just a logical argument; based on it, I will argue that there exists a finite number of finite universes in infinite space. If actually infinite number of universes exist, my inference is wrong. However, it is impossible for us to know that, and so I just depend on logic.

Jose P Koshy

Dear Jose P. Koshy,

You wrote in the Abstract: “Fundamentalism, the belief that there exists some irreducible basic truths in anything connected with nature, has existed for a very long time.”

Nature produced one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light millions of years before humanly contrived finite mathematical information ever became evident on earth.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

post approved

You wrote in the Abstract: “Fundamentalism, the belief that there exists some irreducible basic truths in anything connected with nature, has existed for a very long time.”

Nature produced one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light millions of years before humanly contrived finite mathematical information ever became evident on earth.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

post approved

Hi John,

It seems to me that both of us have started off at different points to arrive at a somewhat similar destination. Your analysis was crisp and fun to read; certainly among the best ones.

How do you, however, propose to deal with the block put up by Gödel's incompleteness theorem? In this context, unless I have misunderstood, it seems to imply that no respectable system can be reduced to a set of fundamentals. (In fact, it is this apparent roadblock that made me take a different path to this conclusion.)

Regards,

Aditya

report post as inappropriate

It seems to me that both of us have started off at different points to arrive at a somewhat similar destination. Your analysis was crisp and fun to read; certainly among the best ones.

How do you, however, propose to deal with the block put up by Gödel's incompleteness theorem? In this context, unless I have misunderstood, it seems to imply that no respectable system can be reduced to a set of fundamentals. (In fact, it is this apparent roadblock that made me take a different path to this conclusion.)

Regards,

Aditya

report post as inappropriate

Dear Aditya,

What I propose is theoretical model-building based on 'fundamentals' and laws of mathematics. The fundamentals are either arbitrary or self-explanatory. That means these cannot be explained within the model built up from the fundamentals. As such we can say the model is incomplete in itself because it contains statements that cannot be proved from the model.

The model-building is intended for acquiring knowledge. The model thus obtained is a system that follows laws. Here the terms fundamentals, knowledge, system, laws and completeness are well defined. Fundamentals are the primary-causes, knowledge is understanding the causal factors and laws, laws are mathematical statements, and a system is something that is finite, dynamic, deterministic and made up of quantized entities. The model is complete if the formation of the system (starting from from the fundamentals) can be explained using relevant laws of mathematics. Our knowledge in that field is complete if we can identify the primary causes, all emergent causal factors, and the mathematical laws applicable at all levels.

So what we have is a 'defined completeness'. Complete knowledge does not mean complete predictability; we need not know all paths leading from 'the fundamentals' to 'the system', we need know just the main route. We need not know from where the fundamentals came or why they came. These are either 'not much relevant' or 'just impossible'.

Jose P Koshy

What I propose is theoretical model-building based on 'fundamentals' and laws of mathematics. The fundamentals are either arbitrary or self-explanatory. That means these cannot be explained within the model built up from the fundamentals. As such we can say the model is incomplete in itself because it contains statements that cannot be proved from the model.

The model-building is intended for acquiring knowledge. The model thus obtained is a system that follows laws. Here the terms fundamentals, knowledge, system, laws and completeness are well defined. Fundamentals are the primary-causes, knowledge is understanding the causal factors and laws, laws are mathematical statements, and a system is something that is finite, dynamic, deterministic and made up of quantized entities. The model is complete if the formation of the system (starting from from the fundamentals) can be explained using relevant laws of mathematics. Our knowledge in that field is complete if we can identify the primary causes, all emergent causal factors, and the mathematical laws applicable at all levels.

So what we have is a 'defined completeness'. Complete knowledge does not mean complete predictability; we need not know all paths leading from 'the fundamentals' to 'the system', we need know just the main route. We need not know from where the fundamentals came or why they came. These are either 'not much relevant' or 'just impossible'.

Jose P Koshy

Dear Jose,

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jose, thanks for your more precise description of your lines of reasoning.

I have some more questions and annotations to make for fully understanding whether or not nature exhibits unnatural choices.

I consider a Boing 747. In our world, it is very unlikely that the natural path is such that the probability that nature facilitates this Boing 747 must be considered very...

view entire post

I have some more questions and annotations to make for fully understanding whether or not nature exhibits unnatural choices.

I consider a Boing 747. In our world, it is very unlikely that the natural path is such that the probability that nature facilitates this Boing 747 must be considered very...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Stefan,

I agree with you that a finished Boeing 747 is a totally unnatural event. This unnaturalness comes from the fact that some free will action has taken place. I will take this as a proof for the existence of free will.

Because of this unnaturalness, the event need not be repeated in any other Earth in our universe or other universes. However, if it repeats anywhere, the conditions would be identical to that of Earth (In my model of the universes, structures having freewill emerges during the middle period of expansion, and so any Boeing will emerge more or less at the same period of history of that universe.)

So in my opinion, the emergence of humans or human like structures having free will is predetermined in any universe (assuming that all universes are identical and made up of the same fundamental entities). But, our creations like the Boeing are not predetermined. It is a teleological event caused by our purposeful action. Nature allows such actions; we can say that such possibilities exist in nature.

Jose P Koshy

I agree with you that a finished Boeing 747 is a totally unnatural event. This unnaturalness comes from the fact that some free will action has taken place. I will take this as a proof for the existence of free will.

Because of this unnaturalness, the event need not be repeated in any other Earth in our universe or other universes. However, if it repeats anywhere, the conditions would be identical to that of Earth (In my model of the universes, structures having freewill emerges during the middle period of expansion, and so any Boeing will emerge more or less at the same period of history of that universe.)

So in my opinion, the emergence of humans or human like structures having free will is predetermined in any universe (assuming that all universes are identical and made up of the same fundamental entities). But, our creations like the Boeing are not predetermined. It is a teleological event caused by our purposeful action. Nature allows such actions; we can say that such possibilities exist in nature.

Jose P Koshy

Dear Jose,

thank you for your essay, that's interesting for sure and I will rate it well.

I've not fully understood something about your "Fundamentalism" proposal. You write that it implies cause-effect, but in a certain sense it seems to presume it in its very definition (Any field of knowledge has some fundamentals, based on which everything in that field can be logically explained, and so by identifying the fundamentals, we can arrive at the truth). Moreover, how your approach manage the Hume's argument against causation?

bests,

Francesco

report post as inappropriate

thank you for your essay, that's interesting for sure and I will rate it well.

I've not fully understood something about your "Fundamentalism" proposal. You write that it implies cause-effect, but in a certain sense it seems to presume it in its very definition (Any field of knowledge has some fundamentals, based on which everything in that field can be logically explained, and so by identifying the fundamentals, we can arrive at the truth). Moreover, how your approach manage the Hume's argument against causation?

bests,

Francesco

report post as inappropriate

Dear Fransesco,

I do not agree with Humes regarding causation. Hume, I think, consider that the regularity or pattern that is observed in nature is just our belief, and so causation is just our belief. Our technology works just because this regularity or pattern is factual and dependable, and not a mere belief. The belief may deceive us, but facts do not deceive. The technologies are developed based on causality. Then how can we deny causality.

Jose P Koshy

I do not agree with Humes regarding causation. Hume, I think, consider that the regularity or pattern that is observed in nature is just our belief, and so causation is just our belief. Our technology works just because this regularity or pattern is factual and dependable, and not a mere belief. The belief may deceive us, but facts do not deceive. The technologies are developed based on causality. Then how can we deny causality.

Jose P Koshy

Dear Jose,

You are right, casuality works very well, but since it depends on its repetition over time, how can we consider it fundamental? it's not logically impossible that casuality stops working even tomorrow, since the only thing that we can say about it, is that it always works – till now. How about a casuality without time? Is then time more fundamental?

Bests, thank you for answering!

Francesco

report post as inappropriate

You are right, casuality works very well, but since it depends on its repetition over time, how can we consider it fundamental? it's not logically impossible that casuality stops working even tomorrow, since the only thing that we can say about it, is that it always works – till now. How about a casuality without time? Is then time more fundamental?

Bests, thank you for answering!

Francesco

report post as inappropriate

Dear Fransesco,

As far as knowledge is considered, causality is fundamental. The only way available for us to understand nature is to search for the causal effects behind events. As far as nature is considered, the fundamental causal factors, not just causality, are the fundamentals. These include both time and space factors.

Jose P Koshy

As far as knowledge is considered, causality is fundamental. The only way available for us to understand nature is to search for the causal effects behind events. As far as nature is considered, the fundamental causal factors, not just causality, are the fundamentals. These include both time and space factors.

Jose P Koshy

Dear Jose;

Reading your essay was like swimming in a pool. It is full of statements without logical or factual explanations to sustain them. Your whole discourse indicates that you have what I consider a naïve conception of causality. Linear temporal causality has been shown to be inadequate to explain fundamental phenomena.

The most valuable idea you expressed in your essay (which you really explained logically), is that if there were only one fundamental (there should be either one fundamental entity having more than one property or more than one fundamental entity having different properties) there will be nothing to be explained.

In the end you left me disappointed, I was expecting that you would establish the basis for determining what’s fundamental from your postulates.

Truly yours;

Diogenes

report post as inappropriate

Reading your essay was like swimming in a pool. It is full of statements without logical or factual explanations to sustain them. Your whole discourse indicates that you have what I consider a naïve conception of causality. Linear temporal causality has been shown to be inadequate to explain fundamental phenomena.

The most valuable idea you expressed in your essay (which you really explained logically), is that if there were only one fundamental (there should be either one fundamental entity having more than one property or more than one fundamental entity having different properties) there will be nothing to be explained.

In the end you left me disappointed, I was expecting that you would establish the basis for determining what’s fundamental from your postulates.

Truly yours;

Diogenes

report post as inappropriate

Dear Diogenes,

Thank you for your comments. I disagree with the statement, 'Linear temporal causality has been shown to be inadequate to explain fundamental phenomena'. It is argued, it is claimed, but not shown.

Causality is a very simple concept. Why make it appear to be something very complex. However, simple causal factors lead to complex situations; that does not make the concept of causality complex.

The basis for determining the fundamentals is to identify the causal factors, and finally arriving at the primary causes, which we can call fundamentals. Identifying the causal factors is not theoretical, it depends on observations.

Jose P Koshy

Thank you for your comments. I disagree with the statement, 'Linear temporal causality has been shown to be inadequate to explain fundamental phenomena'. It is argued, it is claimed, but not shown.

Causality is a very simple concept. Why make it appear to be something very complex. However, simple causal factors lead to complex situations; that does not make the concept of causality complex.

The basis for determining the fundamentals is to identify the causal factors, and finally arriving at the primary causes, which we can call fundamentals. Identifying the causal factors is not theoretical, it depends on observations.

Jose P Koshy

Jose,

This is a nice essay. You are really simply arguing for logic. Your ideas should mesh very well with the Scientific Method. Your thinking reminds me a lot of the methodology used for proofs in mathematics and geometry.

I only have one minor disagreement with your thinking. When you describe dynamic/static, you argue that if something is not changing then it is impossible to determine if there are any governing laws. In engineering, we deal with this all the time. It is called "steady-state". It simply means that there are equal and opposing factors. So, if water is being added and withdrawn from a bathtub at equal rates, the water level in the tub will be constant but conservation of mass is the governing concept.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

This is a nice essay. You are really simply arguing for logic. Your ideas should mesh very well with the Scientific Method. Your thinking reminds me a lot of the methodology used for proofs in mathematics and geometry.

I only have one minor disagreement with your thinking. When you describe dynamic/static, you argue that if something is not changing then it is impossible to determine if there are any governing laws. In engineering, we deal with this all the time. It is called "steady-state". It simply means that there are equal and opposing factors. So, if water is being added and withdrawn from a bathtub at equal rates, the water level in the tub will be constant but conservation of mass is the governing concept.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Dear Gary,

I would prefer to use the terms 'systems' and 'subsystems' for 'independent systems' and 'parts of systems' respectively. In my opinion, a system should be dynamic (in addition to other attributes given in the essay), but subsystems can be in steady-states (as in the example given by you). This steady-state exists as a consequence of the dynamic nature of the system to which the subsystem belongs. So I would say there is no disagreement between us in this case.

Regarding 'scientific method', there can be different shades of opinion. Can you just clarify your view?

Jose P Koshy

I would prefer to use the terms 'systems' and 'subsystems' for 'independent systems' and 'parts of systems' respectively. In my opinion, a system should be dynamic (in addition to other attributes given in the essay), but subsystems can be in steady-states (as in the example given by you). This steady-state exists as a consequence of the dynamic nature of the system to which the subsystem belongs. So I would say there is no disagreement between us in this case.

Regarding 'scientific method', there can be different shades of opinion. Can you just clarify your view?

Jose P Koshy

Jose,

Regarding the Scientific Method ... I was thinking that your methodology could be applied to the underlying hypothesis. Is the hypothesis a single entity that must be taken as a whole or can the hypothesis be broken into parts? For example, with Darwinism, are variation, environment, and competition part of the same entity or are they separate things?

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Regarding the Scientific Method ... I was thinking that your methodology could be applied to the underlying hypothesis. Is the hypothesis a single entity that must be taken as a whole or can the hypothesis be broken into parts? For example, with Darwinism, are variation, environment, and competition part of the same entity or are they separate things?

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Dear Gary,

The view that there are some fundamentals is a reductionist approach to explain the whole. However the reduction need go only to the level that is required. The choice is arbitrary; the only criterion is that the fundamentals should be capable of explaining the whole completely.

If 'existence of life' is our field of study, and we all agree that Darwinism is the right approach, then Darwinism is fundamental; the disagreement is only on the application of Darwinism in each context. However, if we disagree with Darwinism itself, then we have to go further downwards, and identify fundamentals that may include factors other than variation, environment and competition.

When we come to the study of nature, we have to go to the very fundamentals that cannot be further divided. In other fields, we need not go to the very bottom level; the fundamentals in that field may be divisible further.

Jose P Koshy

The view that there are some fundamentals is a reductionist approach to explain the whole. However the reduction need go only to the level that is required. The choice is arbitrary; the only criterion is that the fundamentals should be capable of explaining the whole completely.

If 'existence of life' is our field of study, and we all agree that Darwinism is the right approach, then Darwinism is fundamental; the disagreement is only on the application of Darwinism in each context. However, if we disagree with Darwinism itself, then we have to go further downwards, and identify fundamentals that may include factors other than variation, environment and competition.

When we come to the study of nature, we have to go to the very fundamentals that cannot be further divided. In other fields, we need not go to the very bottom level; the fundamentals in that field may be divisible further.

Jose P Koshy

Dear Jose P Koshy

Your statement “Why laws are mathematical”. Newton’s first law of motion is conceptual. No equation is involved. The second and third laws are mathematical.

Please read my essay on wave-particle and electron spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3

.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

report post as inappropriate

Your statement “Why laws are mathematical”. Newton’s first law of motion is conceptual. No equation is involved. The second and third laws are mathematical.

Please read my essay on wave-particle and electron spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3

Kamal Rajpal

report post as inappropriate

Dear Rajpal,

The first law of motion is actually a mathematical statement regarding motion. It can be expressed as,

v + 0 = v; and 0 + 0 = 0, that is, without any interference the speed 'v' and speed '0' does not change.

However, straight-line motion is the simplest form of motion, and so the law contains a 'conceptual part' regarding motion. Mathematically motion is a change in a variable; uniform increase or uniform decrease in the value of that variable is identical to uniform motion.

Generally, the first law is regarded as a 'concept' regarding bodies, rather than a concept regarding motion. So it follows that a body left to itself will either remain at rest or move along a straight line.

In my view, a real body made up of matter can neither remain at rest nor move along a straight-line, even if it is outside all external interference. Motion and gravity are fundamental properties of bodies, and its own gravity prevents the body from moving along a straight-line.

I will go through your essay within a few days.

Jose P Koshy

The first law of motion is actually a mathematical statement regarding motion. It can be expressed as,

v + 0 = v; and 0 + 0 = 0, that is, without any interference the speed 'v' and speed '0' does not change.

However, straight-line motion is the simplest form of motion, and so the law contains a 'conceptual part' regarding motion. Mathematically motion is a change in a variable; uniform increase or uniform decrease in the value of that variable is identical to uniform motion.

Generally, the first law is regarded as a 'concept' regarding bodies, rather than a concept regarding motion. So it follows that a body left to itself will either remain at rest or move along a straight line.

In my view, a real body made up of matter can neither remain at rest nor move along a straight-line, even if it is outside all external interference. Motion and gravity are fundamental properties of bodies, and its own gravity prevents the body from moving along a straight-line.

I will go through your essay within a few days.

Jose P Koshy

Dear Jose,

Here we are again all together.

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

«Any system is dynamic, quantized, finite and deterministic, is governed by mathematical laws, and always have some fundamentals based on which the system can be explained». This is my motto as well.

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

Vladimir Fedorov

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

report post as inappropriate

Here we are again all together.

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

«Any system is dynamic, quantized, finite and deterministic, is governed by mathematical laws, and always have some fundamentals based on which the system can be explained». This is my motto as well.

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

Vladimir Fedorov

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

report post as inappropriate

Very nice logical journey Mr. Koshy.

I fully enjoyed and I think further words are useless.

Rate it accordingly.

If you would have the pleasure for a related logical approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion

Silviu

report post as inappropriate

I fully enjoyed and I think further words are useless.

Rate it accordingly.

If you would have the pleasure for a related logical approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion

Silviu

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jose

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 sail...

view entire post

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 sail...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Steven,

I remember that last year we have had some discussions. Your view that a clock is an instrument that directly links QM and GR is thought provoking. However, I have some reservations with both QM and GR - both are 'basically wrong' in my opinion.

I think that the theory of evolution put forth by Darwin has inspired you to think about such a possibility in the case of the universe. As a starting point it was good. I think it is time you removed the term Darwinian from your theoretical arguments. The term 'emergence' would be more appropriate and more fundamental than 'Darwinian emergence'. The 'Darwinian evolution' of life is not fundamental, it should be explained based on some fundamentals in physics. Your theory regarding the universe should be capable of explaining Darwinian evolution.

I will go through your essay to understand what you mean by 'principle of force dilation'. I expect that it will be independent of Darwin.

Jose P Koshy

I remember that last year we have had some discussions. Your view that a clock is an instrument that directly links QM and GR is thought provoking. However, I have some reservations with both QM and GR - both are 'basically wrong' in my opinion.

I think that the theory of evolution put forth by Darwin has inspired you to think about such a possibility in the case of the universe. As a starting point it was good. I think it is time you removed the term Darwinian from your theoretical arguments. The term 'emergence' would be more appropriate and more fundamental than 'Darwinian emergence'. The 'Darwinian evolution' of life is not fundamental, it should be explained based on some fundamentals in physics. Your theory regarding the universe should be capable of explaining Darwinian evolution.

I will go through your essay to understand what you mean by 'principle of force dilation'. I expect that it will be independent of Darwin.

Jose P Koshy

Jose,

You make a brave and well founded "..attempt to formalize a concept of 'Fundamentalism'." which I think was well presented and largely successful. I'm glad I got to it and find most agreeable, certainly that; "theoretical model-building based on fundamentals can lead us to the truth." (but) "..the search for truth based on fundamentalism gets derailed due to errors."

As another down to earth realist I also very much liked and support;

"if the fundamental entities have a beginning, they will just pop out in space, remain confined in a finite region of space and will just disappear within a finite time."

"Mathematics has no role in deciding the properties of the fundamental entities. However, mathematics decides the emergent structures"

"for complete predictability, we have to measure or**quantify all causal factors**"

"space and time factors connected with matter are quantized and finite, and are parts of systems."

I really couldn't find much to argue with, and am interested in your bio comment; "motion (at speed 'c') is a property of matter,"[/c] I found a whole thesis partly on that, but more specifically electron (fermion) spin at c and as the modulator of local local speed c. The de-paradoxing of SR that can bring is extended in mine this year to remove non-causal weirdness from QM. It won't pass the gatekeepers of doctrine but I think you'll like it! Do comment there.

Nicely done. I'm sure you've been 1 bombed as I have so my score will help compensate.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

You make a brave and well founded "..attempt to formalize a concept of 'Fundamentalism'." which I think was well presented and largely successful. I'm glad I got to it and find most agreeable, certainly that; "theoretical model-building based on fundamentals can lead us to the truth." (but) "..the search for truth based on fundamentalism gets derailed due to errors."

As another down to earth realist I also very much liked and support;

"if the fundamental entities have a beginning, they will just pop out in space, remain confined in a finite region of space and will just disappear within a finite time."

"Mathematics has no role in deciding the properties of the fundamental entities. However, mathematics decides the emergent structures"

"for complete predictability, we have to measure or

"space and time factors connected with matter are quantized and finite, and are parts of systems."

I really couldn't find much to argue with, and am interested in your bio comment; "motion (at speed 'c') is a property of matter,"[/c] I found a whole thesis partly on that, but more specifically electron (fermion) spin at c and as the modulator of local local speed c. The de-paradoxing of SR that can bring is extended in mine this year to remove non-causal weirdness from QM. It won't pass the gatekeepers of doctrine but I think you'll like it! Do comment there.

Nicely done. I'm sure you've been 1 bombed as I have so my score will help compensate.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.