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

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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

paul schroeder: on 5/15/20 at 20:50pm UTC, wrote Hi John Hodge, On the first reading I did focus on your discussion of math...

Paul Schroeder: on 5/14/20 at 14:41pm UTC, wrote Dear John Hodge, You mention algebraic vs geometric math. When I write...

Anonymous: on 5/8/20 at 20:31pm UTC, wrote Dear John, I agree with your position at the beginning. Our knowledge is...

Michael muteru: on 4/30/20 at 9:12am UTC, wrote when the unknown far outweighs the known.limits must have been at play....

Gene Barbee: on 3/29/20 at 1:57am UTC, wrote John C. Hodge, Congratulations on a long history of deep thought and hard...

James Hoover: on 3/28/20 at 22:26pm UTC, wrote John, Wanted to let you know that I updated my essay and uploaded it a few...

John Crowell: on 3/14/20 at 20:09pm UTC, wrote John I enjoyed your essay and I agree that a paradigm shift to a more...

John Hodge: on 3/12/20 at 16:33pm UTC, wrote I don't know of Alan Kadin’s view or Gutmensch. My view of morality and...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "That is about the 'anatomy"" of spacetime." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Lorraine Ford: "So what exactly is WRONG with physics, apart from the fact that physics..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "The perception generated of time difference relates to the potential..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello Jim, yes indeed in a sense we have these motions and we have invented..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Jim Snowdon: "Hi Steve, Clearly we have motion in our Universe. It is not..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Steve Dufourny: "You are welcome, thanks too for your words. I have never lost the faith..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you. Good luck." in The Nature of Time

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.


FQXi FORUM
September 17, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Limits of human knowledge by John C Hodge [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 8, 2020 @ 11:14 GMT
Essay Abstract

The amount of unexplained observational data is huge. More fundamental descriptions are simpler, more useful, and apply to the entire universe including areas of mathematics, physical sciences, life, and society. The uncomputability, undecidability, and unpredictability of the models limits human wisdom. Because the universe does yield definite characteristics and decisions, the Scalar Theory of Everything suggests the Godel's incompleteness theorems, Turing's proof of non-computability, and other similar mathematical proofs do not apply to physics. Indeed, ``proofing'' cannot be part of the physical sciences. However, because the universe's source of initial conditions is unknowable, the universe is unpredictable except for limited space and time.

Author Bio

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1520-2153

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share


Scott S Gordon wrote on Feb. 8, 2020 @ 17:38 GMT
Hi John... Your essay has a lot to offer.

You state... "Human modeling starts from postulates, which include methods of reasoning (logic), and extends to theorems"

You say that a more fundamental model is required and a paradigm shift is necesaary on the form of a fundamental model which is long overdue.

You have offered STOE as your model/new theory and I hope more people take a look at your ideas.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 10, 2020 @ 18:18 GMT
Scott

I note you also say a more fundamental model is needed. You should look at the STOE for many of the questions you ask.

The answer to your first question is your 6) IMHO and experience.

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 9, 2020 @ 21:02 GMT
Hi John, you do not mention the major advantage of sexual rather than asexual reproduction. That is the variety of gene combinations generated by "shuffling" the genetic material obtained from the two sexes. Greater variety gives fitness of the population to a greater range of environmental conditions and challenges. Which increases the likelihood of some offspring surviving. Low levels of genetic variation, such as in endangered populations, is hazardous.

An essay full of ideas to ponder, regards G.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 10, 2020 @ 18:25 GMT
Georgina

single cell organisms are found everywhere sexual reproducing organisms are found AND in many other places such as in rocks miles below.

Hoyle's panspermia suggested simple organisms (their DNA) are at least space travelers and may be interstellar travelers.

If the question of why life exists is asked, then the answer must include why more complex life can form (survives the kulling).

Bookmark and Share


Al Schneider wrote on Feb. 18, 2020 @ 21:55 GMT
Just started reading your essay.

I find it encouraging.

However, I am slow of study and thought and need to spend time with it to grok it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 24, 2020 @ 19:20 GMT
John

This article is interesting and thought provoking. Yes, I agree that Occam's razor should be motivated more due to our ability to understand. So, we should test the simple method first and not decide it to be true. I mhave had that opinion since long time.

Yes, I also agree to your idea that we often use too many mathematical arguments on physical relations. Sometimes our models become so complex that we tend to discuss mathematics and forget the physics.

Thanks for the article.

With best regards from ____________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 25, 2020 @ 11:53 GMT
John-Erik

I have noted your articles on RG.

Thanks

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 27, 2020 @ 17:41 GMT
Hi John,

Very rigorous having 2 introductions! I strongly agree a few things, survival depends on a 'generalist' CROSS DISCIPLINE approach. A paradigm shift is long overdue, vortices and 'annihilation', maths models are 'band aids' for poor physical understanding, self-similar & fractal structures, etc.

You write "All models must have some assumed effects without causes". As you go on to grade those with the least as best I assume you don't mean a model MUST have those to be valid! Having spend many years research to explain and remove all such loose ends in the DFM, which you'll see has extraordinarily wide resolving power, I don't want to falsely add any in again!! (If you can see any I've missed do mention/ask).

On 'hard photons', you know I agree requantization on all interactions (so all 'measurement') so we always FIND EM energy in 'photons', but I still haven't seen you fully address the inaccessible travel between those points or the vast evidence of and need for 'wavelike' characteristics which you seem to just dismiss. You also never commented on the HELIX model I invoke. We now KNOW all light has helicity (with some ellipticity), which of course makes it 'particulate from the front but wavelike from all sides.

Of course 'agreement' on such things isn't a scoring criteria. And few seem to agree on much!

Very best.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 28, 2020 @ 03:57 GMT
Peter

Thanks for your interest.

The 2nd "introduction" is actually a page heading on the 2 page.

All models MUST have some postulates to start. For example, time and space are usually assumed to mean something and then calculations using such parameters follow (this must be followed by the method of measurement standard which may be subject to variation if other standards are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 27, 2020 @ 20:56 GMT
John,

Like you, I state that the 3 "Us" are the result of human failings and limitations and that cognitive enhancement and quantum processing can provide the wisdom and knowledge needed over time. Our human assumptions must be replaced by physical assumptions. In other words, the universe must tell us the answer thru experiments and observations. I see that your STOE suggests it should include life and society observations, eliminating the limiting factors. A scalar theory of everything suggest many such measurements of "limited space and time," stated in your conclusion relate to galactic measurements. I also see the scalar qualities that you mention "combinations of simpler structures form more complex life."

Many good thoughts to mull over.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 28, 2020 @ 03:59 GMT
Jim

Thank.

I don't agree that quantum processing can provide more wisdom.

Bookmark and Share


Author John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 1, 2020 @ 13:51 GMT
The STOE forms a Universal Equation and applies it to astronomical/cosmological problems and to light interference experiments

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328489883_STOE_repl
aces_relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

Bookmark and Share


Michael Smith wrote on Mar. 2, 2020 @ 16:37 GMT
Hi John,

Thought provoking essay...

Your definition of understanding as the ability to predict events/observation versus wisdom as the ability to cause them is an effective framework to build upon. I too agree that a paradigm shift will be required to reduce the limitations to knowability and will necessarily need to include consciousness and the human condition in the scope of a truly comprehensive TOE.

I differ somewhat from your view that mathematics rejects duality of the algebraically discrete and geometrically continuous. I would offer as an example the ixi=-1 representation of the complex plane - it describes both the algebraic relationship between real and imaginary numbers as well as its half-rotation geometry of the complex unit circle. You do, however, note the significance of two-from-one as a natural emergent phenomena such as cell division and DNA. I just see that property of duality as being more fundamental.

So to me, unobserved mathematics such as imaginary numbers or extra dimensions do not necessarily imply a mathematical model is flawed, but perhaps just that duality such as wave-particle duality should be viewed as a "composite particle" most knowable when considered as a single coin rather than two sides, only one of which we can perceive at a time.

Thanks for helping me think deeply on this fascinating topic!

Regards,

Michael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 2, 2020 @ 18:04 GMT
I have noted your essay. Note that the STOE suggests that imaginary numbers also lead to models that fail to reflect physical reality. I note the Afshar experiment rejects the Copenhagen duality as do the several interference experiments I did (see for example:https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?
paperid=93056

Bookmark and Share


Author John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 7, 2020 @ 13:21 GMT
Reply to Eckard Blumschein's comments:

Could you accept the idea that the use of the math characteristics produces problematical physics and should be indicate a model that needs a redo (my thesis)?

One thing I treat lightly (lack of space) was the place of error analysis/statistics in misleading and inadequate for physical models. This point was explored in Nielsen, Guffanti &...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 7, 2020 @ 23:39 GMT
Dear John Hodge,

There are perhaps not yet many non-Gutmenschen who share your (and mine) intention: "My current philosophical interest is to conceive of a constitution for a world order for humanity's growth." Are you aware of substituting God?

I also appreciate the opportunity you gave me to hopefully bettter explain what I meant with "calculate as if the model was identical with the basic reality behind it".

Best,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 8, 2020 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear Eckard:

The problem of invoking "God" is that God is undefined. That is, there are many, too many interpretations of the characteristics of God.

Hodge

Bookmark and Share

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 11, 2020 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear John Hodge,

I simply meant: Are you aware of being perhaps too presumptuous? I rather share Alan Kadin’s view.

Maybe, you and others do not understand what I meant with non-Gutmensch. Many people in particular in Germany feel being good in the sense of obeying Christian values: being emphatic, tolerant, merciful, liberal-minded, cosmopolitan, etc. Such “good-people’s” attitude has its main roots partially in old traditions like indulgence and partially in the awareness of the horrible reproach to be guilty for what Germans are blamed for. Good-people tend to consider children like God’s or Allah’s gift, the more the better. I see Kadin a non-good one but of course not a bad human. On the contrary, he is someone who doesn’t need feeling good with a presumptuous putative moral superiority.

What about ethics and moral, I am not sure but I tend to guess, the ethics as a whole is the more comprehensive philanthropic basis or moral rules which decide about right and wrong. I vote for a radical correction of ethics.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John David Crowell wrote on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 20:09 GMT
John I enjoyed your essay and I agree that a paradigm shift to a more fundamental model is needed. My essay “Clarification of Physics: A Derivation or a Complete, Computable, Predictive model of “Our” Multiverse is a step in the right direction. Although it is only referred to in this essay, the Successful Self Creation processing includes the creation of “all ordered existence” which includes humanity, our social structure, religions and philosophies as well as our consciousness and cognition. I would appreciate your comments on my essay. Thanks John D Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 28, 2020 @ 22:26 GMT
John,

Wanted to let you know that I updated my essay and uploaded it a few minutes ago. Personally I feel that it is greatly improved. I did rate yours on 3/20, giving it the good rating, feeling it was one of the better ones.

Please check mine out if you have time. Such honest, No BS, reviews are needed by all of us.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gene H Barbee wrote on Mar. 29, 2020 @ 01:57 GMT
John C. Hodge,

Congratulations on a long history of deep thought and hard work. I noticed that your first publication on relativity and QM was 1979. I looked back through some of your publications and noted that you wrote a book on Amazon. Ditto…I tried that. I have not achieved any success in helping science with its outstanding questions. I used viXra and Prespacetime Journal and you used Researchgate. We have thought about some of the same questions. I have no criticism of your work although I couldn’t access some of it. I read your essay and noted that maybe you have the same problem I have. Our theories (yours STOE and my proton model) are difficult to describe in 10 pages. I am concerned that others are so engrossed in their own work that they will not try to understand the work of others. I don’t have a phD and don’t have access to arxiv and other research journals. But like you I have been trying to contribute.

Keep working and enjoy the challenge. I enjoyed your essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael muteru wrote on Apr. 30, 2020 @ 09:12 GMT
when the unknown far outweighs the known.limits must have been at play. very classically put in simplicity. well done.please read/review simple dedications in anthropology affect our judgement here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.thanks all the best

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 8, 2020 @ 20:31 GMT
Dear John,

I agree with your position at the beginning.

Our knowledge is neatly divided into separate and independent disciplines.

That is why in my works I give preference to the Philosophers of Nature, as scientists were called, before the separation of scientific disciplines took place.

I do not agree with your position:

However, because the universe’s source of initial conditions is unknowable, the universe is unpredictable except for limited space and time.

Because the source of initial conditions are known. These are the same condictions that they are now. That's what my formulas derived from Newton's and Planck's formulas sa

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Schroeder wrote on May. 14, 2020 @ 14:41 GMT
Dear John Hodge,

You mention algebraic vs geometric math. When I write about my view of the universe I must apologize for ignoring algebraic math. But from your paper I realize that I am promoting the use of imagined geometric math applied to remote situations. You say geometric mathematics deals with continuous shapes. The decidability of such geometry has lead to accuracy bound theories of fixed model bases such as 'the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames'. Fixed models can lose out someday to a new paradigm shift built around undecidibility geometry, imagine a flowing geometry.

Taking that perspective leads to ‘The Universe is Otherwise’ where the medium is gravity.

I thank your paper for suggesting future paths. It rates well

Best wishes,

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


paul schroeder wrote on May. 15, 2020 @ 20:50 GMT
Hi John Hodge,

On the first reading I did focus on your discussion of math as that is a psychological issue for me. In your response you ask about photons. I did ignore the photon issue as my system rejects that particle. I have light and all EM radiation as simply waves (within beams). The photon particle Einstein supported was needed to account for wave energy. Waves do impact, the result of the waves arriving at a mass, and the measure varies with the frequency. At some level the waves could be particulate. So, the equations and physical reality of the Newtonian scale apply to the very small scale. The waves themselves are not particles as currently defined. The double-slit experiment supported the wave nature of light.

I have not reviewed a ‘future’ wave and I haven’t accepted faster than light travel.

Atoms for me depend upon electrons which occur as intersections of waves traveling opposite directions from each other. Any interaction of my gravity waves with an atomic element will cause change in the element and release a higher frequency wave. Gravity waves are very low frequency and get converted to higher frequency light waves.

Orbits don’t decay because, just like moon or planetary orbits, pushing gravity causes a variety of flows that provide both the attraction and the ‘directional flow’ (all motions). Gravity is the driver.

We are partly connected, but my model backs away from so many physics concepts that matching is rare. Perhaps ongoing communication would help. You do provide your model here but my model covers too many topics from pushing gravity to EM nature of space. For details see the general science journal.

Best wishes,

Paul Schroeder

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.