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

Ines Samengo: on 2/26/18 at 2:12am UTC, wrote Dear Marc and Conrad, again, I apologize for the delay. Last year I went...

Ines Samengo: on 2/23/18 at 18:57pm UTC, wrote Dear Marc and Conrad, thank you soooo much for your thoughtful discussions,...

Conrad Johnson: on 2/23/18 at 17:41pm UTC, wrote Marc – The quotation you include above also struck me, when I read this...

Steven Andresen: on 2/22/18 at 8:45am UTC, wrote Dear Ines If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Wayne Lundberg: on 2/20/18 at 2:08am UTC, wrote Dear Ines, I also am interested to see a mathematically well-founded basis...

Jochen Szangolies: on 2/19/18 at 13:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Inés, you present a compelling picture that finds me nodding in...

Marc Séguin: on 2/17/18 at 23:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Inés, It is good to see you again in this contest. I read your essay...

Kamal Rajpal: on 2/14/18 at 19:22pm UTC, wrote Dear Ines Samengo, Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...

Enquire us: "Our country lies majorly in the tropical belt with a number of cities and..." in Agency in the Physical...

Dermatologist Jaipur: "Enquireus.com is Free Business Listing, Advertising Sites India, Yellow..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...

Dr Gupta: "If you are looking for a best doctor for your health then you don't need to..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
August 23, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: An algorithmic approach to fundamental physics by Ines Samengo [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Ines Samengo wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 17:22 GMT
Essay Abstract

Physical theories are expected to explain the phenomena around us. Algorithmically, this means that a computer program simulating the dynamics of a certain physical system must be able to predict experimental results. Fundamental theories, in addition, are also expected to help us understand the ultimate nature of reality. I here propose that a theory is fundamental if it is conceptual and general. A conceptual theory is one that can be instantiated by a short computer program, whereas a general one is applicable to a large variety of situations. This algorithmic view of the construction of physical theories may be paralleled with the development of formal systems in mathematics. The parallelism between the two disciplines may even be stretched as far as to question the realism of the most basic ontological entities in the phenomena accessible to us.

Author Bio

Ines Samengo has a PhD in Physics, after which she switched to computational neuroscience, with a HFSP postoc with Prof. Alessandro Treves (Trieste), and then an Alexander von Humboldt fellowship with Prof. Andreas Herz (Berlin). She presently works in Bariloche, Argentina, as a researcher of CONICET, applying information-theoretical tools and dynamical-systems theory to the analysis of neural activity in behaving animals, aiming at disclosing the relevant features in the encoding and transmission of sensory information. She is also a professor in Instituto Balseiro, in charge of “Probability and Stochastic Processes” and “Information Theory” in Engineering in Telecommunications.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



a l wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 20:53 GMT
Wonderful essay, my favorite so far. Crystal clear as it keeps away from the troubled waters of ontology. Great, really.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ines Samengo replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 20:39 GMT
Hey, thanks!

Bookmark and Share



DIOGENES AYBAR wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 22:08 GMT
Dear Ines;

Your essay is a struggle. Not only axioms and rules are the basis of the inference game, but also the definition of the “Basic elements” for which the axioms are enunciated and the rules of combinations proposed. That’s why in the end you had to renounce your inference program; the basic concepts and variables used in classical physics are biased by the senses (see my essay...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ines Samengo replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 21:04 GMT
Hi, Diogenes, thanks for your thoughtful and interesting comment.

As I conceive it, the “basic elements” you mention are the material used to construct the formation rules. I did not necessarily meant them to be quantities obtained (or easily derived) from the senses. I would take any quantity as valid, as long as it may serve to predict what we observe. The latter, yes, obtained or...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Francesco D'Isa wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 11:02 GMT
Dear Ines,

thank you for your essay, that I appreciated very much – I wish you all the best for the contest, it's a very interesting point of view.

You write that

> Quantum mechanics does not model what happens, but rather, whatever could have happened, including the interferences between the alternative possibilities. In the derived ontology, reality becomes an attribute...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ines Samengo replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 12:08 GMT
Hi Francesco, thanks for commenting. I will read your essay some time soon, and also provide some feedback. I am very fond of philosophy, even if I have no training in the subject.

Thanks!

inés.

Bookmark and Share


Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 09:10 GMT
Thank you inés, all the best!

Francesco

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christophe Tournayre wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 21:04 GMT
Hi Ines, I enjoyed reading your essay; it was interesting. Page 4, you indicate that the most fundamental theory is the one that produces the shortest programs and can be applied to the largest number of equation. Based on this view of fundamentalness, simple logic seems the most fundamental theory. What is your opinion on this statement?

Kind regards, Christophe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ines Samengo replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 12:17 GMT
Interesting! As I conceived the programs in my essay, they must always be able to reproduce experimental data. So in that respect, I would say that logic alone does not qualify, because in the absence of a context (fundamental constants, initial conditions, etc.) logic does not manage to reproduce the data. However, the experiments performed at the smallest scales provide evidence that not all data can be reproduced with short programs. So in a way, not all experimental data (not all formation rules, we could say) qualify as "apt to be reproduced". Only ensembles of data can be modeled, or equivalently, we cannot model what *does* happen, we can only model what *can* happen. In a way, this conclusion (which interestingly, is based on evidence) pushes us away from the so-called real world, towards a more ideal world. The theory is less attached to reality, and more do formality. I do not think today we can go as far as to claim that logic is the most fundamental physical theory, but we do seem to be moving in that direction, who knows how far we shall get...

Thanks for this interesting perspective!

inés.

Bookmark and Share



Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 16:39 GMT
Dear Ines,

Thank you for wonderful essay. You write that:

... “it is natural to believe that time and space exist. Simply because by postulating their existence we may reproduce a lot of the observed data…” It is classical concept of space and time.

May be the difficulties with QM are related to the misunderstanding concepts of space and time. The new concepts of space...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ines Samengo replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 16:52 GMT
I sure will! These are my favourite topics. More soon, in your entry!

inés.

Bookmark and Share



Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 14:05 GMT
Dear Inés,

First, I love the clarity of your writing and thinking. The argument is so coherent I could follow it easily, even though every sentence adds something new to consider. The historical background sets the stage very nicely, and the analogy between math and physics seemed to make perfect sense – though I would never have imagined a connection between axioms and initial...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ines Samengo replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 01:08 GMT
Dear Conrad, so nice to meet you again! Once again, you make me think…

> The key issue in your essay seems to be – to what extent is what happens in the world determined by rules?

Yes and no, I only partially agree. Your question, as well as the initial part of my essay, seem to imply that there is one such thing as “what happens”, and that it makes sense to ask whether...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 14:53 GMT
Inés – such a pleasure to hear from you again!

I haven’t yet read the 3-body novels, though they’re on my list. But how interesting that you worked on this problem. At one point it was a revelation to me to discover it, and realize that physics is in a sense far more powerful than mathematics. One can of course create quite complex worlds through computer algorithms… but you...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ines Samengo replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 10:22 GMT
Hi, Conrad, I do agree that my essay expresses something like a traditional view, perhaps old fashioned. I also agree in that such a "mechanistic" view of the universe (and of logic, and of reasoning) is what western societies have mostly been searching for all along, and is the kind of scheme that makes us feel comfortable. At least we understand the rules of the game. But by no means I assert that this is neither the "right" path, nor the only possibility. I do like your dual idea a lot. But for my side, I still have not managed to understand it fully, how exactly to apply it, what qualifies as a dual hypothesis and what not, etc. It seems like a promising possibility, but I am still not sure what exactly it means, nor exactly the rules of the game. The old idea I know what it means (or I believe to know), and my question is: Is it the right approach? That is what my essay meant to discuss. Maybe it is, maybe it is not, but the procedure is clear: the old western machinery. New ideas look truly deep and full of potential, but (being western) I still feel I am an infant in them...

more soon!

inés.

Bookmark and Share



Aditya Dwarkesh wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 14:33 GMT
Dear Ines,

I think your choice of analyzing 'Fundamentality' in such an ontologically light manner is very astute. I myself have also given more importance to theories, language and meaning over physics, and have spoken similarly on the economization of theories (although in a more language-heavy context; I was reluctant to use the word 'algorithm' due to potential issues brought up by the Halting Problem)-I think, in light of your essay, that I can say that my own essay will be of quite significant interest to you-; your similarly subjective approach is, I believe, the right way to go.

Regards,

Aditya

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ines Samengo replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 01:11 GMT
Dear Aditya, thanks for reading and commenting. I am somewhat behind with the reading in this context, but I'll make sure to read and comment on (at least) all the essays that have a computational flavour.

more soon!

inés.

Bookmark and Share



Enrico Prati wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 00:04 GMT
Hello Ines,

it looks that we developed in parallel the same concept. namely algorithmic approach. I believe that this is a consequence of the fact that algorithmic information theory is a well established science which empowered computer science as well as mathematics and physics. Its use to assess the concept of "being fundamental" looks straightforward to those coming from that field, so...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ines Samengo replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 13:52 GMT
Hi, Enrico, thanks for reading and commenting. Yes, your essay caught my attention as soon as it came out, for its algorithmic approach, and the deep learning ingredient (I work in computational neuroscience), which I found interesting. It is so good to see other people talking the same language! Unfortunately, I am presently traveling, so I could not read your essay properly (I did scan over it, and it is in my short list of selected ones), but will sure do so before the contest ends, I'll leave you my comments there.

When talking about the measuring process, I am taking the purely quantum mechanical approach. When a higher-order observer watches a measuring process (which is, I believe, the proper way to describe measurements), he/she sees a the lower level observer in a superposition of states, one for each possible outcome of the measurement. This is Wigner's description of the measurement, as well as von Neuman's and Everett's, I believe.

Ok, I send this now, and will come back to you at your entry soon!

inés.

Bookmark and Share



adel sadeq wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 10:47 GMT
dear Ines,

I think my essay is the most relevant to yours. I derive QM, QFT, gravity from the same system through a mathematical structure using computer simulation. The programs are available in JavaScript and are modifiable.

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3127

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ines Samengo replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 01:09 GMT
Thanks, this is amazing!

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 13:55 GMT
Thanks. Just in case you want to try the programs you can get fast results with lower accuracy by removing a zero or two from kj variable (number of random throws). you can increase it to a comfortable level and still get a fairly good results. The electron mass is very fast already.

Thanks again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 04:52 GMT
Dear Ines Samengo

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ines Samengo replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 01:11 GMT
Thanks Steven, I will surely go through it.

Best!

inés.

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 13:11 GMT
Dear Prof Ines Samengo....

You wrote wonderful words sir....." Algorithmically, this means that a computer program simulating the dynamics of a certain physical system must be able to predict experimental results. ..... This algorithmic view of the construction of physical theories may be paralleled with the development of formal systems in mathematics. The parallelism between the two...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Kevin H Knuth wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 23:34 GMT
Dear Ines,

Thank you for your essay. It really has made me think since this perspective of relating axioms and theorems in a mathematical system to our description of physics is new to me. In the beginning, I would have expected the analogy to hold well, but somewhere in the middle (in fact before reaching QM) I began to have my doubts. This is something I will have to ponder further. In this sense your essay is a great success, it is making me think. Thank you for that!

I cannot quite put my finger on what concerns me about the analogy. Part of it undoubtedly is my inherent distrust in the "X is like a Computer" paradigm. I was struck when you briefly considered string theory with its 10^N landscapes as a single theory. You had mentioned Bayesian inference at one point. But evaluating a program (as a predictive model) should really be done by considering the Bayesian evidence and not any Kolmogorov complexity. So there are some problems lurking about there.

I am still writing, which means that I am still thinking. So thank you again!

Sincerely,

Kevin Knuth

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ines Samengo replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 01:23 GMT
Ok, I would be happy to know your thoughts if they develop further. May I suggest one reason why you may believe there is something fishy with my approach? Perhaps something related to what you discussed in your essay? That there is no principled way to distinguish between initial conditions and laws? You've called them contingent and determined laws, and I am not fully sure they map on my initial conditions and physical laws or on my axioms and inference rules. But the whole thing circles around the idea that distinguishing between these two aspects, no matter how we call them, requires a previous notion of what is possible and what is not.

This is just a suggestion, maybe you are thinking about something else. But this is one point that was highlighted to me with your essay - and I have fun discussing for and against myself.

Thanks!

inés.

Bookmark and Share


Author Ines Samengo replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 10:11 GMT
One more coment, Kevin. I do not propose to use Kolmogorov complexity to evaluate the predictive ability of a model, I propose it as a means to evaluate the conceptual depth of a theory, already assuming that the program predicts the data well. That's all for now!

inés.

Bookmark and Share



Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 23:17 GMT
Inese,

I enjoyed your essay. I'm not sure if producing theorems could be automated but it should be possible to determine if a theorem is true by having a computer evaluate a string.

I'm not completely certain that a shorter program implies a more fundamental theory. For example, Matrix Inversion and Gaussian Elimination do essentially the same thing but the Gaussian Elimination procedure is shorter but the Matrix Inversion is more general in my opinion. I can understand how the inverse of length correlates with generality though.

I am curious, what species other than humans are known to construct theories:-) ET has not phoned home to the best of my knowledge:-)

Can measurement and observation serve to fill in theoretical gaps produced by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?

We have much to be humble about.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 04:01 GMT
Dear Ines Samengo,

Recalling what I learned at NATO Advanced Study Institute on Computational Hearing in Il Ciocco 1998, I wonder why you are not humble enough as to be cautiuos with an algorithmic approach. Jont Allen is not just still correct:

'No model fits all data'.

Instead, I arrived at an uncommon utterly fundamental insight concerning time.

You mentioned "the messy zoology of theories that fill our libraries ...".

You might decide yourself whether you will consider alternative views worth checking. I recommend essays by Kadin, Klingman, Traill, and me.

Your command of English seems to be so good that you didn't use a spelling checker for "Lowachewsky, Riemman, and Russel".

From your phrase "he or she" I conclude you are female. Wouldn't "one" be simpler?

Best regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 19:22 GMT
Dear Ines Samengo,

Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, “spooky action at a distance” cannot occur and that, “God does not play dice”. Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf

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

Kamal Rajpal

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Marc Séguin wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 23:41 GMT
Dear Inés,

It is good to see you again in this contest. I read your essay when it came out, but in the past few weeks I have been caught up in a several last-minute “emergencies” at work, and I am running late in commenting and rating essays!

I think your essay does a very good job in describing what it means to construct a physical theory, and what we should expect from a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 17:41 GMT
Marc – The quotation you include above also struck me, when I read this essay. Inés expanded on this in her reply to my comment above… she says, “We tend to think that the variables that can be predicted (the variables that follow the rules) are the “right” variables, they are the ones that truly capture the essence of what exists, the ones with prominent ontological status. But then...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Ines Samengo replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 18:57 GMT
Dear Marc and Conrad, thank you soooo much for your thoughtful discussions, I find them fascinating. I am truly ashamed of my delay in responding, this year's contest caught me at a very demanding time of the year. I will surely catch up with you both during the weekend. And hopefully also with other members of the community. More soon! Apologetically, ineś.

Bookmark and Share


Author Ines Samengo replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 02:12 GMT
Dear Marc and Conrad,

again, I apologize for the delay. Last year I went through the contest while recovering from a surgery, so I had an official excuse for all the hours invested in reading and commenting. This year is tougher, I have to squeeze the time in...

Hmmm, good point. Is there a better word than "conceptual"? I meant to stress "something that captures the essence", as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Jochen Szangolies wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 13:05 GMT
Dear Inés,

you present a compelling picture that finds me nodding in agreement more often than not. In particular, I share a similar appreciation of the process of explaining the world as being essentially computational. You carefully and very sharply tease apart the implications of this sort of view.

I also broadly agree with the similarity of Gödelian incompleteness and quantum...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wayne R Lundberg wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 02:08 GMT
Dear Ines,

I also am interested to see a mathematically well-founded basis for theoretical physics!

"For more than a century mathematicians have been endorsing formal systems with no physical counterpart, and here I support a search for a formal system whose instantiation is the world we live in. This search commends the old notion of truth, in which statements are deemed true if they describe entities existing in the real world."

But I'm certain that one must include all the quark and electron quantum numbers, spin, mass and energy be requirements of a new fndamnetal description.

" I could potentially consider endorsing such a notion of truth to describe processes governed by classical physics, since for them, there is such thing as one reality. That one history can be considered the true one, and all other alternative evolutions, not actually happening, are false. This notion of truth, however, cannot be arrogated to all quantum phenomena, because in the quantum realm there is no single reality. "

Because one can consider quantum objects such as an electron, etc, to be spinning and interacting at a rate much faster than we are ever able to sample it. In that way quantum phenomena appear random when they have a classical spin.

Best,

Dr Wayne Lundberg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 08:45 GMT
Dear Ines

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.