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

Steven Andresen: on 2/22/18 at 7:39am UTC, wrote Dear Jeremy If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Jeremy Horne: on 2/13/18 at 19:12pm UTC, wrote Thanks for your kind words. As to your "Dynamic Universe Model" I am not...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/6/18 at 21:28pm UTC, wrote Prof Jeremy Horne Wonderful thinking............ 'The wording, “what...

Francesco D'Isa: on 1/29/18 at 9:48am UTC, wrote Dear Jeremy, thank you for your insightful answer! I agree on many points....

Joe Fisher: on 1/28/18 at 21:57pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr Jeremy Horne, VISIBLE infinite surface has absolutely nothing to...

Jeremy Horne: on 1/28/18 at 21:39pm UTC, wrote Thank you for your kind words, Francesco . Some not closely edited musings...

Francesco D'Isa: on 1/28/18 at 20:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Jeremy Horne, thank you very much for your essay, which I found very...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 1/27/18 at 19:40pm UTC, wrote Dear Jeremy Horne, well you said: “Now – we are getting closer -...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Agnew: "It is interesting that you bring up change in the context of free..." in Cosmological Koans

Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...

david john: "https://www.google.com google.com/ google.com/" in Black Hole Photographed...

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

Lorraine Ford: "Physics has failed to explain change: physics tries to claim that change is..." in Cosmological Koans


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
July 17, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Some considerations for what it means to be “fundamental” by Jeremy Horne [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jeremy Horne wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 16:21 GMT
Essay Abstract

How strange it seems that an institution of world-class scientists and established for the purpose of focusing on “questions at the foundations of physics and cosmology” itself has put out the call for input on the meaning of “fundamental”. The wording, “what exactly 'foundational' means, and what relation it holds to 'fundamental' as a term describing some branches of physics” suggests that the meaning that gives the Foundational Questions Institute (FXQI) its force and purpose might be extrapolated from or characterized by all the instances of meaning of “fundamental”, as though a sampling survey is being done. Here, the essence of “fundamental” would have to be known to recognize the parameters used in searching for it. That the question is in a metalanguage – object language form (filling with content the container “fundamental”), because so many variants exist (“fundamental” being an adjective), and because so many of these variants refer to “reality”, “existence”, etc., the discussion is best handled not by iterating numerous examples (impossible to do in this short space) but deferring to philosophy. It turns out that what “fundamental” does mean is the quest, itself (process as object), asking about existence, why we are here, the nature of time, and so forth, the same questions that have been addressed for millennia by philosophers and scientists philosophically inclined. To say that the meaning of “fundamental” in an absolutist way cancels the need for that process, something that FXQI would find disconcerting, to say the least. Neither can there be any such static conclusions, lest anyone proclaim herself/himself as “God”. Instead, Conclusion describes a dialectic exists within us to discern how the vessel of foundation is filled with the contents from the fundamental one.

Author Bio

Jeremy Horne received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Florida State University in 1988, concentrating in political philosophy, logic, the history of philosophy, and philosophy of education. He also holds a Masters in political science from Southern Connecticut State University and a bachelors from the Johns Hopkins University. He is president emeritus of the Southwest Area Meeting (division) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Currently, he is the science advisor and curriculum coordinator the Inventors Assistance League. His works may be accessed at: https://sites.google.com/site/yourmindshomepage/ and www.academia.edu .

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Jeremy Horne wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 21:04 GMT
I have a correction to make -

It is FQXI, not FXQI. Duh! It is good to know for whom or what organization I am writing. Excuse: my eyesight is failing, and I also may be somewhat dyslexic.

The, if I were able to upload a corrected version, I might change the conclusion a bit to say that the MEANING of "fundamental" is within ourselves, rather than our being fundamental.

I apologize the the error. While "FXQI" may go out of existence, surely (I hope) FQXI will not.

I am attaching what I hope are the corrected versions of the abstract and content.

attachments: What_it_means_to_be_fundamental-Abstract-Jeremy_Horne-corrected.pdf, What_it_means_to_be_fundamental-body_only-Jeremy_Horne-corrected.pdf

Bookmark and Share



DIOGENES AYBAR wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 13:01 GMT
Dear Jeremy;

SUPERB!!!

If I were the judge your essay would have first prize.

Diogenes

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeremy Horne replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 19:22 GMT
I sincerely appreciate your comments. Thank you for your kind words. What a great way to have my morning start by reading your post.

Best wishes,

Jeremy

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 17:00 GMT
Dear Dr Jeremy Horne,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeremy Horne replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 19:21 GMT
In principle or form of the thesis your comments appear at least at first glance to be similar to those of John Wheeler in his one-electron universe. Feynman replied with his "The Theory of Positrons". Hence, your "one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface" might be translated as that single electron, the "visibility" being the effects of that electron. Perhaps you might want to research this.

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear Jeremy Horne, well you said:

“Now – we are getting closer - philosophy of physics. We are trapped within ourselves; it is we,

ourselves, who are the linchpins of what is the most fundamental. We are the most basic, not derivable

anything else, unique, and all of that. Philosophers refer to the “fishbowl” in which we live, and we only

can see ourselves (and our world) only through ourselves”

In the end, everything depends on the question - what is primary: matter or idea? We leave ideas to philosophers, and let the matter be studied by physicists, for them it is the foundation for their fundamental theories. At a certain moment, matter began to disappear, turning into energy or a wave. To restore its category status, now it is necessary to recall the principle of the identity of space and matter of Descartes. When Copernicus began to assert that the Earth revolves around the Sun, he had, according to Descartes, to add that along with the Earth around the Sun, the entire circumsolar space rotates. Read my essay, in it I show how physics can change if this principle of Descartes is applied.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Francesco D'Isa wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 20:17 GMT
Dear Jeremy Horne,

thank you very much for your essay, which I found very interesting and pleasurable to read. I agree with you that such a question can't ignore philosophy (I could not participate otherwise), and to revolve a question against itself – as you have done – is always a good way to explore it deeply.

You write that:

> I will show that not only the answers above are contextual but why any answer we give has to be so and not absolute.

I perfectly agree, but can’t we look at what you said as a “fundamental answer”? Maybe also an absolute one?

Moreover you write,

> the manner in which I arrive at the answer is just as much an answer as the answer, itself

I agree once again. But why some answers are more persuasive than others? Why they win over the others, even if (usually) for a limited time?

Once again, these are philosophical questions, a discipline where, as you showed, to investigate about the question itself leads to more and more questions.

Good luck with your essay!

Francesco

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jeremy Horne wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 21:39 GMT
Thank you for your kind words, Francesco .

Some not closely edited musings follow, perhaps somewhat rambling, perhaps not. Are not philosophers entitled to their practice sessions?

Re: "...some answers are more persuasive than others...". Here, I think a closer look at the nature of preference is in order. If one subscribes to the idea of there being innate/deep structures in our...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 09:48 GMT
Dear Jeremy,

thank you for your insightful answer! I agree on many points.

> Philosophy is all about understanding “reality”, “reality”, itself being a “preference”, I suppose. You see, as I go along I cannot escape this dimensionality of the dialectic.

You expressed what I think it's a very important concept, especially while defining what's "fundamental". My essay starts from a similar idea as well, and leads to absolute relativism.

All the best and thank you again!

Francesco

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 21:28 GMT
Prof Jeremy Horne

Wonderful thinking............ 'The wording, “what exactly 'foundational' means, and what relation it holds to 'fundamental' as a term describing some branches of physics” ..... because so many variants exist (“fundamental” being an adjective), and because so many of these variants refer to “reality”, “existence”, etc.,...... asking about existence, why we...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeremy Horne replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 19:12 GMT
Thanks for your kind words. As to your "Dynamic Universe Model" I am not versed well enough in astrophysics to reply in sufficient detail. However, my eyebrows are raised in your denying black holes "warm holes (sic), "interdependencies between axes", and "Bigbang", issues that a competent astrophysicist can give you valuable insight. Your material is rather voluminous (eg: "21000 linear equations") and would require many hours to give a detailed reply from my logical, philosophical, and other viewpoints, such as "time ... moving forward only". My suggestion is two-stepped. First, I'd post a summary of it on a website, like www physicsforums dot com for comments. The utility of doing this can help you in assessing your statements about there being "... no experiment or quest in this direction." It may be that someone in that forum (or others) are aware of research. Then, taking into account those comments about your ideas, submit an article to a peer-reviewed publication (not on Beall's list). Good luck.

J.

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:39 GMT
Dear Jeremy

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.