CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
Faith is Fundamental by George Gantz
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author George Gantz wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 17:00 GMT
Essay AbstractHello to all my FQXi Community friends. I am pleased to join you again this year, and I trust that we will be able once again to learn much from each other. My essay this year is the fourth in a series, and it addresses two themes my earlier essays each touched upon in different ways. First, we need to recognize and accept the fact that a complete empirical description of physical reality is inaccessible to us as reflective participants inside that reality. Second, our perception and investigation of this physical reality through science rests on guiding principles constructed on faith. I highlight some of the shared beliefs that appropriately guide the scientific enterprise, and provide a specific critique of certain common articles of faith that I believe interfere with productive inquiry. My plea is for a broader and more open conversation about the articles of faith that provide the foundation for our understanding of the physical world. My hope is that by doing so we will invite a deeper humility and a greater capacity for the experience of wonder, joy, love, beauty and meaningful participation, including the full and enthusiastic pursuit of science, in this most marvelous world we live in.
Author BioGeorge Gantz is a writer, philosopher and retired business executive with a life-long passion for mathematics, science, philosophy and theology. He has a Bachelor of Science degree with Honors Humanities from Stanford University. He created Spiral Inquiry (spiralinquiry.org) and serves on the Board of Promoting an Enduring Peace. He has given presentations and written articles on related topics for a variety of conferences and publications. His essay The Tip of The Spear earned 4th place in the 2014 FQXi essay contest.
Download Essay PDF File
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 21:05 GMT
You always bring us blessings George...
I trust this offering will be worthwhile guidance, as have your last installments. I have added it to my reading bin. I have faith that my essay will appear soon.
All the best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 21:44 GMT
Thanks, Jonathan - I look forward to reading your essay as well! - George
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 21:16 GMT
Dear George Gantz,
You titled your essay “Faith is Fundamental.” That Old Time Religion practitioners, and all modern physicists have provided us with the most grotesque lies ever perpetrated about the universe. They insist that the universe had a finite commencement.
Nature produced one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am...
view entire post
Dear George Gantz,
You titled your essay “Faith is Fundamental.” That Old Time Religion practitioners, and all modern physicists have provided us with the most grotesque lies ever perpetrated about the universe. They insist that the universe had a finite commencement.
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 and Christian misinformation ever became evident on earth.
Joe Fisher, Realist.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 21:51 GMT
Joe - I think your anger is both unfortunate and misplaced, and your comment reinforces the basic thesis of my essay --- that we all need to undertake a serious self-examination of the articles of faith that we are carrying with us into the inquiry.
Cheers- George
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 23:44 GMT
Dear George Gantz,
I very much enjoyed your essay, and appreciate your perspective, which you summarize nicely: "
the unexamined faith is not worth believing." You discuss the articles of faith underlying current physics after first discussing a series of problematic findings. I believe the obvious success of quantum mechanics is compatible with a new (improved) interpretation of...
view entire post
Dear George Gantz,
I very much enjoyed your essay, and appreciate your perspective, which you summarize nicely: "
the unexamined faith is not worth believing." You discuss the articles of faith underlying current physics after first discussing a series of problematic findings. I believe the obvious success of quantum mechanics is compatible with a new (improved) interpretation of QM, but that is for another time. You begin with the first problem of space and time, noting that time and space came to be visualized as a four-dimensional topological manifold. After briefly discussing other aspects of the problem you ask:
"
But what should we believe? That our everyday experience of the flow of time is a fraud?"
Something is a fraud, and my essay reviews the historical development of the above in a way you might find interesting. I hope you will read and enjoy my essay and grace me with a comment.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 21:53 GMT
Eugene - Thanks, I look forward to reading your essay and finding out who perpetrated what fraud!
Cheers - George
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 16:03 GMT
Dear George Gantz, you wrote a great essay worthy of a winner.
If the believer to ask: "where is your God". He will answer: "In Heaven" so I say that space is the body of God.
He ascended into heaven - this means it went into his body.
The fundamental should be very simple and straightforward. The idea of God is simple and straightforward. The world is one because God is one....
view entire post
Dear George Gantz, you wrote a great essay worthy of a winner.
If the believer to ask: "where is your God". He will answer: "In Heaven" so I say that space is the body of God.
He ascended into heaven - this means it went into his body.
The fundamental should be very simple and straightforward. The idea of God is simple and straightforward. The world is one because God is one. This eliminates the theory of Multi Universe.
Visit my essay, which I have some examples of trying to convince others of the fruitfulness of the principle of Descartes's identity of space and matter.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 21:56 GMT
Thank you Dizhenchko - I will look up your essay. I am a half-fan of Descartes so I'm sure it will be interesting!
Cheers - George
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 19:26 GMT
Dear George,
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
post approved
marc fleury fleury wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 19:43 GMT
I have thoroughly enjoyed this Essay George and not sure why it had the rating of 3 to begin with, possibly due to this defiant use of the word FAITH in it's title.
Thank you for sharing these well organized thoughts.
At some level of the regress you escape rational analysis and the turtles exist outside rational thoughts, we call it magic. http://churchof.space chapter one....
view entire post
I have thoroughly enjoyed this Essay George and not sure why it had the rating of 3 to begin with, possibly due to this defiant use of the word FAITH in it's title.
Thank you for sharing these well organized thoughts.
At some level of the regress you escape rational analysis and the turtles exist outside rational thoughts, we call it magic. http://churchof.space chapter one.
Determinism as in your point 2 page 7/ does not represent a dead end. Any feedback loop on a otherwise deterministic system will lead to loss of determinism as in sensitivity to initial conditions as we know from chaos theory and non-linear systems http://chaosbook.org
I hope you will read my essay submission for you may find much echo to your points. Specifically the standing waves of the fabric of space, the memory of the aether, seems to resonate with interesting forms guiding QM and existing outside of carbon or indeed atoms, in the vacuum itself. This memory foam, as visualized in the walkers ontology (and described in my essay, SR-Aether), seems to couple back to the particle and guide it in a dynamic that mimics quantum mechanics via the chaos theory formalism. In there the superposition principle emerges as the notion of chaotic intermittence or the dynamic shapeshifting of non-linear (self coupled) systems etc as expounded in the more tongue in cheek CoS texts.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 03:32 GMT
Marc - I look forward to reading your essay. I quite agree, after counting "turtles all the way down" it certainly seems like magic. But as for feedback loops in deterministic systems - that means they are not deterministic. Nevertheless, I have heard very smart physicists say they believe if we just knew all the initial conditions precisely we would be able to know the entire future...
view entire post
Marc - I look forward to reading your essay. I quite agree, after counting "turtles all the way down" it certainly seems like magic. But as for feedback loops in deterministic systems - that means they are not deterministic. Nevertheless, I have heard very smart physicists say they believe if we just knew all the initial conditions precisely we would be able to know the entire future trajectory....
Cheers - George
view post as summary
Victor Usack wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 00:41 GMT
This one speaks to me above all others. Thank you for writing it. I could easily write a 20 pg response to this 10 pg essay. This is not to say I agree with everything you wrote. I simply choose to believe otherwise, but that is beside the point. The point is that ultimately, the truth involves what we choose to believe. Note that this is a self-referential statement. If it is taken as fact, then...
view entire post
This one speaks to me above all others. Thank you for writing it. I could easily write a 20 pg response to this 10 pg essay. This is not to say I agree with everything you wrote. I simply choose to believe otherwise, but that is beside the point. The point is that ultimately, the truth involves what we choose to believe. Note that this is a self-referential statement. If it is taken as fact, then it is self-contradictory. The self-referential paradox is central to the problem of the human condition. Instead we reject this and navigate around it with whatever cognitive tools we can find. There must be ultimate facts. We only believe in things that are real. The ultimate truth must be logical. The proof is out there, we’re not looking hard enough. Ultimately, reality must be some sort of unique unidirectional hierarchy, or objective dualism with an equals = sign in between. Maybe we can choose to believe anything. (Another self-referential statement). How about; “Only falsifiable proposals qualify as fact” (Not a falsifiable statement). In my essay, I frame the problem in terms of realism and idealism. As far as I can tell, this approach hasn’t garnered much attention. The belief in the uni-truth is pervasive. To not believe in the uni-truth, is a self-referential paradox. Consider the following multiple choice question: All reality A) originates from random behavior, B) is determined by the laws of physics, C) Is consistent and logical, D) A set of (incompatible) schools of thought, E) All of the above. I make the self-contradictory selection E). I can’t prove or disprove anything about this question. This question addresses the ultimate nature by asking about “all” reality. I choose to believe that when I ask such an ultimate question, I find myself in a philosophical tailspin. I don’t “understand” it in the usual sense. I simply recognize and accept it. Ideas such as free, determined, logical, and relativism, (ABC and D) are useful in particular applications, but when I ask ultimate questions i.e. “what is fundamental?” I can pretty much argue from any place on the map. BTW this is a version of Russell’s paradox where choosing the whole menu is paradoxical. Typically, we posit F) none of the above, and navigate around the problem with choices we claim as fact. You quoted Hawkins; “There is no theory- or theory independent concept of reality”. This is a self-referential statement. (because it is Hawkins conception). “…model dependent realism” is an oxymoron. But I believe he is right. If you have not done so, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
and realize the whole thing is a self-referential proposal. I can fool myself into thinking I’ve found the unequivocal answer here, but then I’ve just contradicted myself. I’ve trapped myself in the self-referential belief: Overall reality is a contradiction. If this statement is true, then then it must be a contradiction. Round and round I go. I can’t expect anyone to agree. It’s not logical. The only way out is to use the F word. And I don’t mean facts. I avoid using the F word in my essay. Instead I use words like choice, interpretation, belief, assumption, acceptance, etc.… The word faith conjures the fraudulent and infantile religious beliefs abhorred by the prevailing materialism. We should expect to be thrown overboard. This precludes you from winning and this can only be a testament to your goodness. To find examples of the philosophical tailspin at the ultimate edge of understanding, we need look no further than cosmology; Ex-nihilo violation of conservation, time beginning at a point prior to which was not, space “in and of itself” inflating within a void of non-space, and other self-subsistent paradox. At the opposite edge of the observable Universe we have the paradoxes of QM. None of this makes sense, but I’m OK with that because I (choose) don’t expect it to. This attitude is called humility. Other examples of the philosophical tailspin are freewill and determinism, spontaneous emergence of order vs intention (teleology), hidden variables, contingent Universe, measurement problem, and so on. The reproducible feature of the physically observable is what determines the laws. Using causality, we turn this around and suppose the laws determine the behavior. But what about things that only happen once? i.e. big bang? We can thank Gödel for formalizing the unavoidability of the self-referential problem. To what extent can we extrapolate predictive science to the unobservable? String and multiverse theories have the empiricists on suicide watch. For me these essays are an exposition of the human condition. A bit of introspection and humility goes a long way here. To have faith in nothing is worthless. I choose to believe my eyes that see a marvelous and intentional endeavor willing to sacrifice Himself for our blessings. I am a thinker and one day I found these thoughts do not really belong to me. What is fundamental? You nailed it. Usack@optonline.net.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 22:11 GMT
Victor - I read your extended comment with great interest. If you have not read them, I'm sure you wold enjoy the works of Lewis Carrol. I do not find the unraveling of realism or reductionism to be upsetting - just very curious and maybe a bit inspiring. As Carroll's character pointed it, it just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. So let's stay curious! And humble, of course. I look...
view entire post
Victor - I read your extended comment with great interest. If you have not read them, I'm sure you wold enjoy the works of Lewis Carrol. I do not find the unraveling of realism or reductionism to be upsetting - just very curious and maybe a bit inspiring. As Carroll's character pointed it, it just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. So let's stay curious! And humble, of course. I look forward to reading your essay.
view post as summary
Heinrich Luediger wrote on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 16:16 GMT
Dear George,
I think you perfectly captured the scholastic dictum: Credo ut intelligam (I believe so that I may understand). But do you think that anything rational can be said about what underlies understanding and logic?
Heinrich
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 22:17 GMT
Heinrich -
Absolutely, we can talk about "what underlies understanding and logic" rationally, but on the important questions we have to give up the notion of infallibility. The frontiers of empirical knowledge, in my view, point to (but do not prove) truths about the wholeness of reality we experience, and the wise person will follow those pointers in assembling a worldview (faith and...
view entire post
Heinrich -
Absolutely, we can talk about "what underlies understanding and logic" rationally, but on the important questions we have to give up the notion of infallibility. The frontiers of empirical knowledge, in my view, point to (but do not prove) truths about the wholeness of reality we experience, and the wise person will follow those pointers in assembling a worldview (faith and knowledge) that best serves the purposes of being human. I look forward to reading your essay.
Cheers - George
view post as summary
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 20:18 GMT
George,
Great essay with a lot to digest. I cannot help thinking of looking at our galaxy from the inside and the flaws in perception we experience -- BICEPs 2 for example, when reading "By analogy, we exist as conscious observers inside a box. Some of what we are trying to learn could only be observed from outside the box." More generally, we are looking at our universe from the inside...
view entire post
George,
Great essay with a lot to digest. I cannot help thinking of looking at our galaxy from the inside and the flaws in perception we experience -- BICEPs 2 for example, when reading "By analogy, we exist as conscious observers inside a box. Some of what we are trying to learn could only be observed from outside the box." More generally, we are looking at our universe from the inside rather than from the outside.
These words are also true: "One of the consequences of a more open and honest discussion of our belief framework would be, I believe, an increase in our shared humility" I also try to emphasize that we may be too wedded to established thinking like "the Big Bang" and must keep our eyes and options open: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3035.
So far, I think your essay is one of the best.
Jim Hoover
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 22:20 GMT
Thank you Jim for your kind words. In addition to looking at the universe from the inside, we are also looking at others from the outside. Much of the time we have to guess - best to do so cautiously and with utmost humility.
I look forward to your essay! - George
Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 04:03 GMT
George,
I assume that your statement ‘that faith may be interfering with physics’ alludes to the perceived irreconcilable relationship between faith and reason, by which I am interpreting your interpretation of ‘faith’ as being religious convictions.
But the term ‘faith’ has much wider, generally applicable meanings; that of conviction, trust, reliance, assurance, belief,...
view entire post
George,
I assume that your statement ‘that faith may be interfering with physics’ alludes to the perceived irreconcilable relationship between faith and reason, by which I am interpreting your interpretation of ‘faith’ as being religious convictions.
But the term ‘faith’ has much wider, generally applicable meanings; that of conviction, trust, reliance, assurance, belief, devotion, loyalty, etc. that are often applicable to scientific theories that have not been established and endorsed as ‘true’. Indeed what scientific knowledge is unequivocally certain and correct for all time? Your point is well taken when you state ‘There are some conundrums in mathematics, however, that will never be solved’; not withstanding our understanding that ‘never’ is a long, long time. As you have further stated; ‘the incompleteness findings apply to every branch of mathematics.’ From a practical point of view we need not seek perfection in terms of the absolute truth but rather proceed until we have achieved tentative conclusions that have utility values.
Concerning your question ‘How does intelligence emerge from unintelligent components?’; your answer preceded your question; i.e. that ‘all interesting structures’ ... ‘exhibit increases in order, structure and variety quite at odds with the Second Law’ ‘All’ is a dangerous word to use but I get the gist of your point – that evolution compounds complexity.
The notion that ‘... anomalies are all explainable within the laws of nature’ is more succinctly posited if we substitute the word ‘principles’ for ‘laws’. Strict laws are absolute while principles accommodate deviations within limits.
To state that there are ‘no’ non-physical causes the ‘no’ cannot be confirmed (much like ‘never’ and ‘all’ referred to above). These terms should not be used if we are trying to convey the truth as we know it. If there is a God he (she or it) may well call you to account unless he elects to expose himself physically.
The issue of a single universe vs. the multiverse theory is not going away soon. I think that you are correct in suggesting that ‘the choice boils down to an ideological one – what are you comfortable in believing?’
Your conclusion is exquisitely stated.
Thank you.
Gary.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 01:19 GMT
Gary - Thanks for the comments.
No, I am not using the word "faith" as meaning religious teachings, but in a broader sense: s belief, a conviction, that something is true (or almost certainly true) even when evidence may be weak, scarce, totally theoretical or inaccessible. The philosophical commitment to a choiceless cosmos (reflected in determinism and in the multiverse theory) is an example. Other essays are also quite critical of these and similar ideological commitments and the ferocity with which they are sometimes defended.
On the other hand, if we define "religion" more loosely, in line with what Einstein suggested, then I would agree that articles of faith are indicative of one's religion.
Moreover, I would argue that faith and reason are not irreconcilable - they should be partners in our open inquiry into the foundations of life as well as science.
Thanks - George
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 22:28 GMT
Hi George Gantz
Very good flow of writing … “our perception and investigation of this physical reality through science rests on guiding principles constructed on faith” is correctly said Best wishes to the essay , hope this also will go better than …”Tip of the spear” dear George Gantz
……..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for...
view entire post
Hi George Gantz
Very good flow of writing … “our perception and investigation of this physical reality through science rests on guiding principles constructed on faith” is correctly said Best wishes to the essay , hope this also will go better than …”Tip of the spear” dear George Gantz
……..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity…. You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 14:48 GMT
SNP - Thanks for the comments. I look forward to reading your essay - another among many fascinating and provocative ideas. This contest is quite amazing!
Cheers- George
Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 04:15 GMT
Hi George,
I find you just amazing! Your writing radiates peace and well being AND provides well thought out content. You give every visitor to your blog something that will help them. In the last essay contest I was grousing about Max Tegmark and how he used the contest to further his own agenda...Your response to me was "sometimes you just have to go for the bait".... I started laughing and am still laughing!
You could have used the word "belief" instead of "faith" in the title of this work and gotten a higher score. But that is not how you work... faith is closer to what is really fundamental.
Thanks for lighting up this contest.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 14:55 GMT
Thank you Don - it's nice to hear from you again. I admit it is so challenging to talk about that which is "outside the box" using words, language, ideas and evidence that is "inside the box." Many have tackled the challenge - few have made headway. Aldous Huxley wrote a useful book "Perennial Philosophy" that did a nice job speaking about the shared unspeakable. But the best Wittgentstin could offer was "The world of a happy man is different from that of the unhappy man..." - or something like that. The mystical traditions get the idea - but the language rarely resonates for those outside the tradition....
Wishing you all the best! - George
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 17:41 GMT
George,
Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I have scored yours on 1/23. Thanks for your kind words about mine.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 19:18 GMT
Dear George Gantz,
excuse me that I write my comment without blank lines – the fqxi’s formatting system seems to have a bug. I read your essay and must say that you present well-balanced and reasonable arguments to handle the question “what is fundamental?”. Not only are your arguments reasonable intellectually, but they also consider the emotional part of every human being – be it a scientist, philosopher, biologist or otherwise interested reader of the essay contest’s topic. You present valuable and logical arguments, and none of them try to eliminate the very tool with which we can come to our conclusions, namely consciousness. Moreover, it seems to me that you take it as not irrational to conclude from the existence of consciousness that the latter has to play a certain important role for answering the essay contest’s question, since without consciousness, there would be no question. Again, moreover, you value the fact that there are not only self-aware beings, but these beings are also aware of an external reality which surprisingly can be modeled to a certain degree by mathematics. All in all I like your essay very much, since it is out-of-the-box of exclusively arguing only for fitting certain mainstream ideas. It escapes the transformation of physics into another social science, but keeps the psychology, the very causa finalis that drives all participants trying to fathom the depths of existence and its overall meaning. In my opinion your essay is too important to be not under the finalists and I give you my 10 points so it may succeed this purpose and we can see how the judges decide. Since in this forum it may well happen that you are downrated after some good score, I tell you that you are now by 5.9 with 8 ratings and you will be by approximately 6.4 and 9 ratings after my scoring.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 14:59 GMT
Stefan - Thanks for your kind review and generous score. I decided this year to write for the heart and not the score. The strategy seems to be working. :) It is an interesting set of essays, for sure, but seems to come at a busy time for all of us - so hard to find the time to digest the big ideas represented in this contest!
Cheers - George
Mozibur Rahman Ullah wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 12:44 GMT
Dear George Gantz,
Congratulations on a thoughtful and perceptive essay. I particularly liked the remark 'the unexamined faith is not worth believing in'!
Best Wishes
Mozibur Ullah
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 15:02 GMT
Thank you Mozibar for reading and commenting on my essay. I will reciprocate in the near future! If a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears, does it make a noise? If an essay is submitted and goes unread, does it make a difference? I admit I am a bit of a glutton for analogy and metaphor - useful tools in talking about what otherwise might be called "mystical."
Cheers - George
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 19:22 GMT
George,
An excellent essay again and great pleasure to read. Thank you. I agree infinity is beyond our understanding and a 'god' in some way seems inevitable if undecidable. Your analysis of all you covered was nicely judged for the level and length here. One of the best again I think.
But did you know John Bell was convinced a classical derivation of QM's prediction WAS possible (but "will astonish") and indeed pointed the way? You may be interested in my essay which suggests you should perhaps have extended your sentence;
"Considerable experimental and intense theoretical efforts have been devoted to the resolution of these issues. These efforts have been unsuccessful." ..with
"...to date". A different starting assumption endowing pairs with Maxwell's 4 conjugate states appears astonishingly to overcome the barriers to a classical solution!!
Of course the academic community will fight to Max Plancks last coffin before adopting any such thing! But see also Declan Traill's essay with the computer code and plot consistent with the ontology.
Very well done for yours again.
Best of luck in the judging.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 01:40 GMT
Thank you Peter for your kind words. As to Bell's conviction (and many of the essays here) - it is so easy to be misguided by the strength of our convictions. Humility is, ultimately, the only thing that saves us. That, and love.
Cheers - George
Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 17:56 GMT
Hello Mr Gantz,
Congratulations for your essay about faith.It is theologically wonderfull.:) God does not play at dices but with sphères :) The aether seems gravitational ....
Best Regards
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 01:42 GMT
Thanks Steve - I am buoyed up by the idea of gravity, but caught in spirals - neither dice nor spheres.
Cheers - George
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 11:23 GMT
You are welcome,this weakest force needs to be quantify and the spirals can help with a kind of fractalisation, but I am insisting :) The sphères and their motions or the geometrical algebras like lie algebras or the Clifford algebras are a better way than these spirals but these spirals can be utilised for this fractalisation of forces in converging.Einstein said that God does not play at dices...., you like I am supposing the fibonacci spiral lol ?
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:35 GMT
Dear George,
I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.
It is so close to me. «our perception and investigation of this physical reality through science rests on guiding principles constructed on faith». «I suggest that faith may be interfering with physics». «What is the cause of the emergent order?» «I have also questioned a number of apparent beliefs that are interfering with our full and open exploration of our world. Among these are the belief sets that I have referred to as physicalism, reductionism and determinism. I have also offered a specific critique of the commitment to randomness and its role in the justification of the multiverse theory».
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
Author George Gantz replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 01:44 GMT
Vladimir - You are so kind, thank you. I have felt since our first meeting that our ideas are quite similar and it appears to be even more the case this year.
Sincere regards and best of luck - George
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 12:59 GMT
Dear George
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?
Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure...
view entire post
Dear George
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?
Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?
My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn’t then nebula gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.
Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?
For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.
My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.
By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.
To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.
Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest
Kind regards
Steven Andresen
Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 01:48 GMT
Thanks, Steven. Ah, but microscopes and clocks are so Newtonian - so 19th century. I believe we will find that the universal natural energy potential is love. to paraphrase Winger, it is a gift we neither understand nor deserve.
Cheers - George
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 23:36 GMT
I like this essay a lot George...
You hit the nail on the head! Physics is rife with beliefs, and you do a great job of fleshing out how and why they creep in almost everywhere scientists are striving for specificity. I am reminded of the story at the end of the Babylon 5 series. The two questions are "Who am I?" and "What do I want?" where the first leads to the Order principle of the Vorlons and the other leads to the Chaos principle of the Shadows.
People do not realize that faith and beliefs lie in the area of feelings and not thought. Specifically; a belief is nothing more than a feeling of certainty about the truth or falsehood of something. It gets confusing when people think of beliefs as thought forms. I hope you will still get to read
my essay. It would be nice if it is before the ratings deadline, because I know you would or will be a fair grader.
It's odd that people don't realize the beliefs in your list don't have to be absolutes either; of course there is randomness, but no agency? Some day; I'd love to co-author an article with you George, talking about how people can create the good, and why this is different from fighting evil.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 9, 2018 @ 17:27 GMT
I was hoping you would read this...
Sorry I did not get to read your essay earlier on, and that your essay did not fare better at the end, but it looks like you left the building before reading my comment. So perhaps I'll reach out by e-mail.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.