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

Francesco D'Isa: on 2/26/18 at 22:07pm UTC, wrote Dear Richard, thank you very much – but then I got another "1" :D It's...

richard nixey: on 2/26/18 at 21:28pm UTC, wrote Francesco, I agree. It's very poor behaviour. Thanks for your post, Nice...

Francesco D'Isa: on 2/26/18 at 14:28pm UTC, wrote It's a pity to notice all these "1" rankings the last days :( Thank you...

Peter Jackson: on 2/25/18 at 19:18pm UTC, wrote Francesca, Thanks Just to confirm I'm now rating yours, (for the boost as...

Steven Andresen: on 2/23/18 at 13:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Francesco If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 2/23/18 at 9:54am UTC, wrote Dear Francesca, you are an idealist and I a materialist and I here call...

Francesco D'Isa: on 2/19/18 at 8:39am UTC, wrote Dear Marc, thank you very much for your comment and appreciation! I would...

Marc Séguin: on 2/18/18 at 22:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Francesco, It’s been two weeks since you’ve left a comment on my...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 22, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Nothing is fundamental by Francesco D'Isa [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Francesco D'Isa wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 17:00 GMT
Essay Abstract

Starting from a physical and philosophical interpretation of Nagarjuna’s theory, this paper will suggest that the idea of a system of “fundamental” rules is misleading, because of every entity’s intrinsically relational nature. Following this, the paper will examine a re-definition of the concept of “fundamental”, through the idea of absolute relativism, whose paradoxical nature (“the fact that every truth is relative is an absolute truth?”) will be dealt with through an additional paradox, called the “super-liar paradox”.

Author Bio

Francesco D’Isa (Firenze, 1980), by education a philosopher (Graduated at the University of Firenze, Italy) and a visual artist, after his debut "I." (Nottetempo, 2011) has published novels such as "Anna" (effequ, 2014), "Ultimo piano" (Imprimatur, 2015), "La Stanza di Therese" (Tunué, 2017) and essays for Hoepli and Newton Compton. He is editorial director of "L’Indiscreto", and he writes and draws for several magazines.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 21:29 GMT
Dear Francesco D'Isa,

You confused me with the “Nothing is Fundamental” title of your essay. Are you suggesting thar everything is sophisticated?

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 07:58 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

thank you for reading my paper. Excuse me, the title can be a little ambiguous. In short, I would suggest more that "everything is relative".

Bests,

Francesco

Bookmark and Share


Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 13:23 GMT
Dear Francesco!

There is no clear statement that “everything is relative”.

In nature, everything exists independently of our minds. Relativity arises in our mind. Things become relative when compared.

Best regards

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 22:26 GMT
Dear Ilgaitis,

thank you for your comment!

I don't think that things doesn't exist outside our minds. But things can not be relative or compared only inside our mind.

Each thing, indeed, whichever way it manifests, needs at least one other thing to define its limits and characteristics. Without any relationship differentiating one thing from another, the first would coincide with the second. Without relationships at all, we would have nothing.

Things that can't be compared, are not thingS.

Best regards,

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 01:03 GMT
Francesco,

A truth is defined by what you can do about it, which is nothing. No choice. Then, a truth is an absence of choice.

Philosophy is the exercise of the choices that are left to make. But, because it proceeds by making choices, it can never produce a truth, i.e. a system using choices cannot be used to demonstrate an absence of choice (truth).

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 08:04 GMT
Dear Marcel,

thank you for reading my paper. That's an interesting point for sure. Anyway, you start from an axiomatic definition of truth ("A truth is defined by what you can do about it") that is intrinsically relative (to you, to the uses of it, to other things etc). The consequences of it are suggested in my text.

Bests,

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 12:09 GMT
Dear Francesco,

i read your essay and have two questions:

Is there anything that due to your analysis must necessarily be labeled as being undoubtedly and inevitably necessary to exist – contrary to assuming that all existence is just relative to total non-existence?

And if yes, how and why do you come to that conclusion?

Second question:

Are possibilities and necessities with which we operate in philosophy merely subjective terms or do they reflect - due to your analysis - an objective (objective in the sense of being independent from subjective musings about what could be fundamentally necessary and what could merely be possible) role to play in external reality?

Stated differently: Is it logically necessary according to your analysis that the external world must necessarily and inevitably incorporate the very logical distinction between the possible and the necessary (whatever this 'external' world may turn out to be)?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 14:18 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Thank you for reading my essay, I bookmarked yours as well, it seems very close to my interests and I will read it soon.

Your questions are very interesting and I think I get the point of them. I would sum up them as it follows: if something is necessary, like the logical distinction between the possible and the necessary, not everything is relative. But if this logical distinction is not necessary, the whole argument can't work.

This is a similar paradox of the one of §6, and I would answer in the same way: the whole argument about logical distinction between the possible and the necessary is, as well, relative (to people who state and discuss it, to languages, to logic rules, to physics laws, to minds structures ecc ecc). In other words, every argument against absolute relativism is relative, and confirm it while it contradicts it.

I hope I understood properly your questions, thank you again.

Bookmark and Share



Author Francesco D'Isa wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 14:17 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Thank you for reading my essay, I bookmarked yours as well, it seems very close to my interests and I will read it soon.

Your questions are very interesting and I think I get the point of them. I would sum up them as it follows: if something is necessary, like the logical distinction between the possible and the necessary, not everything is relative. But if this logical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 15:19 GMT
Dear Francesco, thanks for your reply and bookmarking my essay.

If I adobt the view that everything is relative, I am posed with some serious questions:

External reality is an (in)finite net of relationships, facilitating its very absolutely relative structure by dropping or adding some axioms for different deduction schemes. In fact, every distinct deduction scheme could be a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 10:25 GMT
Dear Stefan, thank you for your comment.

To sum up, your very interesting argument is that in absence of an absolute impossibility, everything is possibile, even that everything is not relative.

This is another version of the paradox of §6. Regarding the absolute relativist point of view, the process is similar as the one I described before: the truth of this new argument is relative to the parameters I adopt – not only logical parameter, even factual ones.

We can't conceive a world (physical, logical...) without the principle of contradiction or other basic logical rules that makes these truths possible – but ours is anyway relative to these rules.

To say that everything is not relative is like to live in a red world showing a red card to demonstrate that everything is not red, because the card is a square.

As you point out in the rest of your comment, without an absolute impossibility, every kind of absurdity is possible. This is not really a problem, because absurdities are possible only relatively to different rules, where our basic principles fails.

Regarding solipsism, it sounds more like the skeptic problem. How can we state for sure the truth of the external world and of our senses and intelligence? We can't, of course. But that there's not an external world could be a deception as well.

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 19:28 GMT
Dear Francesco,

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

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 22:30 GMT
Dear Joe,

maybe you are right, but such a question arise necessarily philosophical questions. Moreover, they wrote

"This contest does not ask for new proposals about what some “fundamental” constituents of the universe are. Rather, it addresses what “fundamental” means, and invites 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."

Bests,

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 04:04 GMT
Hi Francesco, i have some further remarks and hope you appreachiate or at least consider them.

I have difficulties to grasp the truth of your statement

“the fact that every truth is a belief.“

I think that it is true that every belief can be considered a truth – but only on a meta-level in the sense that it is surely true that at the moment, I believe this or that or you believe this or that.

But: one has to consider that not all beliefs necessarily must turn out to be true. There are tons of false beliefs out there. For example I may believe from the beginning of the essay contest on that my computer monitor is a living elephant, sitting on my desktop. Obviously this can not only NOT be a relative truth, but a complete falsity.

How does your approach reconcile the fact that there exist mutually exclusive beliefs? For example one may believe that he is just a boltzmann brain, in the sense of solipsism. Another may believe that there is an external reality and other real observers out there besides him that are also conscious. Both beliefs cannot be true at the same time.

What you term ‘relative truths’ cannot be the whole lot only relative truths, since not all beliefs can be equally true. Some beliefs are simply false and with no truth within them. Another example: some people believe in a God, some people believe that there is no such thing as God. In my opinion both beliefs do mutually exclude each other. Either there is a God, or there isn’t a God.

Believing in something is a property of conscious beings. Truths are a matter of being independent of conscious beings. It is true that the world will continue to exist when I am dead. The world including you will not vanish into nothing when I die, but eventually I will vanish into nothing when I die.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 08:22 GMT
Dear Stefan,

excuse me if I've not replied to your other comment, it's a complex one and I need some more time to think about it.

Regard “the fact that every truth is a belief.“, it doesn't imply any solipsism. Its meaning is simply that we can't deny in any way “the fact that every truth is a belief.“– beyond the truth value of what we believe.

I can believe that the world has been done by a huge pancake, or to the big bang theory. I can believe that things fall down to the ground because of evil elves or the force of gravity. Then I can argument these persuasion with less or more efficacy, but in the end I have to believe to these arguments. ("Believe" in a broad sense, like I use in my essay talking about Avicenna).

Thank you again for your mindful insights, I will answer soon to your other comment as well.

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Donald Glover wrote on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 19:55 GMT
Dear Francesco,

thank you for your paper! I hope I won't make a fool of myself, but I have a question on which I would ask you to elaborate, if you can.

As I understand it from your quotation, Nagarjuna position seems to be about the relativity of beings more than the relativity of truths - i.e. every thing that exists does so because is relative to something else. This, as I remember, should be an ontological belief shared by the latest Plato.

Nevertheless Plato itself seemed to assume that "truth" (aletheia) is somehow equivalent to "all things" (to on); you seem to have taken this assumption and made it the (unspoken) foundation of your reasoning.

This leads me to the following question: mathematical truths (i.e. the fact that 2+2=4) are relative to what?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 21:31 GMT
Dear Donald,

thank you for reading my paper and for your comment!

To answer to your interesting question: In §2 I talk about the relativity of beings. Then, in the rest of my paper, I expand the idea to "truth", that I use (in quite an unspoken way, sorry) as "something that is true", or better "a true fact".

Mathematical truths (i.e. the fact that 2+2=4) are relative, between the other things, to mathematical rules (i.e. addition).

Bests,

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 17:33 GMT
Dear Francesco,

This was a beautifully written essay, with interesting ideas. I agree on the relational nature of things, or at least that all we can know are relations. More precisely, relations in which we are part. Whether or not reality is purely relational, this idea is also fundamental for mathematics. Mathematical structures are just sets and relations. An n-ary relation is a subset...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 21:06 GMT
Dear Cristi,

thank you very much for your insightful comment and appreciation. You will lead me to read the whole set of your essays, they are all great. You have a new reader!

I agree with what you write about relations, and I found your "zero axiom" very interesting; it has for sure similarities with the final part of my paper. Yours is a nice way to handle the Ouroboros, to use the basic self-contradiction paradox as source of every possibilities – by the way it's for the same reasons also the source of their inexistence.

(of course the ballerina was just an example, but your solution is brilliant!)

Bests,

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Aditya Dwarkesh wrote on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 16:18 GMT
Dear Franscesco,

I loved your essay. You very neatly jump out of the box when confronted with that intimidating paradox of absolute relativism; and I must say that your excellent expository skills made it the most entertaining essay I have read so far.

Also, I feel the need to add-I am sure you saw very heavy shades of your relativization when in my essay I spoke of the relativity of our theories!

Regards,

Aditya

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 16:38 GMT
Dear Aditya,

thank you very much! Yes, you got the point! ;)

Bests,

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 00:05 GMT
Dear Francesco

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

As you say: «My point is that despite being physical, [velocity] can’t exist by itself. It requires a relation with another physical system…What if all physical properties were like velocity.

I just came to that with mathematics thanks to Planck's units (not just Planck's lengths). Perhaps, as a philosopher, you can specify which philosophers have used the principle of opposites, might otherwise stated? In Nāgārjūn it is: „The determination of a thing or object is only possible in relation to other things or objects, especially by way of contrast“. BTW, I use the principle of opposites, thanks to a contemporary philosopher, but I do not find it in contemporary physics.

You have wrote:

2. Things are relationships. I have wrote relationship are fundamental, so basicly we agree.

Your is also an interesting essay that worths an high rate.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 09:05 GMT
Thank you very much, I got your point now.Thank you also for reading and for your appreciation.

Best wishes and good luck!

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 11:34 GMT
Dear Francesco,

I read your essay with great interest. I believe that this conclusion is extremely important: "Nothing is fundamental." This is a fundamental step towards her Majesty Dialectics, which modern "Fundamental science" ignores at all. Your essay is dialectic, but for some reason the essay lacks the dialectic of "The Beginning of the Universe".

I have questions and explanations for our discussion.

1. You marked on my forum, considering my understanding of "matter": "... it looks like that that matter is close to the paradoxical status of" nothing "."

No, in my dialectical conception "matter" is the triunity "nothing" + "being" + "becoming" (Hegel's triad).

2. Modern "Fundamental science" imposes such a vision of the "beginning" of the Universe: "In the Beginning was the Big Bang." But this, I consider naive "home philosophy". Why? There is no answer to the question: What is the nature of the "laws of nature"? With the Big bang hypothesis, many researchers disagree. And what is your model of "The Beginning of the Universe"?

3. Alexander Zenkin argues in the article SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS: "The truth should be drawn ... "

Do you agree with this statement? Could you draw your picture of Truth as the foundation of Knowledge?

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 12:13 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

thank you very much for reading my essay and for your answers and comments. Your reference to the Hegelian dialectics make your position clearer to my eyes.

1. Thank you, now I understood what you mean – sadly "matter" is quite a misunderstandable term.

2. I agree with you, as many scientists admits the Big Bang is a sort of "fake beginning", since it tells nothing about instant zero. In my view, time itself is just one of the relative parameter of reality. Yours of course is a difficult question, that would require many pages. In short, giving just the results of my thoughts, I believe that the very idea of "beginning" is an hard-to-remove human bias; I propend more for what we could call a static version of the universe (intended as a whole).

3. I will read the linked essay soon, then I'll answer. Thank you for sharing!

bests,

Francesco

Bookmark and Share


Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 14:45 GMT
Dear Valdimir,

3. I read the essay you linked me. It's interesting for sure, but I don't agree with many points, first of all the critic to the Cantor's theorem. To ridiculize it because "it's short" is pretty naive, and the liar's correlation seems wrong, since real numbers and natural numbers are different sets. Anyway, I'm not a mathematician.

The part you pointed me,

> "the truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to "an unlimited circle" of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence. If it is really the Truth, and if my neighbor is not a colour-blind person, we (and all other people around) shall see the same. And nobody, at all desire, will be ever able, using as a cover a "bourbakism" camouflage, to pose a falsehood as a truth, and an empty place as an outstanding scientific achievement.".

It's obviously an impossibile task, due the "unlimited circle" and the uncertain status of "color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence". Even if it were possibile, we would have just the truth relative to the whole human set. I would partly agree if we could persuade every possible identity in the whole universe, but since some relative truths are mutually excluding, it's an impossible task. Moreover, that truth is a persuasion is (as I intend it in my essay) a sort of epistemic limit, it does not say anything about "truth itself". Lastly, being truth a relative concept (like all the others) there's no "truth itself".

Thank you again!

Francesco

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 21:25 GMT
Thank you, Francesco, for your good questions and answers. I give high rating to your ideas.

Good luck!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 17:02 GMT
Dear Francesco,

Very enjoyable essay! While the relativism of fundamental, as argued by you, is convincing; is it not true that there is an absolute [not relative] sense in which reductionism is fundamental? Like, everything is made of atoms, atoms are made of nucleons and electrons, and so on.

Best wishes,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 18:18 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

thank you very much for reading and appreciating my essay, I'm very glad of it.

I truly can't find an absolute [not relative] sense in which reductionism is fundamental, since everything we can deal with, "is what it is" due a complex net of relations. Laptops, chairs, atoms, nucleons, electrons... they are always defined by relations with other things. When we talk about stuff like chairs and tables, we have a perceptive bias that since we can "feel", "use", "see" them etc, they are somewhat more concrete. But, as you write in your essay (a quote which I loved):

> if we investigate into deeper and deeper reductionist layers of physical reality [the vertical fundamental], laws come ‘closer and closer’ to things, until there comes the lowermost layer, where laws are not distinguishable from things at all.

When we investigate these real but intangible relations it seems that we are just playing with abstractions – but then these relations (laws) "works" with chairs and tables as well, and concreteness comes back to us. But, again, they are always relations, just more tangible in our phenomenal world; I would say, "at our level of reality".That's why I enjoyed your conclusion that,

> the mathematical world and the physical world are one and the same.

Because mathematic looks like a discipline that traces the most common relations of our world – maybe the only relations that we can ever perceive or imagine.

Thank you again and all the best,

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Luca Valeri wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear Francesco,

I love your title: 'Nothing is fundamental'. The challenge then is to explain, how it is possible, that we can describe nature by theories, that really seem fundamental.

In my essay (The quantum sheep - in defence of a positivist view on physics) - that is not online yet - I also take relative view in doubled sense: first under symmetry constraints only relative...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 16:03 GMT
Dear Luca,

thank you very much for your comment.

> So in the context of your essay, could one conditionalize the relative truth in order to get an absolute truth?

I think I will be better able to answer you when your essay will be online. Please notify me!

> I also would like to comment on your: "... my water needs my (future) partaking of the boiled meal, ...in short all the present, past and future relationship which define that exact phenomenon and are necessary to it." It was not clear to me, how the future can partake to the definition (?) or present truth. I think it is very difficult to unthink the concept of causality.

As you say this is highly counter-intuitive. I mean that to consider something due its relationship in the present and past is quite partial, because the relations in the future are just unknown, not absent. This is quite easier if consider it from a logic point of view.

i.e: I boil some water (event A), with which later I cook some pasta (event B).

now let's think about another "possible world" where I boil some water (event A), with which later I make a tea (event C).

When the event A happens, you ("we", let's suppose I chose randomly) can't know if the event B or C will follow. But it's out of doubt that the concatenation A >B and A > C are different, and thence that the two A are different as well. ("The water with which i bolied pasta" VS "the water with which I made some tea").

Even the paradoxical hypothesis that time will end before event B or C leads to a difference with A, because the end of the time is the event C.

All the best, looking forward to read your paper!

Francesco

Bookmark and Share


Luca Valeri replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 08:51 GMT
Ciao Francesco,

My essay is finally online. And I'm eagerly waiting for comments.

There are some mathematical parts but I tried to spell out as much as possible. Some parts presuppose some knowledge on the discussions about the measurement problem. The essay is very dense. So feel free to ask questions, if something is not clearly written. I'm glad to spell the things out.

Best regards,

Luca

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Priyanka Giri wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 09:51 GMT
Dear Francesco D’Isa,

Your essay implies almost the same thing as mine. But do you feel the that basic entities like spacetime cannot exist without an observer? What will happen if their is no observer?

I wish you luck!

Priyanka

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 12:39 GMT
Dear Priyanka,

thank you very much, I bookmarked your essay and I will read it soon. I would substitute the term "observer" with "related". Without any relations with it, I think that also the space-time would not exists, because it would be not differentiated from anything. So how could it be something, like a space-time?

Bests, I wish you luck!

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Jochen Szangolies wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 13:59 GMT
Dear Francesco,

thank you for a very clear, and well-written, exposition of Nagarjuna's philosophy---to me, Nagarjuna has always been one of the most subtle Buddhist thinkers (although that may reflect no more than my lack of knowledge of most Buddhist thinkers), and the concept of dependent arising, while challenging to one educated with the idea of independent substances, was a great influence on my own thoughts. In fact, an earlier version of my essay contained some discussion of this influence that was cut due to length constraints. But I couldn't have done Nagarjuna's thought justice, so I'm happy to see that you've undertaken this task.

Your treatment of the paradox of relativism is intriguing. I have to spend some time thinking about it, before I can really address it. In some ways, it harkens back to the logic of Catuskoti, it seems to me.

I have to dash out now, but I hope your essay will do well in the competition, it certainly deserves to!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear Jochen,

thank you very much for reading my essay and for your kind words about it! I also found Nagarjuna's philosophy (but he's not the only one, even if he's maybe the first) very challenging and stimulating to one educated with the idea of independent substances.

Thank you again, I wish you all the best for your work as well!

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 20:24 GMT
Dear Francesco,

Thank you for comments on my essay. They are much appreciated. I shall not discuss them here, because this is the place to consider your essay.

One question I have is the connection between the statement “Everything is relational” and the statement “Nothing is fundamental.” It seems that the former does not necessarily imply the latter. Let us assume for purposes of argument that natural laws cannot exist without entities to which those laws apply, and that, similarly, entities cannot exist without laws that govern them. Then the reality of the laws would be relative to the existence of the entities, and the existence of the entities would be relative to reality of the laws. Nonetheless, it might still be true that the laws are more fundamental than the entities, because the laws apply systematically to everything, but each entity has only a limited and local significance. A single entity, or a group of entities, might disappear, while yet the general order of nature remains the same. On the other hand, if somehow the laws were abolished, the system of nature would collapse into chaos.

Here is another way to make this point. If one thing is more fundamental than a second, the first is related to the second, and perhaps the first thing requires that relationship for its very existence. However, the relationship is non-symmetrical. So long as both things exist, and each does require the other for its existence, the first thing accounts for or explains the second, although the second does not account for or explain the first. An essential relationship need not be symmetrical. At least, this possibility might be worth considering.

On another point, it was good to see a thinker like Nagarjuna brought into the sort of discussion where he might ordinarily not be mentioned.

Laurence Hitterdale

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 08:59 GMT
Dear Laurence,

thank you very much for reading my essay and for your comment, you touched a really important point.

This essay is and adapted excerpt from the first part of a longer text I’m still working on, where I try to manage the consequences of these starting point. To properly answer to your important question I should publish here much more from this text, but sadly it’s still a draft in Italian. I hope I will have the chance to finish and traslate it, and to share it with the FQXi community as well, if interested.

Anyway, I will try to answer you through an example, to make things simpler.

Let’s follow your case with a bouncing ball and the needed natural laws. As you said, we could consider more fundamental these laws, since the bouncing ball needs them to exists, and not vice versa.

Considering 3 bouncing balls the situation will be analogous, but considering all the physical object it would be not: laws and objects could be likewise fundamental. But in this hierarchy of fundamentality, it seems that relation itself it’s still in the top, since without it there would be no laws nor object, but not vice versa, since we could still put in relation, for example, imaginary things (yes, we need a mind in order to do it, but it’s not logically impossible).

To state it from another angle, bouncing balls, objects and laws are such just in relation with some (human) observer: but what they are related to something else? This is a question that we can’t answer by definition, but it has sense anyway. Relations are so intertwined that even their hierarchy of fundamentality can change depending on the point of view from where we analyze it.

Thank you again for your comment, and good luck with your essay!

Francesco D'Isa

Bookmark and Share



Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 21:36 GMT
Congratulations Francesco,

Your essay is the most persuasive of any I have read to date, enhanced as it is by compliance with FQXi’s evaluation criterion that essays should be ‘accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience.’

Perhaps you should have qualified your title with the prefix ‘As far as I know ...’ We simply don’t know what we don’t know - and that is one of many absolute truths, contrary to the notion that ‘every truth is a belief.’.

While you use the terms ‘exist’ or ‘existence’ more than once, you have not elaborated upon the idea of existence. If you hold to the view that ‘existence’ is ‘nothing’ in the absence of ‘something’ or some ‘things’, and therefore does not warrant consideration, then yes, your title still holds. You can still maintain that ‘existence’ depends upon one or more relations but that does not deny ‘existence’ from qualifying as being fundamental to consideration of any and every other ‘thing’, including ideas.

Thanks for the ride.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 09:28 GMT
Dear Gary,

thank you very much for your comment and appreciation!

Yes, you are right about the title, but I suppose as tacit that everything I say it's "as far as I know"... but this is, alas, still a belief. Anyway, as you stated later, the title is still quite ambiguous – I've to admit that I surrendered a little to the catch title.

Thank you again, I'll check soon your essay as well.

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 14:55 GMT
Dear Francesco,

It is a pleasure meeting you here in this FQXi Essay Contest. In fact, I live in Prato, near your beautiful Florence.

I find your Essay very interesting and a bit provocative. I did not know Nagarjuna’s theory, thanks for raising it to my attention. In fact, I am not a philosopher and, despite I am a physicist of gravitation, I am not involved in LQG.

I have a bit provocative question on your statement that “every entity’s intrinsically relational nature”. In that case, can we claim that such a intrinsically relational nature is fundamental? OK, you can reply with your final statement that “we do not consider “fundamental” absolute relativism itself”. This sounds good from a philosophical point of view. But, from the physical point of view, your statement that “every entity’s intrinsically relational nature” recalls me on one hand, the physical concept of general covariance, and, on the other hand, the quest for a unified field theory. In both of the cases, such concepts seem fundamental, at least from the physical point of view.

In any case, your Essay is a very entertaining work which deserves the highest score that I am going to give you.

Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss an approach to the fundamental issues in physics ... with Albert Einstein! In addition, as I see that you are a prolific writer, I signal you my first popularizing book titled “Onde gravitazionali. La scoperta del secolo”. Maybe we could collaborate in the future.

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Francesco D'Isa wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 17:51 GMT
Dear Christian,

thank you very much, I'm glad that you enjoyed my essay and it's nice to find here someone so close home!

To answer to your question, the paradox that you state is a very important point, and is handled somehow in the final paragraph of my text (number 6). The similarities that you find with general covariance and unified field are coherent without doubt, but following the style of this text it would result that even the vey mathematics used for these laws is relative...

I bookmarked your essay and I will read it for sure. Let's keep in touch, I'm interested in your book as well - let's talk about Fqxi unrelated issues by email. (You find my contacts at www.gizart.com)

All the best,

Francesco D'Isa

Bookmark and Share


Christian Corda replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 18:01 GMT
Dear Francesco,

Thanks for your kind reply. I substantially agree with your answer that the mathematics used for these laws is relative. I have been often criticized by some colleague for this thinking, but it is my opinion that there are no exact sciences in Nature.

It will be my pleasure talking with you about Fqxi unrelated issues. I will contact you soon.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 22:17 GMT
Hi Francesco D'Isa

Very nicely said… “idea of a system of “fundamental” rules is misleading, because of every entity’s intrinsically relational nature” , you are correct in saying that Nothing is fundamental Dear Francesco D'Isa……

……..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope you may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 09:41 GMT
Dear Naga,

thank you for your comment, I bookmarked your essay and I will read it soon!

Bests,

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Ajay Pokhrel wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 06:04 GMT
Hello D'Isa,

Well done!

Well, you essay definitely meant that everything has a relationship. Indeed, I think that everything has a relationship and that is what we call as "Pattern" which relates to mathematics.

Kind Regards

Ajay Pokharel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 09:59 GMT
Dear Ajay,

thank you for reading and appreciating my essay!

All the best.

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Stefan Weckbach wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Francesco,

i have some further annotations about the antinomy your presented in chapter 6 of your essay and would be happy if you could evaluate my considerations.

The antinomy states that “Every truth is relative”. As you outlined in the essay, such truths are relative to other truths. If these other truths wouldn’t exist, those truths that refer to them couldn’t exist...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 20:44 GMT
Dear Stefan,

thank you very much for your comment and the time that you commit to my text. I will try to answer to the strong point that you made above.

> I strongly suspect that talking about ‘emptiness’ as a real ontological possibility is talking about something we really don’t know what we are talking about.

I agree, it's something deeply incomprehensible for our...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 01:41 GMT
Dear Francesco,

thank you very much for your reply.

I would agree on most of what you wrote, except for the case of absolute truths in relation to relative truths.

There is a subtle difference in constrasting the relative with the absolute. It mustn’t be another relationship as we usually think about all the other relationships that mutually define each other and do both...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 01:50 GMT
Dear Francesco,

since in my previous post the blank lines have been eliminated, I post my comment again, trying to convince the system to behave in the normal way.

So thank you very much for your reply.

I would agree on most of what you wrote, except for the case of absolute truths in relation to relative truths.

There is a subtle difference in constrasting the relative...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 02:10 GMT
Hi Francesco, since i don't know when the system's formatting abilities will work again regularily, i attach my comment from above as pdf-file. I wrote to fqxi to repair the formatting procedure, since the problem is virulent also on other essay pages.

attachments: FrancescoDIsa.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 11:54 GMT
Dear Stefan,

thank you again fo discussing with me these subjects, as usual you point out some important issues.

If I've fully understood, you outline that without the rule of contradiction (or other basilar logical laws) if we draw an arrow from epistemological to ontological claims (and we both agree on this for several reasons), the world should be contradictory, but it doesn't seem so.

That's a very interesting point, but the absolute relativism that I outlined in the essay doesn't say that the principle of contradiction (and other laws) always fails, just that... they are relative.

As humans, we'll never perceive anything contradictory, even if we often come closer to ontological paradoxes. So, there's no apparent contradictions in the world, just because our finite form can't "perceive" it. Relatively to our form, there are no blatant contradictions, we are logical creatures and the form of the absolute relativism outlined in §6 is a sort of insurmountable limit. I agree that we really don't grasp what's really, really ontologically most fundamental, but we can maybe know our limit, that in my opinion coincides with a form of absolute relativism.

Liebe gruesse aus Italien, ich wohnte in Berlin fuer ein Jahr und ich liebte es! :)

Francesco

Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Francesco, yes Berlin is a cool city; und du kannst richtig gut deutsch! Viele Grüße aus Deutschland, Stefan.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 15:02 GMT
Oh, ich moechet es! Ich vermiss sehr auf Deutsch zu sprechen. Vielen Dank!

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 18:19 GMT
Francesco,

I would contend that we must have rules that foster our continued existence and that fundamental involves what is necessary for existence. “Fundamental” would become irrelevant without a sentient creature to apply it to our natural world. I see fundamental as relative to our state of knowledge in that it changes with each discovery. This in turn necessitates our having an open mind and not creating obstacles to its changing nature. For example, not letting our institutions or belief systems perpetuate the belief that the world is flat or the Earth is the center of the universe. Our lexicon of existence must see that concepts do change and that there is an element of relativism to our culture. “Emptiness” by definition suggest no underlying essence, which to me leads to nihilism, “nothing in the world has a real existence.” Humans cling to existence and set up institutions to prolong it (though climate change might seem otherwise). These are ideas that I build on in my essay. I hope you can comment on it. Your thoughts are an important contribution to the concept we are writing about, indicating that fundamental is not absolute in meaning.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 09:44 GMT
Thank you James, I will read your essay for sure, I bookmarked it now.

All the bests!

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 23:59 GMT
Francesco,

What if Nothing is fundamental? 1 is relative to -1, so they cancel out to zero. Wouldn't that mean zero is the fundament? This might seem a silly question, but consider physics, rather than math. Isn't space the physical equivalent of the mathematical zero?

What is the speed of light relative to, but the vacuum? According to GR, time and distance, the clock and the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 15:35 GMT
Francesco,

Sorry for delay reverting, I read & made notes on yours & others on a trip and left them there! Now back. Brilliant essay, excellently explained and rigorously argued. We do agree. Good chat on my string but I'd like to raise a matter of logic emergent from my work, including the top scored 2015 essay on red/green socks.

I've proposed that the problematic 'Law of the Excluded Middle' and the binary maths it lead to, are at the root of all problems and paradox! Shocking!? But I do suggest a replacement; Everything, that's EVERYTHING! has a Gaussian/Bayesian distribution! Even Ying and Yang somewhat 'blend in'. The class of valid 100% True/Not true cases is very limited, largely only metaphysical. See also Phillips essay here.

So I proposed the 'Law of the Reducing Middle', which has a non-linear sine curve distribution between maxima 1 and 0, as does QM. Look hard and it's clear that IS nature. Send binary signals down a fibre optic cable - nature will 'round them off' so we need booster stations to 'square' the waves up again.

You're not either stoned or not stoned. You may be stoned a little with a few small ones, or infinitely ANY amount. ANYTHING can happen in the universe with some non-zero degree of probability. NOTHING is 100% certain.

The implications are massive. Godel emerges. Paradox disappears. Maths follows propositional ('modal') logic as the hierarchical rule of brackets in arithmatic.

Even more shocking; Cartesian co-ordinate 'wire frame' become real spaces, which can't overlap, so also then a more logical near infinite hierarchy of 'inertial systems'! (spaces in motion within spaces as described by both Herman M and Albert E).

Do have a think and question it. In the meantime your score down for a boost shortly.

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 16:01 GMT
Dear Peter,

thank you very much for your comment, you raised my interest for sure... Can I find your essay about the 'Law of the Reducing Middle' here in the FQXi forum or elsewhere? I would love top learn more...

Thank you anyway for your appreciation! I notice a very bad vote on my essay right now, but i suppose it wasn't you.

All the best!

Francesco

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 17:40 GMT
Francesco,

No, wasn't me, you'll be very pleased to hear I haven't applied the rating to yours yet and it'll be a top score. (I hope its the same re mine!). The 'Law of the Reducing Middle' was in my (scored 2nd) 2013 'It from Bit' essay; "The Intelligent Bit". (All these top peer scored finishes but not once in the prizes! Not that that matters except as a litmus test of mainstream thinking).

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31419?sor
t=community


Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 10:24 GMT
Dear Peter,

thank you very much! I will read and comment your essay there, thanks for linking. I really appreciated your essay and rated it high on Jan 25, 2018.

All the best, I'll read you soon!

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 23:27 GMT
Francesco,

As time grows short, I check those I have commented on to see if I have rated them. I find that I rated yours on 2/10. Hope you can check out mine.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 10:19 GMT
Dear James,

thank you very much, I will find th time to read you before the 26th :)

bests,

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Member Markus P Mueller wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 10:02 GMT
Dear Francesco,

thank you for a really nice essay!

I had a lot of fun reading it; I think it is really well written. Also, I strongly agree with parts of your message: physical "objects" are, in general, only defined relationally. This includes all their properties. I think you explain and argue for this very nicely. I would also agree that even the question of (physical) *existence* of an object expresses a relational statement.

However, I have an objection, and I would be interested in how you respond to it. Namely, relativity of *properties* (of things, or objects; or even of their existence) seems something very different from relativity of *truth*. For example, the position of Earth is only defined relative to a reference frame; but once we have specified one, we can talk about relational properties like "distance between Earth and Sun" as having objective content, and statements about these properties being objectively true or false. Or do you think we can't?

And if you think we can't, how do you defend your position (or even just your stable being in the world) against total arbitrariness?

Here's an example from your text: you write

"What we judge real [...] is particularly limited in its timescale. Tomorrow the sun will rise, but it was not thus in a remote past, ..."

When you say this, don't you mean that this statement is an absolute truth? And isn't it interesting that we *do* know this fact, even though we haven't lived in the remote past? I would say it's because of the success of science which is itself because of a stable form of objective truth.

But I don't want to pontificate ;-) I'd just be really interested in your answer to thoughts like these.

All best wishes,

Markus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 10:52 GMT
Dear Markus,

thank you very much for reading my essay, I'm very glad that you enjoyed it!

This text is and adapted excerpt from the first part of a longer essay I’m still working on, where I try to manage the consequences of these starting point. To properly answer to your question I should publish here much more from this text, but sadly it’s still a draft in Italian. I hope I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Member Marc Séguin wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 22:44 GMT
Dear Francesco,

It’s been two weeks since you’ve left a comment on my essays’ thread: how time flies! I had read your essay back then, but in the meantime, I have been caught up in a several last-minute “emergencies” at work, hence the delay in commenting and rating essays.

I really like your essay, and we do share similar views about many things. I agree with you that the fundamental nature of being in intrinsically relational, and that all physical properties are like velocity, relative to other objects. When I explain this, I often use the same analogy than you, the words of a dictionary that define each other.

You write that “without relationships at all, we would have nothing”, and I agree. In my previous FQXi essays, I have argued for structural realism, the idea that the fundamental nature of the world in an abstract (“mathematical”) network of relations, structure itself being more fundamental than the elements that it relates. I know that relations without relata seems paradoxical, but as your essay demonstrates, a little bit of paradox is not necessarily a bad thing… ;)

I hope your essay goes far in this contest: good luck!

All the best,

Marc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 08:39 GMT
Dear Marc,

thank you very much for your comment and appreciation! I would love to read your past essay, where can I find it?

Thank you again!

Francesco

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 09:54 GMT
Dear Francesca, you are an idealist and I a materialist and I here call upon all researchers to remember the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, and to continue his theory everething in the light of modern science. Physicists have denied matter to be a category, i.e. fundamental, when he said that mass is energy. After this, philosophers began to say that matter exists in space and in time. New Cartesian Physics believes that it is wrong. According to the principle of identity of space and matter Descartes, matter creates space and time. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay; however, I'll give you a rating after becoming acquainted with the Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which can to be the theory of everything OO.

I wish you success! Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:02 GMT
Dear Francesco

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


Author Francesco D'Isa wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 14:28 GMT
It's a pity to notice all these "1" rankings the last days :(

Thank you anyway for reading!

Bookmark and Share



richard kingsley nixey wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:28 GMT
Francesco,

I agree. It's very poor behaviour. Thanks for your post, Nice essay. No time to chat. Rather more than 1 going on now!

Rich

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 22:07 GMT
Dear Richard,

thank you very much – but then I got another "1" :D It's quite grotesque :)

Bookmark and Share



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.