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

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 3/11/18 at 1:00am UTC, wrote The concept of emergence is misunderstood in this Essay. Emergence doesn't...

Don Limuti: on 2/26/18 at 0:12am UTC, wrote Hello Heinrich, Sometimes it take a lot of words to describe something...

corciovei silviu: on 2/25/18 at 13:24pm UTC, wrote Mr. Pas! A friend of mine recommended your essay. It was a nice read and I...

Kamal Rajpal: on 2/22/18 at 17:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Heinrich Pas, I have read your Essay wherein you make a mention of...

Thomas Ray: on 2/22/18 at 15:08pm UTC, wrote Heinrich, I read your essay some ago, and just now rated it. I would say...

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

John Merryman: on 2/18/18 at 15:39pm UTC, wrote Heinrich, This is a very clear view of a holistic perspective. I would...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 2/17/18 at 8:18am UTC, wrote Dear Professor Heinrich Päs, your essay is full of thoughts that can...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jorma Seppaenen: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

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...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." 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 23, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: A fundamental Universe by Heinrich Päs [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Heinrich Päs wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 21:34 GMT
Essay Abstract

It is argued that the fundamental description of the Universe must be the Universe itself, understood as an entangled quantum object. This seemingly tautological statement is explained in detail, and some related ideas inspired by this view which could guide the future quest for a Theory of Everything are sketched briefly.

Author Bio

Heinrich Päs is a Professor of Theoretical Physics at Technische Universität Dortmund, Germany. He works on neutrinos and particle physics beyond the Standard Model. Beyond that, he is interested in the nature of space, time and reality. Accomplishments: Scientific American cover feature,Physical Review D Editorial Board, pop-science book "The Perfect Wave".

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Andrew Beckwith wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 00:49 GMT
Having read your essay where you refer to the universe as an entangled object, what do you make of how fundamental say Quantum Entanglement is ?

Thanks for bringing this educated view point to the forum!

Andrew

P.S. I am inviting you to view, and comment on my essay put up in December 21st

Thanks again for your insights!!!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Heinrich Päs replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 19:08 GMT
Dear Andrew,

thanks for your comment. I would say fundamental is the Quantum Universe itself, entanglement is aan attribute we are assigning to it - but only since we are looking at subsystems which only exist in our restricted local perspective anyway.

Best regards, Heinrich

Bookmark and Share



Andrew Beckwith wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 00:50 GMT
I mean quantum entanglement as in the sense of the EPR experiment !!

Just put this in for clarification

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 02:33 GMT
Dear Heinrich Pas,

An enjoyable essay. You note that the truly unique factor of our language is "its ability to transmit information about things that do not exist at all… Thus "any large-scale human cooperation – whether a modern state, a media evil church, and ancient city, or an archaic tribe – is rooted in common myths that exist only in people's collective...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Heinrich Päs replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 19:19 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,

thanks for reading my essay and for your nice comments.

You are right that isospin is a broken symmetry. However the weak isospin of the Standard Model gauge group is only broken spontaneously - by fiat of the Higgs mechanism. Moreover, color SU(3) of the Standard Model gauge group is not broken at all by quark masses as it rotates in color and not in flavor space.

Anyway, it might be that all symmetries are broken at a fundamental level, that is one of the possibilities I'm also mentioning in my paper. But I believe it could also be possible that fundamental reality is perfectly symmetric and essentially featureless and that structure arises only by looking only at a subset of the fundamental degrees of freedoms. Finally, while I believe that we have some ideas in common, I would argue the fundamental reality can not be energy travelling through space, since of course according to general relativity space and time are dynamic concepts themselves, they also carry energy and thus have to be included in the fundamental concept.

Anyway, I will check out your essay!

Thanks! Heinrich

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 20:14 GMT
Dear Heinrich Päs,

You make several points. For example color SU(3) is not broken by quark mass. Over the decades the theory has changed; originally SU(3) was applied to up, down, and strange quarks, and was broken by mass. You're correct about today's interpretation. I do think that the "perfect symmetry" of color SU(3) may indicate a misunderstanding of color, but that's outside of my current essay. And we may agree about the possibility that fundamental reality began as perfectly symmetric; I think that symmetry breaking led to inflation.

GR may be a little more complicated. It does not handle energy density well (or at all). Do you conceive of space and time as constituting mass, or is mass simply added to the picture? Weinberg, Feynman, and Hobson, Efstathio, and Lasenby have all derived Einstein's field equations from flat-space, so I tend to look at energy density distributions in Cartesian space as completely equivalent to space-time geometry. That view is more compatible with my own essay.

I've reread your essay again, and still think it is excellent. I fully agree that "no local constituent can really be fundamental". I do tend to agree that the fundamental universe is a single entity, although we might bicker over the details. While I understand you to prefer an information theoretic approach, I strongly agree with your statement that "so far there is no evidence that information can exist without a material medium or carrier." This bears peripherally on my essay so I still hope you will find time to read my essay and comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


austin fearnley wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 12:09 GMT
An excellent and enjoyable essay!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Heinrich Päs replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 19:29 GMT
Dear Austin,

thank you very much! I will check out your essay as well!

Best regards, Heinrich

Bookmark and Share



Heinrich Luediger wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 16:09 GMT
Dear Heinrich P.

“Fundamental Reality = Universe without Perspective?” HP. The universe without perspective I suppose is a pre-linguistic universe, that is, the universe as it Really, Objectively and in-and-of-itself is. But that means that nothing whatsoever can be said about the Objective universe, which in turn means that it doesn’t exist or, rather, that it is nothing (or everything if you prefer). My question then: Who would be the bearer of the truth of a universe without perspective? Isn’t Objectivity self-defeating or at least the mere dressing in tales of shut-up-and-calculate 'truths'?

Heinrich L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Heinrich Päs replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 19:39 GMT
Dear Heinrich L. -

that's nice, I rarely meet people sharing my name! Thanks for your comments!

>The universe without perspective, that is, the universe as it Really, Objectively and in-and-of-itself is.

Yes, I agree

>But that means that nothing whatsoever can be said about the Objective universe, which in turn means

> that it doesn’t exist or, rather, that it is nothing (or everything if you prefer).

I don't think so. Even if local observers such as ourselves can not experience the full objective reality we can construct models for it, and if we can derive what we experience by folding our perspective into such a model for the directly unobservable fundamental Universe this model isn't so bad.

But after all this applies to any quantum state, that it is not directly observable.

> My question then: Who would be the bearer of the truth of a universe without perspective? Isn’t

> Objectivity self-defeating or at least the mere dressing in tales of shut-up-and-calculate 'truths'?

I'm not sure whether we will ever have a perfect model for the fundamental reality, but maybe we can approach it, or at least construct models which exhibit some of its properties. I believe at least the last is correct, as our models are amazingly successful.

I will check out your essay. Thanks!

Heinrich P.

Bookmark and Share



Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:08 GMT
Your paper was interesting to read. The idea of reality as the world plus perspective or what we might call an observation from a frame is to carry the idea of frame and gauge freedom/independence to matters such as quantum interpretations.

That information needs a material conveyance would seem to imply the Higgs mechanism is necessary for information mechanics to make sense. In a massless world all particles move on null geodesics. They can still contain information, just as a photon can carry information. If these particles interact with each other according to the roots of a Lie algebra that raise and lower states this is a process whereby qubits are transferred. If we let the Higgs field interact, such as the Goldstone bosons absorbed by W^{+/-} and Z these particles convert the degree of freedom of the scalar bosons into an m = 0 spin state or equivalently a longitudinal mode. This restriction on symmetry provides information with more of a conveyance, which is matter.

LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Francesco D'Isa wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 22:37 GMT
Dear Heinrich,

thank you, yours is really an interesting essay, very enjoyable, I wish you all the best with the contest. I think that:

>Reality = Universe + Perspective and that Fundamental Reality = Universe without Perspective

is a very good point, and I agree that it is close to the philosophies that you quoted in the end of the paper. It's close also to Nagarjuna and to the absolute relativism which I propose in my essay. "Fundamental Reality = Universe without Perspective" sounds like the idea that many mystic thinkers pointed out, even if in an unscientific frame.

You write also that

> On the one hand information itself is immaterial - people have been killed by rocks but nobody ever has been killed by a Beethoven symphony

...not if people are information as well ;)

All the best, Francesco D'Isa

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 08:28 GMT
Dear Heinrich,

I enjoyed reading your essay! You made an excellent case for decoherence and many worlds/many minds, and how they endorse your proposal that the universe as a whole is what is fundamental. This provides a fresh perspective on unification. Other ideas that I found remarkable in your essay are the comparison between social construct and biological organisms (I think that this can be extended in some measure also to the emergent classical world); the interplay between the higher and lower levels (a theme that I discussed in my previous essay, from a different perspective); the characterization of the degree of how fundamental is a reality by the observer-independence; and especially this remark "the fundamental Universe is a single entity which only looks like many things as perceived through the lens of decoherence". Maybe the fundamental Universe is simply a quantum state with zero information, the most "spherical" density matrix, yet myriads of worlds of immense complexity exist inside it, the only evidence for their existence being their own testimony to themselves. Since we still have the problem of experimentally proving the MWI (to complement its explanatory power), mainly because the worlds are isolated and unobservable from the outside, I am wondering how this can be done. I remember from our discussion in Castiglioncello that you mentioned your proposal to test MWI. I think it's a great idea which deserves more attention, and it is perfect for this. BTW, here's a short story that I hoped you'll enjoy at your leisure. Congratulations for your essay, and success!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica, Indra's net

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Heinrich Päs replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 18:21 GMT
Dear Christi,

good to hear from you and thanks a lot for your kind feedback.

I have read your short story about the "quantum god" - very nice, indeed.

We need definitely get together again soon and discuss more about this stuff.

I will check out your essay next!

Heinrich

Bookmark and Share



Flavio Del Santo wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 09:42 GMT
Dear Prof. Päs,

thank you for sharing this interesting and well written essay.

Your work seems to suggest, however, that decoherence is the best way to get rid of all the fundamental problems of quantum mechanics, and this is based on Occam's razor. I think that this is a bit simplistic, and it does not really reflect the present situation of the still heated debate on foundations of quantum physics.

I really liked your discussion on emergence and reductionsm, though (you find in my essay similar thoughts).

All good wishes,

FLavio Del Santoa

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Heinrich Päs replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 18:11 GMT
Dear Flavio,

thanks for your comments. Regarding your criticisms I'm somewhat disappointed that you are not very specific, so I can't really say much unless I know in which sense the ideas I'm discussing do appear as "simplistic" and "not reflecting the debate on quantum foundations". While it might be that some practitioners working on quantum information do not fully appreciate the importance of decoherence yet, for example in quantum cosmology it is quite common to adopt a fundamental role of decoherence in quantum foundations, you may for example check out recent works by Kiefer, Zeh, Susskind, Bousso, Tegmark, Carroll and many others.

Regarding emergence and reductionism, I believe we actually have quite different opinions, as you seem to reject reductionism while I would plead for a reinterpretation of naive reductionism in terms of information theory. Also I clearly reject strong emergence while I'm not so sure about your stance.

Anyway, I will check out your essay.

Best regards, Heinrich

Bookmark and Share



James N Rose wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 05:46 GMT
I keep hoping to read new notions, new terminology, in the various essays.

This is a well written piece, names all the traditional research and interpretations, but I don't see any new ground covered. Appreciate the effort, none the less.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 05:06 GMT
Dear Heinrich Päs

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


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 06:22 GMT
Heinrich,

We are all searching for the ultimate fundamental universe, but our discoveries tell us again and again that the fundamental evolves and continually remains beyond our reach. You mention a number of the theories and the wonders of our universe: from a Beethoven symphony to Everett's multiverse concept. The LHC will take us to the cusp of the quantum state of the universe. The most sensitive LIGO will take us back to the big bang. But with all of this, quantum biologists see quantum coherence in warm, wet, turbulent environments thru the simple process of photosynthesis. Our Jupiter probe redefines our knowledge of a huge gaseous planet. These are some of the thing I see in my essay. Hope you can check it out.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 12:59 GMT
Respected Prof Heinrich Päs

Nice understanding about the universe..... understood as an entangled quantum object. This seemingly tautological statement is explained in detail, and some related ideas inspired by this view which could guide the future ............

By the way have a look at my essay sir...

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 18:37 GMT
Dear Heinrich Päs,

I enjoyed your essay, since it tries to squeeze out as much information as possible out of the assumption that there is a global wave function governing all of reality (‚the universe’).

I want to point you to the fact that the many-worlds-interpretation, means the assumption of a psi-ontic global wave function is a logical trickster in the following...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jochen Szangolies wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 20:25 GMT
Dear Heinrich,

there is much I like and agree with about your essay. The notion of the 'fundamental universe' is close to my own thoughts---I think of it as the 'quagmire', after a quotation from Schrödinger:

"Nearly every result [a quantum physicist] pronounces is about the probability of this or that or that... happening—with usually a great many alternatives. The idea that they...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christophe Tournayre wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 07:09 GMT
Dear Heinrich,

Your essay is interesting. One hypothesis could also be that the material carrier is an information carrier it itself?

Kind regards,

Christophe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 17:48 GMT
Heinrich,

I feel every concept contributes to an understanding of “fundamental,” so I am reviewing my own sketchy evaluations to help my understanding and see if I have rated them. I find that I did not rate yours and will remedy that today. Hope you get a chance to check out mine.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 14:05 GMT
Dear Professor Paz,

I found that an interesting read and view of the issues. I confess I'm still unconvinced about decoherence and the many worlds interpretation but you painted a good picture.

My reservations are on two grounds; as an astronomer/observational cosmologist finding good evidence for another (cyclic) model on which we've published, then more importantly I seem to have new findings suggesting another direction for resolving the mysteries of QM, then apparently more.

Before questioning and discussions I hope you'll have a careful look at the resulting apparent classical derivation in my essay, invoking new momenta from Maxwell, a simple experiment, and a full ontology. (a consistent code and plot is also in Declan Traills essay). I hope you're familiar enough with QM to be able to assess or identify any flaws.

Thank you for yours and good luck in the contest.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 08:18 GMT
Dear Professor Heinrich Päs, your essay is full of thoughts that can influence the New Cartesian physics claiming to be the theory of everything. In the foundation of this physics lies the fundamental identity of space and matter of Descartes. Space is matter, and matter is space. And now I use your words and say: space is a source of information and its guide. You may be interested in my essay, in which, among other things, I showed the connection between the Lorentz factor and the probability density of quantum states. 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 the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay; however,   do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.

                            
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 15:39 GMT
Heinrich,

This is a very clear view of a holistic perspective.

I would observe though, that a more precise delineation between information and its medium is between energy and form. Energy can only be known by the form it projects, while form requires energy to manifest, as obviously without energy it would collapse into the void.

This goes to one of my pet issues, that we...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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

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


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 15:08 GMT
Heinrich,

I read your essay some ago, and just now rated it. I would say more, but I don't want to take time away from enjoying your book The Perfect Wave. Cowabunga, dude.

Best,

Tom https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3124

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 17:43 GMT
Dear Heinrich Pas,

I have read your Essay wherein you make a mention of EPR. 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

QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145

Kamal Rajpal

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 13:24 GMT
Mr. Pas!

A friend of mine recommended your essay. It was a nice read and I fully enjoyed your perspective (especially chapter 5) .

Rate it accordingly. Further words are useless.

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

Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 00:12 GMT
Hello Heinrich,

Sometimes it take a lot of words to describe something extremely fundamental. You did it!

Tell me if this makes sense: The universe is a giant superposition that decoheres into stuff like us and our environment. A quantum multiverse that makes more sense than Everett's multiverse.

I went after something a little smaller than the whole universe....space-time.

Do take a look.

I am glad I found your essay before the end of the contest.

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Mar. 11, 2018 @ 01:00 GMT
The concept of emergence is misunderstood in this Essay. Emergence doesn't imply that higher level properties aren't derivable from lower-level properties. They are. Emergence states that high level properties aren't reducible to lower-level properties of components alone. This is why P.W. Anderson titled his famous article as "More is different".

As a consequence of this...

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.