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

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 2/28/18 at 21:03pm UTC, wrote A mathematical function is a method, a set of operations done according to...

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 2/28/18 at 20:27pm UTC, wrote The scientific method is a method not a discipline, so it cannot be...

James Hoover: on 2/24/18 at 3:28am UTC, wrote Jeffrey, As the deadline approaches and as my recall slackens, I try to...

Steven Andresen: on 2/22/18 at 6:43am UTC, wrote Dear Jeffrey If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 2/21/18 at 19:28pm UTC, wrote Silviu, Thank you for the very concise review. Looking forward to reading...

corciovei silviu: on 2/21/18 at 18:08pm UTC, wrote Very nicely written, MR. Michael Schmitz! Read and rate it. Further...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 2/21/18 at 5:30am UTC, wrote Jim, Thank for the comments. I look forward to reading your essay. Jeff

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 2/21/18 at 5:29am UTC, wrote Edwin Eugene Klingman, Thank you for your comments. Jeff


RECENT FORUM POSTS

George Musser: "Imagine you could feed the data of the world into a computer and have it..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe it is wonderful this,so you are going to have a nobel prize in..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: ""I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant." It is not. It is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Georgina Woodward: "I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


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
October 17, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: The end of Questions by Jeffrey Michael Schmitz [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 21:49 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract: A meta-math function will define and help to find the fundamental nature of the universe. The problem is the meta-math function is the scientific method and the fundamental element is not easy to find and might not be that important in the end.

Author Bio

The author is an adjunct instructor at several colleges in and near Chicago and has a Masters in Physics from the University of Tennessee.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 21:56 GMT
Dear Michael Schmitz,

FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.

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 must consist 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.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 05:13 GMT
Joe,

Since you are the first to "review" my essay, I should say something. Vapor doesn't have a surface and if it did why would this mean only one dimension? This page has two dimensions. If the universe is always illuminated why is it dark at night? Why do we need lighting? If only the truth can set you free then why do we need bail bondsmen?

Bookmark and Share



Heinrich Luediger wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear Michael,

I'm very much in agreement with what you say in your essay. However, dont the last two sentences confuse or even invalidate what you said before? Maybe I haven't got the message yet?

Heinrich

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 19:32 GMT
Heinrich,

Thank you for reading my essay.

The process of finding the thing, "the scientific method" is all important and has shaped our society. The most fundamental thing, whatever that might be or look like, could be of little value. The top of the mountain is just a rock like any other, but climbing to the top is the achievement.

Sincerely,

Jeff Schmitz

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 20:51 GMT
Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz, you said briefly and clearly. I will say that light spreads in an environment that is space and which, according to Descartes, is matter, so its speed is the limit for any movement.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, I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which is end of questions.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 05:29 GMT
Dizhecko Boris Semyonovich,

Thank you for reading my essay.

I am looking forward to reading your essay.

Jeff Schmitz

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 04:37 GMT
Dear Jeff Schmitz I again read your short and beautiful essay. I will add that the fundamental will be an irrational number, it is possible – this is the number 3,14……

I wish you success! Dizhechko Boris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Luca Valeri wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 22:16 GMT
Hi Jeffrey,

Funny short essay. Nice to read. One of the quests in my essay is the search of a meta-math function for physical laws. The meta-math function should be able to tell, how a law is to be applied and what its terms means. As physicist, I think sometimes, that the whole meaning of a law, lies in the law itself. But this is not true. Sadly I did not find the meta-math function for physical laws.

Best regards,

Luca

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 06:16 GMT
Luca,

Thank you for reading my essay, I am looking forward to reading your essay.

A meta-math function by its nature will never be a true part of physical laws (or any set of functions). The scientific method is the meta-math function that shows how something is applied. Meaning can sometimes be a byproduct of the process.

Sincerely,

Jeff Schmitz

Bookmark and Share



Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 20:49 GMT
"A meta-math function will define and help to find the fundamental nature of the universe" if something has taught us the scientific method during the last centuries is that mathematical/philosophical approaches cannot say us which is the fundamental nature of the universe. The history is full of skeletons of mathematical ideas that looked ok in paper, but do not describe...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 22:20 GMT
Thank you for reading my essay. I look forward to reading your essay.

The scientific method is the only thing we got, there have been and will be many missteps along the way. And the scientific method alone will not prove the fundamental (whatever that might be), we need something beyond that a meta-meata math function (whatever that might be).

I did not say mathematics were the basis of the universe or physics or science. The scientific method is the basis of science, which is a tool to understand the universe and the scientific method is not math, but meta-math.

Despite a vast number of positive results, just one repeatable negative will disprove a hypothesis. We can still use a disproven theory within limits.

If evolution is not principle of biology then what is?

If the who or what does process is the most important thing then science done be a robot or alien would be different. I feel the process is the important thing, not who or what does it.

I agree with you (see the conclusion of my essay) "wrong" understanding can still be very useful.

Jeff Schmitz

Bookmark and Share


Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 20:27 GMT
The scientific method is a method not a discipline, so it cannot be meta-math. If what you really mean is that science is meta-math I don't agree. Science goes beyond math is some aspects, but math goes beyond science in other aspects.

"Despite a vast number of positive results, just one repeatable negative will disprove a hypothesis. We can still use a disproven theory within limits." But the theory is not disproved if it continue working for that vast number of positive results. The scope of the theory has been delimited. E.g. Newtonian theory is not disproven; we simply we did learn it isn't applicable for relativistic speeds or for micro-phenomena. Within its scope of validity Newtonian theory continue working today so well as it did 300 years ago; and is because Newtonian theory is taught today in school and why it is used by engineers.

Biological evolution is a consequence of the molecular structure of biological matter, not a principle has to be imposed on the laws of matter.

Science done by a robot or alien could be different, but since the reality is the same for all of us, our models of them would share some similarities. If I can predict the position of the Moon next week, an alien or a robot scientist would be able to do the same even if their science uses a foreign language to me.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 21:03 GMT
A mathematical function is a method, a set of operations done according to the function. Science requires something outside of math, this does not make it "better" just not fully math.

If you want a true understanding of the Universe then you throw out a "disproven" or limited theory, if you want functional then a limited theory might be the perfect tool.

The statement "Evolution being the basis of Biology" does not and cannot include how evolution came to be.

I agree the science for human, robot and alien would in the end be the same.

All the best,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 23:41 GMT
Dear Prof Jeffrey Michael Schmitz

Very nicely sated in in your OP...." A meta-math function will define and help to find the fundamental nature of the universe." and you are correct in saying that...." The problem is the meta-math function is the scientific method and the fundamental element is not easy to find and might not be that important in the end."

I hope you will not mind...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 14:58 GMT
Thank you for reading my essay. Looking forward to reading your essay.

You seem like you have a long list of things the universe cannot do.

Bookmark and Share



Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 01:37 GMT
Jeff,

Although I think a little more text formatting would have made your short, to-the-point essay more accessible, it was fun to read and you made several interesting points, often with humor. Your suggestion that “the answer is 42” might have been mocking the millennia-long human search for perfect, simple, satisfying integer numbers in nature made me chuckle out loud. That to me is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 02:14 GMT
Terry,

Thanks for reading my essay.

Meta-functions could be useful, but they do make us look at math and Physics in a new way. I did have one or two more humous lines I cut out, if I had this feedback my self-editing choices would have been different. Maybe next time.

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 02:04 GMT
Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz,

Thank you for your gracious comments and for the welcome advice to humanize the Tavern with sights, sounds, smells, etc. I may rewrite this using your advice for another venue (although there few venues like FQXi).

Having now read your essay, I agree with you that "the assumption that the rules of quantum mechanics apply to gravity waves and neutrinos, but we have no experimental evidence for this assumption."

You might like to read the comment on my thread [Feb. 20, 2018 @ 00:56 GMT] based on Cristinel Stoica's excellent discussion of isomorphisms.

Thanks again for giving meaningful remarks on my essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 05:29 GMT
Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thank you for your comments.

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 02:30 GMT
Jeffrey,

"If one were looking for the key to the universe, the scientific method might seem a poor choice, because science seems a human construct"

I would say that the scientific method gives us discovery and my contention is that discovery through the scientific method brings new knowledge that causes what is fundamental to evolve. So we can only speculate about what is fundamental, pretty much what you suggest. Therefore, fundamental is only of value as an inspiration, as part of a concept or theory that you continually test and examine leading to more discovery. It's like searching for the Holy Grail. Now we think ToE with our limited knowledge. What will it be with more knowledge? I share your objectivity and your open mind.

Good Luck in the contest that is quickly winding down.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 05:30 GMT
Jim,

Thank for the comments. I look forward to reading your essay.

Jeff

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 02:32 GMT
Jeffrey,

Incidentally, hope you get a chance to check mine.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 18:08 GMT
Very nicely written, MR. Michael Schmitz!

Read and rate it.

Further comments are useless.

If you do have the time and pleasure for a related essay, you can check this one

Respectfully,

Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 19:28 GMT
Silviu,

Thank you for the very concise review. Looking forward to reading your essay.

Jeff Schmitz

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:43 GMT
Dear Jeffrey

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


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 03:28 GMT
Jeffrey,

As the deadline approaches and as my recall slackens, I try to revisit all I have read to see if I have scored them. I did yours on the 2/20/18.

Good luck,

Jim

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.