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

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri: on 2/26/18 at 21:10pm UTC, wrote richard kingsley nixey Thank you Ricard,for your complement, on my essay....

richard nixey: on 2/26/18 at 19:45pm UTC, wrote Sherman, I think they have different speed limit on Mars. If Mars does...

richard nixey: on 2/26/18 at 19:38pm UTC, wrote No worries Steven. I'm sure like most I don't qualify for a prize anyway.

richard nixey: on 2/26/18 at 19:35pm UTC, wrote Don, Thanks, but I confess I'm not a fan of space-time or gravy...

richard nixey: on 2/26/18 at 19:28pm UTC, wrote Thanks Jouko, or Harri R

richard nixey: on 2/26/18 at 19:26pm UTC, wrote Bashir Had a quick look through yours & liked it, but time running out to...

richard nixey: on 2/26/18 at 19:22pm UTC, wrote Peter (I assume) Thanks. I think yours should be well above mine and I'm...

Anonymous: on 2/26/18 at 15:28pm UTC, wrote Richard, I had no compunction in scoring yours high to climb above mine. I...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Georgina, 1. What “emerges” from cellular automata algorithms only..." in Agency in the Physical...

Lorraine Ford: "When will people [1] grow up and get over their absurd ideas about..." in Agency in the Physical...

Joe Fisher: "The sad fact is that no physicist has ever studied actual visible physical..." in SciMeter: A New Way to...

My Emilly: "Nice post,i like your article,great way of explanation.Looking for more..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

Chris Roger: "Hi, thanks for your nice article. It's really detailed and helpful gmail..." in What Is Fundamental? –...

Chris Roger: "Superb Information, I really appreciated with it, This is fine to read and..." in SciMeter: A New Way to...

Philip Chester: "Good post. I find out something new and challenging on articles I..." in New Online Course:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear FQXi.org Members, Reality am fundamental. Reality am not..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Usurping Quantum Theory
The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion
Einstein’s relativity pushes physicists towards a picture of the universe as a block, in which the past, present, and future all exist on the same footing; but maybe that shift in thinking has gone too far.

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.


FQXi FORUM
July 21, 2018

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: something not yet found by richard kingsley nixey [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author richard kingsley nixey wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 17:00 GMT
Essay Abstract

Reductionism in science, looking for the smallest possible entities and 'causes' has been discredited philosophically for not being able to explain effects such as 'intuition'. That assumption may now be argued to be false. Learning in artificial intelligence is ever advancing. Reading last years finalist fqXi essays (at least the peer scored top dozen or so) a number of credible schema now exist to model human neural networks and outcomes. https://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31425?sort=communi
ty Even the imperfect subconscious process outcomes we label 'intuitive' can be causally & mechanistically recreated with feedback loops. Are we sure we're using reductionism enough, to go deep enough? Not just to observational limits but to rationalization of findings taking us beyond those limits. I argue that we probably haven't yet found, or at least recognized, what's really fundamental in nature.

Author Bio

Graduated Brunel University, UK. Inc. Bachelors degree in bio-chemistry, Medical Research Council (MRC, Neuropsychiatric research unit). Research in physical chemistry and electro-magnetism. Biochemistry and related Research, Pfizer UK (developing growth promotants), Now specialising mainly in em, radio telemetry, and telecommunications with continued wider research interests in physics history, light, astrophysics, relativity and cosmology

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 14:32 GMT
It is a well composed essay, asking for the missing link in scientific research. Good work.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author richard kingsley nixey replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 20:46 GMT
Thank you Stephen , I will read your essay as soon as time permits, Richard

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 01:33 GMT
Dear Richard Kingsley Nixey,

I like that you begin by discussing intuition. I have heard much too often that "our brains simply didn't evolve to understand such and such…". If you read my last essay you know that I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I also like your statement: "at the very least the anti-reductionist is owed an account of why the intuitions arise if they were...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author richard kingsley nixey replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 21:03 GMT
Thank you Edwin , it would seem that in virtually every discipline the current held views maybe suspect. I will read your essay as soon as time permits, Richard

Bookmark and Share


Author richard kingsley nixey replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 21:55 GMT
Edwin. I've now read you essay and posted on your string. I did find some commonality in concept and even the the science in places but you didn't offer me a drink!

You certainly seem to have been busy and have over 50 times the reads and posts I have. I must leave more posts when I read them!

Richard

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 00:14 GMT
Richard,

If you check back, you will see that in my response to your comment, I did offer you a drink!

As for number of comments, it's time-consuming, but I learn a lot and share info.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 17:54 GMT
Richard,

Great essay, brief but conclusively identifying the right KIND of reductionism is what's needed. You should like mine which distinguishes and employs it to a non-arbitrary limit.

I agree you were also spot on with the common flawed argument about the problems of advancement from outdated theories from the typical response

"Yes we're aware it's incomplete and has inconsistencies, but it's the best we have so far" Then presented with new concepts we glance at them and often dismiss them, saying; "No that can't be right as it varies from current adopted theory"."

Of course it often ISN'T 'the best' but just the only one they're familiar with so will countenance! Such is (lack of) advancement.

If you understand the causes of the weirdness in QM please do comment on my quick shocking new classical derivation which may well suffer from the above issue as mainstream turns and scatters! What price the SM?

Do also look at Declan Trail's short essay containing the algorithmical confirmation of a classical derivation of QM.

Very well done, and so much nicer and easier to read than many. I'll be scoring on reading over half and I judge yours as undervalued so far so expect a boost.

Very best of luck in the contest.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author richard kingsley nixey replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 20:30 GMT
Peter

Thanks for your comments. Reductionism certainly is a more complex topic than most here seem to assume.

Yes I am interested in QM which I've alweays thought exposes our stupidity. I've read your and Declans's essays and checked through your mechanism carafully. As my comment there, I not only found it correct but think it's quite brilliant! But I agree on your chances of educating those who should but think they do know better! I wish you all the luck there.

I certainly score you a 10. Well deserved.

Richard

Bookmark and Share



Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 17:15 GMT
Dear Richard Kingsley-Nixey,

I have read your essay and suggest that you read Dark Matter http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf

I also invite you to 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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author richard kingsley nixey replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 20:34 GMT
Kamal,

I saw the tv series. Pretty cool. Little time so just reading essays for now. Some comment on mine would have been better, but I'll try and should get to yours before the deadline.

Richard

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 05:46 GMT
Dear Richard,

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

I completely agree with you. «Perhaps it's that fear of deviating from whatever 'sound basis' we can find iswhat prevents us from analysing and rationalising what underlies accepted doctrine. Perhaps only when we do so, genuinely look, will we finally find what's truly fundamental inthe universe».

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

Author richard kingsley nixey replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 20:36 GMT
Vladimir

Thank you. Yours is now on my short list.

Richard

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:04 GMT
Dear Richard

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


Sue Lingo wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 20:05 GMT
Hi Richard...

Your observation on "expectation of reductionists that some 'super theory' may arise from a reduction of present theories" is highly perceptive and echoes Karen Crowther's essay "When do we stop digging?":

"The idea of unification is not just that there be a single theory describing all phenomena, but that it describe all phenomena as the same as fundamentally stemming...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author richard kingsley nixey replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 00:49 GMT
Thanks Sue.

I see you've also sussed Peter Jacksons incredible 'model'. (Maybe that revolution finally IS on the way).

It's a comment on current Academics that so many here have failed in that.

I agree, things need to change.

Well deserved Bump coming.

Rich

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 01:28 GMT
Richard,

Thanks for your kind comments and being one of the few bothered to apply rational thinking to understand the classical 'QM' revolution. I suspect we'll find old beliefs to embedded in minds and doctrine for it to be rapid, but I've estimated just a few eons.

Top marks for your own essay on it's own merit. It's agreement with mine and your intellectual power and vision is just a bonus. If you can contribute to the project you're as welcome as any others.

Thank you kindly and best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 15:28 GMT
Richard,

I had no compunction in scoring yours high to climb above mine. I think '1' bombers are a scourge which fqXi have a responsibility to, and the means to, stop. A simple warning added to the rules would do it; - 'If no post then no 1 or it may be shifted to your own'.

We should all get together to demand that (also make it less easy to loose posts by hitting wrong buttons!)

I see you support other consistent essays, see also Andrew Beckwith's essay which should be in the finals.

Good luck in the run in.

P

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author richard kingsley nixey replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 19:22 GMT
Peter (I assume)

Thanks. I think yours should be well above mine and I'm scoring it accordingly. Indeed it's the best one here by a mile, real fundamental advancement in action.

I'll look at Andrew Beckwith's. I've read Knuths and Camerons after seeing their comments on yours and I'm scoring those high as well, also McHarris & Roychowthingy. I'm less of a fan of the 'conversation' format, but I did like most others near the top plus D'Isa and Lingo.

I agree something should be done to remove the temptation to mark down neighbours, but I don't think I'm in the right club to actually win a prize.

Best of luck with yours, and the project. Revolution indeed!

Rich

Bookmark and Share



Bashir Yusuf wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 02:48 GMT
Dear Richard

I really enjoyed reading your essay, and also rated it to rated. I would like your comment if you have time, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3143 it is new way look the matter.

To reveal simplicity of fundamental physical theory by thinking deeply with the Nature's puzzling and related effects is quite difficult, but the most difficult is Human...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author richard kingsley nixey replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 19:26 GMT
Bashir

Had a quick look through yours & liked it, but time running out to quick to discuss. A fundamental problem!

Rich

Bookmark and Share



Jouko Harri Tiainen wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 03:41 GMT
That is one fine essay -- yes "it is a matter of seeing differently". I love how you point out that science is more like sociology there is a herd mentality.

For example "Your new theory disagrees with our current theory which we know is incomplete yet we will dismiss your new ideas out of hand" ISN'T that the problem -- we know we don't know yet we know enough to say it isn't your ideas that are correct -- a bit circular since they cannot really know what is "the problem" in the first place.

Thank you for reading my essay and you identify the problem here it is maths that is wrong not so much are intuitions in this case.

I feel intuitions come from our evolutionary past and the categories that "our minds" have imposed on "nature" or what is out there.

A fabulous read well done. I have scored you very highly indeed since you made me think a lo. Harri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author richard kingsley nixey replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 19:28 GMT
Thanks Jouko, or Harri

R

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 04:14 GMT
Hello Richard,

I like these comments you have made:

1. Ether became unfashionable with Einstein's theory of relativity even though Einstein himself said, though it can't modulate light speed, to remove it entirely was 'unthinkable'.

2. Who can say that our physical sense covers all in the infinite universe/s when we have no idea what's going on at anywhere near that scale?

Thanks for pointing that we are looking at the small scale for so long we have become myopic.

Please see my essay for a universe wide quantum particle phenomena that can be considered space-time. Alternatively the distribution of this particle can be considered the ether. This particle is a newly conceived graviton that has mass. Not so strange ...really.

Thanks for your excellent essay,

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author richard kingsley nixey replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 19:35 GMT
Don, Thanks, but I confess I'm not a fan of space-time or gravy 'particles', or gravity for that matter. I prefer it runny and continuous at Plank scale. Your ether idea sounds nice though, a bit like dark energy. I'll read it if I can.

Rich

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 04:46 GMT
Hi Richard

I tried to give you a 10 but the system won't let me rate essays any longer. So you'll have to try winning without my contribution.

Good luck

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 04:48 GMT
If you loose by a wisker then you should declare system fault

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author richard kingsley nixey replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 19:38 GMT
No worries Steven. I'm sure like most I don't qualify for a prize anyway.

Bookmark and Share



sherman loran jenkins wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 06:33 GMT
Excellent. And if I may add one large fundamental; the pressure that results in like laws throughout the Universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author richard kingsley nixey replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 19:45 GMT
Sherman,

I think they have different speed limit on Mars.

If Mars does 1700mph compared to us, a speed gun here would exact fines from NASA for the Lunar Rover daily! Bless our dear old theorists!

Roll on our evolution into intelligent beings!

Rich

Bookmark and Share



corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 10:07 GMT
Mr. Nixey,

I fully enjoyed the way you put things together it and I think further words are useless.

Rated accordingly.

If you would have the pleasure for a short axiomatic approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion.

Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:10 GMT
richard kingsley nixey

Thank you Ricard,for your complement, on my essay.

Feel free to contact me for detailed discussions if you feel there is collaboration potential:

Chandra.Roychoudhuri@uconn.edu

Chandra.

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.