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

Pavel Poluian: on 5/17/20 at 6:47am UTC, wrote Dear James Lee Hoover! You have raised many questions in your essay that...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 5/15/20 at 6:34am UTC, wrote Dear James, I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad...

Michael Popov: on 5/14/20 at 9:07am UTC, wrote Jim, Thank you for essay. I also had found that UUU problems in...

George Gantz: on 5/14/20 at 0:41am UTC, wrote Hi Jim - Your essay is a delightful, almost poetic romp through the...

Jonathan Dickau: on 5/12/20 at 15:25pm UTC, wrote First off; My favorite DM candidate is a graviton condensate. This can...

Jonathan Dickau: on 5/12/20 at 13:55pm UTC, wrote Hi Jim, This tab was already open for this morning's reading assignment. ...

Avtar Singh: on 5/12/20 at 0:17am UTC, wrote Hi James: Thanks for reading my essay. Enjoyed reading your nicely...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 5/9/20 at 22:39pm UTC, wrote Dear James, Writing for a general science readership in a way that is...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Marcel-Marie LeBel: "Georgina, There is no instantaneity along the rod or within the coffee. It..." in The Nature of Time

Stefan Weckbach: "Hi Lorraine, thanks for your explanations. I think I now better..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Consider ice cream in hot coffee. They stay together, 'in time', as..." in The Nature of Time

Mykel Waggoner: "This is a link to a paper I wrote, as it explains how Quantum Entanglement..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, Replying to your last couple of posts, this is the way I would..." in The Present State of...

Robert McEachern: ""There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in..." in Undecidability,...

Georgina Woodward: "Max? Why?" in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Agnew: "Mueller opens his essay with... "As the argument goes, there are truths..." in Undecidability,...


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 21, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Do the 3 "Uns" have it? by James Lee Hoover [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 14, 2020 @ 00:19 GMT
Essay Abstract

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability (3Us) emerge like word tsunamis seeking a cogent response. The 3Us might prompt a complaint coined by mathematician, Vladimir Arnold, “Too much Hilbert and not enough Poincare.” Also pertinent, Henri Poincare once said, “There are no solved problems … only problems that are more or less solved.” With a cooperative global effort, enhanced cognition and quantum computers, great mysteries can be solved. It may take months, years, decades, and even centuries. But they can be solved.

Author Bio

James Hoover is retired from the Boeing Company in Huntington Beach, California, working as a systems engineer. His career in aerospace stretches back over twenty years and involves cost analysis, cost modeling and logistics research. In that span of years he has taught college courses in education, economics, computer science and English. Before his aerospace career, he taught high school. He published a science fiction novel called Extraordinary Visitors and publishes essays on university websites regarding his scientific interests. His personal interests include studies in particle physics, cosmology and interplanetary technology. He has advanced degrees in Economics and English.

Download Essay PDF File
Note: This Essay PDF was replaced on 2020-03-28 22:07:51 UTC.

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 14, 2020 @ 01:56 GMT
Hi James, nice, most readable and comprehensible. Re. your "We know quantum entanglement (QE) exists, that a particle can be in two different places, light years apart in an instant." It seems as if the quantum state of particle can instantly become upon measurement of an 'entangled partner. But that isn't transport of a particle.

Re. your ". As mere mortals, we must climb the heights, conquering one peak at a time." It seems to me, fortuitously a lot of the problems of physics are related to a few foundational issues. Like 10 pin bowling; knocking down a few pins can cause the others to fall.

I like that you have highlighted big issues we face as a species but end on an optimistic note.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 16, 2020 @ 01:38 GMT
Georgina,

Thanks for you quick comments, my post was barely warm. I am printing out several, including yours to read.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 14, 2020 @ 02:01 GMT
Good to see you here James...

And I find what you are saying interesting. I have not read the essay yet, but from what's in the abstract I already have comments.

I attended a lecture where Gerard 't Hooft said some problems in Physics will never be solved unless we have cooperation that goes beyond the boundaries of disciplines, and uses many kinds of expertise. On the other hand my departed Physics mentor Greg Kirk said some kind of problems can't be handled through divide and conquer and so require a polymath or inter-disciplinarian to crack.

But I heard from both sources (and from another Nobel laureate Doug Osheroff) that many 'unsolvable' problems actually can be solved if people are willing to explore off the map. I look forward to reading your essay.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 16, 2020 @ 01:36 GMT
Jonathan,

You quickly noted my posting. Hope you get a chance to read it. I am printing out yours, as I plan to do for several. It looks weighty in message so I will do my best on it.

Later.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 26, 2020 @ 19:43 GMT
Hi James,

Thanks for your complimentary post on mine, and well done for yours, but I see we've both been hit by entirely inappropriate 1.0 scores! Yet again. It can't be beyond the abilities of fqXi to do what I suggested last year, add a clause warning those doing so will be exposed or score moved the their own! I hope your score may help mine recover!

I also hope you're pleased to hear I found your essay one of the easiest and most agreeable to read so far, so can score it well. I don't often score until I've read most but can do so if you wish.

I firmly agree re Hilbert v Poincare, and that we CAN advance , if we can escape our bias to 'beliefs' against nurturing NEW understanding. I do just have a couple of points;

You wrote; "we know QM entanglement exists..." Except of course we DON'T James! We just know that 'interpretation of data' exists, which we now "believe in". But I've shown that's an example of what must change to nurture better understanding. You may not understand QM and it's issues but look on the posts between Ronald Radicot and I on his string. However as Wheeler anticipated, that still leaves the uncertainty of whether you're moving left or right when standing at either of the poles!

You also anticipate; {i]"..when quantum computers are perfected.." The above error in QM assumptions means the CANNOT be! Consider Alan Kadins essay and my "It from Bit" one. "0 years of promises have had ZERO results, just hype, claims, and millions paid to physicists!

If you truly think old beliefs hold us back you must e able to review those two! - or perhaps at least re-phrase to; "It's believed.... or "It seems..." etc. in line with Poincare (a key figure in classic QM)

But they're both 'content', and disagreement is not scoring criteria!

Well done

Very Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 27, 2020 @ 17:54 GMT
Thanks, Peter. For the first time, I'm updating my essay, considering the virus events and the extension of the deadline. Hope you will real my update. I rated yours nicely on the 20th of March soon after they extended the deadline and I was able to see the rating carnage.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 28, 2020 @ 13:48 GMT
James, Yes, nice fresher version. I think your 1.0 score is ridiculous, clearly a troll again, who hit mine with a 1.0 as well. fqXi could easily stop it by penalising anyone posting multiple 1's and/ or removing them. A warning in the rules could stop it. Any way in line with my comments I've now applied the realistically good score deserved.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 28, 2020 @ 22:07 GMT
James Hoover re-uploaded the file Hoover_3Us7.pdf for the essay entitled "Do the 3 "Uns" have it?" on 2020-03-28 22:07:51 UTC.

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 8, 2020 @ 09:45 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover, I read your wonderful epic essay in which you attempted to colorfully describe the problems that occurred in the physical picture of the world and indicate ways to solve them, while making the remark that “Can machines think?” is no. Each human generation stands on the shoulders of the one before, not to be replaced by an automaton. ” However, I think your essay would be more epic if you would touch upon the possibilities of a neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes’s space and matter: Please visit the

FQXi Boris Dzhechko

“The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich ".

 At the very beginning of the essay, I repeat twice the idea that rectilinear motion, in essence, is a motion around a circle of infinitely large radius and, if this radius is reduced, then in infinitesimal laws of motion of the theory of relativity will go over to the laws of quantum mechanics. Next come mathematical formulas that only spoil my essay, but without them in any way. I will be pleased if you catch their main meaning and bless me for the further generalization of modern physics. I give high ratings to those who visit my page and leave her comment on it regarding the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, even if they did not agree.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 17:29 GMT
Dizhechko,

I have printed out your essay and will check it out.

Thanks,

Jim

Bookmark and Share

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Apr. 24, 2020 @ 18:27 GMT
Dear James, I thank you for reading my essay and finding the similarity of the concept of neocartesian generalization of modern physics presented in it with the concept of a Cartesian system with probabilistic axes for calculating the speed and time of neurophysiological processes in living organisms. I am inclined to believe from this that you put him a high rating. Check that this is so, as Descartes is worthy of his ideas to be continued and given high marks. For my part, I give high ratings to those who bother to read and understand the essence of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, which is based on the identity of Descartes' space and matter. According to him, space is matter, and matter is space that moves, since it is matter. Ether in this convention is a synonym for matter and, conversely, matter is a synonym for ether. The ether, which is matter, creates infinite space and time. Here is the nominal one, we must think.

Regards, Dizhechko Boris.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 17:02 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover,

A beautiful essay, one of your best, and one of the best in this contest. A pleasure to read, while also an insightful overview. So many undecidable issues derive from no data and no means to decide. As you say:

It would be foolhardy to think that such great mysteries, the greatest truths in life, have easily deciphered answers.

I also love the del Toro quote:

...all we can truly do is echo the order of the universe.

Your essay ranges over the entire universe, including life and mind, with too many good points to cover in a comment. It perfectly addresses the essay topic.

You give Newton in the 17th century, and Einstein in 1900’s credit for gravity theory, but I believe that Maxwell-Heaviside theory ~1885 is most important. Heaviside’s equations actually lead to Einstein’s field equations when iterated, and derive from Einstein when the field equations are linearized.

As you note about lack of data, the dimensionality of the world is underdetermined by relativity, and my essay looks at how to decide issues in this case. Deciding on the nature of time and space.

One essentially makes a metaphysical commitment to an ontology in such cases, and hopes that the data shows up to support it.

Btw, I question whether Einstein’s ’visualized thought experiments’ were more problem than solution.

My warmest regards for a job well done. Your essay should be one of the top ones.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 22:09 GMT
Edwin,

I have taken to printing out essays that I read, making it easier to really digest them. I have always valued your opinion and am gratified with your comments re my effort. You never really know if you have hit the mark on each contest effort until community members really take the effort to read them closely and comment objectively. Thanks for your interest.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 11:10 GMT
Dear James,

You have presented a magnificent analytical, deep philosophical essay with important findings for Science and all of Humanity. You make a very important conclusion: "Many tomorrowrows will hopefully remove the blinders of ignorance concerning the underlying quantum world, for example, and unlock more wisdom."

Let us hope that fundamental science will overcome the modern crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of knowledge and provide Humanity with a more adequate picture of the world, common for mathematicians, physicists, cosmologists, poets, based on the ideas of the "LifeWorld" (EHusserl). I believe that with joint efforts and with deep wisdom, we can together save life on planet Earth and develop steadily together with Nature. Today, as never before, the philosophical precepts of Albert Einstein and John Wheeler are relevant for theorists of basic science:

 “At the present time, a physicists has to deal with philosophic problems to a much greater degree than physicists of the previous generations. Physicists forced to that the difficulties of their own science. ”

“Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers.”

I, like many other researchers, have great doubt about the "picture of the world" built on the hypothesis of the "Big bang". Obviously, it is necessary, along with the Empirical standard of justification, to introduce the Ontological standard for the basification of scientific theories claiming to be called “fundamental”.... We will hope ...

Very Best

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 18:28 GMT
Thanks, Vladimir. Kind words, indeed.

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 19, 2020 @ 04:47 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover,

Thank you for your nice comments on my essay. I just gone through both of your well argued essays. You are retired from Airoplane making company, I retired from steel plant. Why should we fear? No more need. We should be courageous! One should be bold in expressing one's ideas!

Dont criticize any one, but express our thinking freely...............

Best regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Apr. 23, 2020 @ 07:56 GMT
Dear Jim,

Thank you, glad you liked my work.

It’s great that you always want to find the root of the problem:

“The modern human narrative is about breaking boundaries, those thought to bar us from movingbeyond. One of the barriers held our most modern form of humans to confinement to this planet”.

“I do find the Bohmian mechanics explanation more...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael muteru wrote on Apr. 30, 2020 @ 11:07 GMT
dear sir. I must say your essay is more than a scientific piece. it's very philosophical and best of all very enriching to Human morality ethics and possibilities in the future like the kardashev scale. I imagine the 3U s definitely are us. I too think so. You may review that in my essay here -https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525. all the best.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Joseph Vastola wrote on May. 2, 2020 @ 15:53 GMT
I enjoyed the essay overall. Some nice phrases, e.g. "virtual waves imposing achievement boundaries for endeavoring scientists" from the intro.

Interesting point emphasizing human intellectual tendencies in the pursuit of knowledge, like the focus on short-term gain over long-term enrichment. This has come out in a particularly ugly way in the context of climate change, like you describe.

Not sure if I agree that dark matter/dark energy are unscientific. I do think that the way we're going about looking for them is not particularly clever, and possibly wrongheaded (if you didn't find anything, just build a slightly more sensitive machine and try again). Also, we should be more open-minded about alternatives given our failures thus far (like some kind of modification of gravity).

Was delighted to learn about the cosmological lithium problem from your essay. Never heard of it before.

Not sure I agree that machines can't think, although I admit this is a huge can of worms, and nobody really knows the answer/can convincingly argue their case yet.

Throughout the essay, you weave together many facts about science and the world around us. At first I wasn't sure what you were doing, but the overall effect (on me, a person) is pretty enthralling. When you say all this stuff about where we come from and our place in the universe, it really does sound striking...maybe I take a lot of it for granted these days.

But it really is amazing, if you stop to think about it. How are we able to understand anything at all about the vast, inscrutable cosmos? It's a miracle we've been able to do everything we've done.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on May. 2, 2020 @ 16:48 GMT
John,

It's always good to see that someone reads your essay with some interest and with keen comments. I thinks it helps to promote the kind of analysis and thinking the foundation means to foster. Thanks, for reading and for your incisive remarks.

Jim

Bookmark and Share


Lachlan Cresswell wrote on May. 8, 2020 @ 11:03 GMT
Dear James,

A fine philosophical essay that I much enjoyed reading.

A minor typo on page 4 re weight of local group. I suppose the mass is close to 4 or 5 trillion solar masses, not 1, as this is less than the Milky Way mass.

I agree with Peter Jackson, Alan Kadin, and some others re quantum computers.I do not think they will eventuate in their current form. (Read Barry Gilbert's comments on them).

I hope you will check out my essay, on the 3 Un's as well.

All the best

Lockie Cresswell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 8, 2020 @ 13:46 GMT
Hi James,

I wanted to add a comment re the missing antimatter you discuss. I wrote an essay on it back in 2003 which poses a solution. Of course I have done much more work on this topic since then and I believe I can also explain what is dark matter.

Cheers

Lockie

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on May. 9, 2020 @ 22:39 GMT
Dear James,

Writing for a general science readership in a way that is interesting and informative is the most difficult part of these fqxi essays. This essay embraces the general audience in a breezy and fluid style that even has time for some wordplay. An essay about what we don’t know would seem as interesting as a blank screen, but you made us think about the how’s and why’s of our ignorance. Good work.

Sincerely,

Jeff Schmitz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Avtar Singh wrote on May. 12, 2020 @ 00:17 GMT
Hi James:

Thanks for reading my essay.

Enjoyed reading your nicely written essay. What I liked most in your essay that you emphasize the roles of understanding the cosmos and human mind are crucial to unravel the mysteries of the unknowns. You well describe the historical progress science has achieved but 96% of the universe still remains undiscovered. My essay focuses on reveling this 96% hidden universe via integrating the missing physics of spontaneity or consciousness or free will in nature.

I have given high ratings to your essay.

Best of luck

Avtar Singh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 12, 2020 @ 13:55 GMT
Hi Jim,

This tab was already open for this morning's reading assignment. Now moved to the front or top of list.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 12, 2020 @ 15:25 GMT
First off;

My favorite DM candidate is a graviton condensate. This can exhibit axion-like behavior without requiring additional particles. Your logical synthesis is not air-tight like some I've seen in this contest. But you raise some interesting points and you make the reader think.

Regarding machines thinking; it is happening or is inevitable. The real question is; will they have the capacity to be subtle? Are we going to create R2-D2 and C3P0, or will we one day be enslaved by Terminators - because we got it wrong? There is no time left to wonder about whether machines can think, only about how well...

Back in my College days; I had the nickname 'Warp drive,' or just 'Warp.' Now I could give lessons in the Math prep for that. The term warp factor arises in the work of Lisa Randall, with the Randall-Sundrum model, which features an infinite 5-d space. Theories based on the octonions or Mandelbrot Set tend more to resemble the DGP gravity model. But if reality is octonionic; a translational dymaxion is possible to construct.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Gantz wrote on May. 14, 2020 @ 00:41 GMT
Hi Jim -

Your essay is a delightful, almost poetic romp through the grassy fields of theoretical physics and human psychology.

I do take issue with your breezy dismissal of the "3Us" - as I've discussed in my essay, I see them as a feature of reality, not a bug. Something our human minds are loathe to accept (being the control freaks that we are!).

Best of luck - George Gantz... The Door That Has No Key: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3494

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael Alexeevich Popov wrote on May. 14, 2020 @ 09:07 GMT
Jim,

Thank you for essay. I also had found that UUU problems in mathematics ( Riemann problem and problem of nonexistence of odd perfect numbers) can suggest new (quantum) strategy of resolving.

Best

Michael Popov

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on May. 15, 2020 @ 06:34 GMT
Dear James,

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pavel Vadimovich Poluian wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 06:47 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover!

You have raised many questions in your essay that are addressed to future science. We hope that the human mind will not meet the limits and will develop. We positively perceived your essay and evaluate it positively. We appreciated your essay to the maximum, we liked everything!

We share your aspirations. Successful flight of your thoughts! We think, which means THOUGHT EXISTS!

Truly yours,

P. Poluian and

D. Lichargin,

(Gyan and Daya)))

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.