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 6:31am UTC, wrote Dear Michelle If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi: on 2/19/18 at 16:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Michelle, I enjoyed the approach in your paper in the spirit of...

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/18/18 at 14:56pm UTC, wrote Dear Michelle, Why didn't you defend your essay? Are you ill? I am...

Domenico Oricchio: on 2/16/18 at 14:25pm UTC, wrote A good essay. I don’t understand a part of your definition of...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/14/18 at 1:49am UTC, wrote Dear Michelle Xu Very nicely you said about Complexity......" the amount...

Mozibur Ullah: on 2/7/18 at 12:10pm UTC, wrote Dear Michelle A delightfully interesting and informative essay and written...

Steven Andresen: on 2/6/18 at 5:22am UTC, wrote Dear Michelle Xu Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading...

Lee Bloomquist: on 2/6/18 at 3:22am UTC, wrote Michelle, self = (self) -> Helen Keller before learnings the word...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "It's difficult for the acrobats to see each other. I want a 3rd party..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

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

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

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

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

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


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
August 24, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Fundamentality—Or Rather, What It Isn't by Michelle Xu [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Michelle Xu wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 19:00 GMT
Essay Abstract

Complexity is, in a general sense, the amount of information it takes to describe something "interesting" about a system. I posit that the definition of fundamentality is equivalent to a lack of complexity. We begin our discussion with a broad question—what is "fundamental?"—and apply philosophical tools, like the linguistic principle of charity, until we whittle our inquiry down to something manageable. From then on, we meander through a series of possible solutions and rebuttals, briefly peering at applicability and elegance, until we are naturally motivated to hit upon complexity as our viable candidate. We discuss both the technical attempts at quantifying complexity and the adjustments we need to make for our case. Ultimately, we see that fundamentality is simply our attempt to understand the world's patterns, and that task is much more easily accomplished with a lack of complexity.

Author Bio

Michelle Xu is an undergraduate studying physics and mathematics at MIT. She enjoys discussing philosophy and procrastinating her psets, both of which are habits that led to the creation of this essay.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Flavio Del Santo wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 21:20 GMT
Dear Michelle,

thank you for this interesting and well written essay.

I liked very much your way towards frustration that, following the hint provided in call of the FQXi contest, leads us to get rid of naive reductionism of conventional arguments (like beauty or simplicity). You would find many similarities in my essay, and I hope you will have the opportunity to read it, such that we can discuss our common points.

Overall, a nice essay, and congratulation for beingat such an early stage of your career. I surely rate the essay high.

All good wishes,

Flavio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James N Rose wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 04:53 GMT
Ms Xu,

Very much enjoyed your writing style, clarity and flow or discussions. In that light, I'd like to address specific ideas you wrote about.

First, I would say that Duhem's hypothesis muddies the waters and is built on inconsistent criteria .. moving us no closer to shared consensus understandings, but away from that goal.

Your next approach .. presuming 'comparative...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Francesco D'Isa wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 10:11 GMT
Dear Michelle,

thank you for sharing your essay, it's very interesting and well written; I really appreciated it.

You state that "what is fundamental corresponds to what is globally minimized for complexity" and it's for sure a good solution. But this is a fundamentality intrinsically relative to our purposes, and it could change depending on the observer, as I try to state in my own essay.

All the best and good luck with your essay!

Francesco D'Isa

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 19:36 GMT
"For example, once the classical mechanics model of what happens in a gas in a box is determined, all the aspects of the statistical mechanical model are determined as well". This is not true at all. Statistical mechanics is based in postulates which are not derived from classical mechanics. Precisely the main problem with non-equilibrium statistical mechanics (NESM) is that the postulates of the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lee Bloomquist wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 03:22 GMT
Michelle, self = (self) -> Helen Keller before learnings the word w-a-t-e-r --> self (thinking, self) -> abstract models of Helen before and after learning the meaning of "w-a-t-e-r" --> maximum simplicity produces the maximum complexity (thought)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Mozibur Rahman Ullah wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 12:10 GMT
Dear Michelle

A delightfully interesting and informative essay and written with verve and style. Thank you for sharing.

Best Wishes

Mozibur Ullah

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 01:49 GMT
Dear Michelle Xu

Very nicely you said about Complexity......" the amount of information it takes to describe something "interesting" about a system. I posit that the definition of fundamentality is equivalent to a lack of complexity....... We discuss both the technical attempts at quantifying complexity and the adjustments we need to make for our case. Ultimately, we see that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 14:25 GMT
A good essay.

I don’t understand a part of your definition of fundamental: each theory that describes the reality is fundamental; it seem an objective quality of each theory that is true. Is it true?

Another question, an Artificial Intelligence that understand the cure for the cancer of sicks, that provides them with medical care, have the databases and the knowledge, a black box that contain the fundamental medical treatment, without visible fundamental theory have the fundamental property of knowledge, prediction and inner representation that we don’t know: is it fundamental for medicine?

It seems that, for some models, the knowledge, along many calculations (in thousands of mathematical steps) condenses into some fundamental units that contain those calculations (for example Fermat’s last theorem, or Einstein field equation); some regularity and symmetries of the calculations are expresses in these fundamental units, and this units are compact way of representing all those calculations (the Standard Model is not simple, or elegant, but contains all the human knowledge on the particles and fields).

Regards

Domenico

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Michelle,

Why didn't you defend your essay? Are you ill?

I am defending my finding which was called by my boss "too fundamental" because he felt it a too large decrease in complexity. Can you help please?

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 16:02 GMT
Dear Michelle,

I enjoyed the approach in your paper in the spirit of Sherlock Holmes (Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth) and the lighthearted, fun tone of your essay.

A few specific comments:

1. It is perceptive of you to recognize that widespread applicability by itself cannot be the same as fundamentality.

2. The main argument of your paper is very similar to that given in the essay by Terry Bollinger, who identifies fundamentality with Kolmogorov Simplicity.

3. I think the worry about theories becoming incomparable can be addressed with sufficient abstraction.

All the best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:31 GMT
Dear Michelle

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.