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

Gordon Watson: on 2/26/18 at 4:29am UTC, wrote Dear Silviu, By way of saying 'thank you' for your enjoyable essay, I’d...

Marc Séguin: on 2/25/18 at 22:47pm UTC, wrote Dear Silviu, I've read your essay. It's only 3 pages long, put it packs in...

James Hoover: on 2/25/18 at 6:16am UTC, wrote corciovei, I think the system malfunctioned. I don't see my comment from...

Steven Andresen: on 2/25/18 at 4:08am UTC, wrote Silviu Great essay. I liked it a lot. Nice try by the way "re-stating the...

Gary Hansen: on 2/24/18 at 18:52pm UTC, wrote Hello Corciovel, Your conclusion is both thoughtful and useful. One only...

Aditya Dwarkesh: on 2/24/18 at 16:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Silviu, The way in which you eliminated the potential ontology on...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 2/24/18 at 4:20am UTC, wrote Dear Corciovei, (copy to yours and mine) Many thanks for the kind words...

Jack James: on 2/23/18 at 21:23pm UTC, wrote Thankyou Silviu for your kind comments on my essay. I think this kind of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Georgina Woodward: "'Energy' can be a measurable. Measured or calculated, number value assigned..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Georgina, Energy is merely a category of information in the same sense..." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Reality Fans, The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.”..." in First Things First: The...

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

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

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...


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 19, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: "Fundamental" could become nonessential for itself by corciovei silviu [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 21:49 GMT
Essay Abstract

Let’s suppose we play a game, named “What is fundamental?” and its main rule is to answer the question. The competitors who find the proper answer are going to win. Who is the most clear win the most

Author Bio

The author is interested in hacking the human brain

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 07:01 GMT
Dear Silviu,

Thank you for the insightful, yet simple and beautiful trip! Here is what I take from it. You start from uncontroversial and mundane facts of life, in the search of a fundamental cause. And by simple inferences, you arrive at the conclusion that each event is caused by multiple causes, this leading to a relativity and an incompleteness. By varying one of the causes the result...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 06:30 GMT
Dear Corciovei Silviu, you said briefly and clearly. Your essay is the first among those who are looking for what is fundamental? My essay is among those who respond, which is fundamental. The physical space, which according to Descartes is matter, is the foundation for fundamental theories. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 10:05 GMT
Greetings Mr. Boris

I appreciate your effort to read the essay, but i don't believe that i fully understand your question "Your essay is the first among those who are looking for what is fundamental?" what do you mean by that? because what i wrote here is quite simple and therefor it cannot have the attribute of "the first...", but i suppose that you didn't want to say that, that's why i...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 16:42 GMT
Greetings Mr.corciovei silviu

I read a lot of essays. Some say that such a fundamental, and others, which is the foundation for the fundamental. Your essay is short, but capacious among the first. “fundamental” becomesmore of an idea, a point of view, a perspective, and this perspective will not befundamental in the search of “what is fundamental”. Of the second, I think the best is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear Silviu,

Below are some thoughts I had when reading your essay:

1. It was at times difficult for me to parse the meaning of your sentences, probably because English is not your native language. However, I laud your effort.

2. The way you go about addressing the contest question is by starting with an axiom "every living needs an environment to exist" which is obviously...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 02:24 GMT
Thank you for everything! and especially for the great advices! So let me, please, put it into different words so that I start my lateral thinking as you suggested:

1. First you react like a shy teacher who wants to tell (with nice words) a student, that he's effort is appreciated but the essence of the effort is not so appreciated. Or like a Zen master with a dummy student. Personally I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 00:45 GMT
In general, the adaptation of a "living being" to the environment is not a result of the intelligence of that "being", but of the several physical, chemical, and biological interactions.

The distinction between mathematical language and "verbal language" is not one of "causing a pleasant adaptation" vs not; the distinction is on precision, rigor,... and other properties that differentiate a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 03:17 GMT
Ma friend,

Out of which planet are you? You seem to have read parts of the essay, but you didn’t paid enough attention (because of the surrounding noise) therefore misunderstandings "got in" and it created a state of mind that states: “it is my misunderstanding or is he wrong?” let’s suppose you randomly chose “he is wrong”. Then your intelligence comes into the game and creates...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Domenico Oricchio wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 12:35 GMT
Thank for reading my essay

I think that genetic evolution (in long time) and intelligence (in short time) permit an optimal adaption in the real world: it is possible that part of our reasoning is innate, so that genetic modify our reasoning, in the deeper levels.

It is a good essay, but the answer is missing for me, changing the question to a too particular case: I think that there...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 20:26 GMT
you say it'a good essay which gives you no answer, but why do you say it's a good essay, then? what makes it good for you.

however, I did proposed a solution which is a choice, an individual one. if I would have given you "an answer" in the essay it would be "change you're way of thinking, and accept different perspectives like being one (which is a big change in the way we think now) I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 09:25 GMT
Or you may regard it as a pre-answer

Man 1: What is fundamental?

Man 2: Before answering, we should know that "Fundamental" could become nonessential for itself

Bookmark and Share


Domenico Oricchio replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 18:26 GMT
Excuse me, I did not answer, not checking all my comments in the various blogs.

It is a good essay because it is well written (it reminded me Conrad), and the first part make a good analysis of languages, and reading I thought of different conclusions, linked to the representation of reality in the human brain.

The baseball-Universe dynamics seem a particular case of fundamental...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 23:37 GMT
Dear Prof corciovei silviu

Wonderful analysis..."Let’s suppose we play a game, named “What is fundamental?” and its main rule is to answer the question. The competitors who find the proper answer are going to win. Who is the most clear win the most" Nice hacking....

I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

By the way…Here in my essay...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 14:34 GMT
MR. SNP Gupta,

Thank you for the nice and overwhelming words, but they make me smile as I am far for being a "Prof." If you would like a social appellative, then i could say about myself that I gained the title of "rock climbing national champion" a high one. I hope you do have the sense of humor, as humor is a universal language

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 14:07 GMT
Very Nice Essay corciovei silviu,

I gave you 10, previously it was 6.5 now it is 7.2

best wishes

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 22:46 GMT
Dear Silviu:

You are a gifted writer.

Even though my essay writing is not as good as yours; I believe I have presented some substance.

In fact, I think your essay should be read first, before people read mine. Then they will better appreciate why the concept "Fundamental" for the human species must keep evolving.

May be we could collaborate. Then you do not have to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 10:12 GMT
Silviu,

Great game, and excellent way to look at the issue. Well done.

My essay title 'Ridiculous Simplicity' suggests a solution which is ...simply;

"Nothing can exist without motion".

I show that has rich universal meaning across all physics at all scales. Motion is a relative concept. I't motion that 'creates' fermion pairs from the vacuum, and it's rotational...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 13:56 GMT
Silviu,

I try to read as many as poss before rating at the end. As it's nigh I've done yours now for a bit of a boost. I hope it doesn't also get hit with 1's as mine has!

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 11:08 GMT
Dear Corciovei

I was glad that there are people interested in hacking the human brain. The consistency/complexity of the human brain is a reason that consciousness can make use of it (can reside in). So I am not saying that the complexity is the CAUSE of consciousness, no because that would be the same as “looking for the announcer inside the radio”. What I myself try to do is hack consciousness...

Some remarks:

“the environment provides clues to survival and to existence”. The human agency is part of the emergent phenomenon called “reality”. Reality is the total environment of the agent, including emerging space and time. “Survival” is a consequence of the emergent time phenomenon. Each “living creature” is eating other living creatures.

“We notice that the intelligence has the propriety to be aware of itself, “ I think that this is a not yet proved assumption. Artificial intelligence is not yet “aware” (conscious) because it is just working with algorithms. Maybe when quantum devices are being used for creating “intelligence” then ARTIFICIAL CONSCIOUSNESS may arise.

Language: mathematical and verbal. Communication is a process that involves time, Communication is also one of the tools to survive in time. Maybe there are more “languages” possible to communicate...

“With the discovery of some few immutable laws of the universe, the human being found more “essential conditions”. I think that humanity at each discovery of a so-called “immutable” law, find new essential conditions that are only valid for a new short time.

I wonder what you are thinking of my attribution “Foundational Quantum Reality Loops” where I am not only trying to try to reach out to the foundational HOW but also to the WHY. So maybe you can spare some time to read, comment and eventually rate it.

Best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 18:10 GMT
Mr. de Wilde,

Thank you for your time.

Regarding your four remarks:

1. I totally agree with your words “…“Survival” is a consequence of the emergent time phenomenon. Each “living creature” is eating other living creatures …” indeed “survival” looks like something emergent, if looked from some outer human perspective. From the inner human perspective, as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 10:45 GMT
Dear Corciovei Silviu

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay and also for answering my points regarding yours.

I will begin with the points you ask on your essay :

1.I think we both agree here. It is quite clear to me what you mean.

2.Yes. But here it is important to make the difference between intelligence and awareness/consciousness. As you say we are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:44 GMT
Dear Corciovei

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


Giovanni Prisinzano wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 07:58 GMT
Dear Silviu,

your essay is dense and original. I especially liked the example of baseball with which you illustrate the fundamental "equivalence" between an “inner” and an “outer” perspective on the evolution of the universe, despite their opposition. An important difference between the two perspectives is however undeniable: an outer perspective can never have a scientific validity, because it refers to some hypothetical reality or external agent (the “player”) on which we can only speculate. Instead, an inner perspective is in principle within the reach of science, even if we do not know if we can ever be complete and definitive.

A question: You say:

"Confined to a logic and rational thinking, we could suppose the adaptation is a result of intelligence."

This seems to mean that intelligence is innate. So how do you explain the adaptability of beings that, from our point of view, are not intelligent? The opposite point of view can also be argued, namely that intelligence is the result, not the cause, of adaptation. I do not know which of the two is the correct perspective.

All the best,

Giovanni

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 10:28 GMT
Dear Silviu,

I am very grateful that you paid attention to my work. It is critical work, that is way it is difficult to find many supporters. I'm glad that you are one of them. You says //In one way or another, the mathematical language will have to be “translated” in a verbal one, more permissive then inductive.// I am saying that math is a small part of common logical analytical system, which must be serve as a must fundamental tool of natural science. So, math cannot "work" himself and separately that can brought to some of certain valuable results.

I thing you are well realized this reality and the inevitability of serious revision in the methodology of present theoretical physics.

Thus, I wish you successes in this contest and I will support you!

Best regards.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 17:09 GMT
Silviu,

Short and seemingly simple explanation but quite impressive in its ability to expound. I particularly like going from the simple example of kicking the ball and the energy applied, then expanding it to dark energy and the expansion of the universe. I like the verbal subjective combined with the mathematical precision. Your narrative helps to simplify the fundamentals of the universe.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jack Hamilton James wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 21:23 GMT
Thankyou Silviu for your kind comments on my essay.

I think this kind of metaphysics (as you display here) which tries to place physics correctly in terms of linguistics and meaning and other complications, is particularly important in advancing our knowledge. Well done indeed.

Best,

Jack

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 04:20 GMT
Dear Corciovei,

(copy to yours and mine)

Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding. The understanding and appreciation are highly valued.

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Aditya Dwarkesh wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 16:49 GMT
Dear Silviu,

The way in which you eliminated the potential ontology on fundamental is, I believe, the correct method of analysis; I suppose you must have seen something of that in my own essay. Your write up is short and sweet, enjoyable with just the right amount of brevity.

Regards, Aditya

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 18:52 GMT
Hello Corciovel,

Your conclusion is both thoughtful and useful.

One only needs to identify what is fundamental when one needs to identify what is fundamental. Utility is what drives such needs. If something is potentially useful, then use it.

Notwithstanding the above statement, your ‘game’: “What is Fundamental” does demand a singular answer. Perhaps your reference to ‘being aware of yourself’ is as good an answer as any. In the absence of consciousness, anything and everything is of no importance. A stone is just a stone!

I agree that “fundamental” is an idea; so, the FQXi question either remains open and unanswered, or our attention is redirected to the word “What”, to ask ‘What is “What”?’, or simply to respond to the original question “What is Fundamental” with the answer “Yes”.

I shall look forward to reading more about your ‘fundamental’ thoughts in future FQXi essay contests.

Cheers,

Gary.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 04:08 GMT
Silviu

Great essay. I liked it a lot. Nice try by the way "re-stating the rules of the game so that your essay wins". I wish I had thought to do this. I wonder if you have convinced the judges :)

I've dont so much reading these past few days. Thanks for only filling three pages. I could happily have read more, but was also glad for short and sweet.

Its good that you recognize the influence our language tools have over the way we form our ideas. You see the importance of understanding ourselves, as part of the challenge of ourselves understanding the universe.

I know you have a good sense of humor. Perhaps you will inject more of it into next years essay. I might think about doing the same.

I think I'm had enough computer time this last month to last the rest of the year. I'm going surfing to clear my head. Let us talk again

Thank you & best regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 06:16 GMT
corciovei,

I think the system malfunctioned. I don't see my comment from before on 2/23/18 when I rated your great essay.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Marc Séguin wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 22:47 GMT
Dear Silviu,

I've read your essay. It's only 3 pages long, put it packs in a lot of ideas! I found some of them really interesting, and similar in some aspects to the ones I presented in my essay, which explains why you liked it a lot.

I agree with what you say at the top of page 2: there can be more than one "essential condition" (fundamental) to the same system, so fundamentality can be multiple. I especially like it when you write:

"It’s like looking in a mirror and asking “what is fundamental for such a state?”, and the answer would dash, “me and the mirror, in the same way”, or neither I, nor the mirror"

This reminds me of the hypothesis of "co-emergence" that I defended in my essay for last year's FQXi contest.

You go on to write that "the word “fundamental” is a creation of the human intelligence in the attempt of describing an observed phenomenon. That “single thing” can be seen from at least two perspectives, an inner and an outer perspective." I agree that there are two ways to approach the issue of fundamentality, what I call ontological and epistemological fundamentality in my essay.

Thank you for contributing your ideas to this contest, and good luck!

Best wishes,

Marc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 04:29 GMT
Dear Silviu,

By way of saying 'thank you' for your enjoyable essay, I’d like to play your supposed game: "Named 'What is fundamental?' and its main rule is to answer the question. The competitors who find the proper answer are going to win."

My entry = my answer = existence.

PS: It's good for me to see you having clean fun with good questions. So here's a friendly one from me; prefaced on the I hope that a gift (to a keen student, by way of encouragement: for entering, not necessarily for winning) might be presented by you: How about a question or comment on my essay?

[nb: rest assured that your otherwise busyness will in no way offend.]

PPS: My friend Judith just now tells me that her answer is: preexistence! [Which is OK; for she (also a keen student: and sending her regards) would be equally happy to just read the above-mentioned gift.]

With best regards, and wishing you every success in harmlessly hacking the human brain;

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

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.