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

Stefan Weckbach: on 11/30/20 at 7:46am UTC, wrote Dear Georgina, thanks for your notifictation. I will certainly study the...

Georgina Woodward: on 11/30/20 at 2:03am UTC, wrote Here is the paper at viXra Explaining Results of Stern Gerlach Apparatus...

Georgina Woodward: on 11/30/20 at 1:59am UTC, wrote Here is the paper at viXra Explaining Results of Stern Gerlach Apparatus...

Georgina Woodward: on 11/5/20 at 22:20pm UTC, wrote 2 replies one re. local realism one re. entanglement kind regards...

Stefan Weckbach: on 5/15/20 at 11:16am UTC, wrote Dear Rajiv, thank you also for your correspondence! Best wishes, Stefan

Stefan Weckbach: on 5/15/20 at 11:14am UTC, wrote Dear Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin, i am happy that my essay had an...

Rajiv Singh: on 5/15/20 at 7:55am UTC, wrote Dear Stefan, Thank you again for responding. > But I also see that...

Pavel Poluian: on 5/15/20 at 5:09am UTC, wrote Dear Stefan Weckbach! In our opinion, 10 points is not enough to evaluate...


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: *On The Limits of Deducibility* by Stefan Weckbach [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Mar. 20, 2020 @ 14:04 GMT
Essay Abstract

Decidability, provability, computability and predictability are all instances of *algorithmic determinism*. The crux with the latter is that it a-priori assumes for every mathematically well-posed question that either an answer exists or a proof that the question has no answer or a proof that there is no proof etc. But all of the just listed assumptions are by no means guaranteed to be constructible or to be at all mathematically existent for each and every case. Moreover, since algorithmic determinism is equivalent with the process of deductive reasoning, consequently deciding, proving, computing and predicting arrive at their natural limit when the deductive method arrives at its natural limit. Furthermore the method of deduction is often limited in its reliability by the unprovability of its starting premises. Much worse, for many unprovable false starting premises – for example about some unknown physical circumstances – the resulting conclusions cannot be proven to be false by any algorithmic procedure or physical experiment. Nonetheless, algorithmic determinism rigidly suggests that everything in nature has to be considered as being completely formalizable, despite the fact that this claim already fails when it comes to predict single quantum events. By revisiting Gödel's incompleteness results we argue that the above mentioned failure has its roots in the incompleteness of physicalism, because if physical reality would exclusively only behave due to algorithmic determinism, the latter would determine itself to be forever non-detectable. We further argue that this non-detectability is an instance of Gödel-undecidability, because just as with the latter it demonstrates that only something *outside the system* can distinguish causal-algorithmic incompleteness from causal-algorithmic inconsistency: the latter would render Quantum Theory impossible to at all being predictive whereas the former is merely incomplete due to a filtering-process from outside space-time.

Author Bio

The author's main scientific interests are mathematical undecidability, algorithmic information theory, questions concerning consciousness, human free will and logics. Additionally he is interested in various interpretational questions about quantum mechanics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share


H.H.J. Luediger wrote on Mar. 20, 2020 @ 16:13 GMT
Hi Stefan,

very interesting and well-argued essay! I do, however, disagree with your use of the term 'abstraction'. Latin 'abstrahere' means as much as 'to draw' or 'pull away from something'. We can observe nature as long as we like, but we will find neither impuls, EM-waves nor gravitation in it. These entities of classical physics have not been 'drawn away' from observations but put into them; they are a priori, which means they make observable in the first place.

On the other hand much of thermodynamics and the discrete nature of atomic energy in particular have been discovered experimentally (empirically). The particle nature of e.g. light has thus been ABSTRACTED from measurements. It is merely an a posteriori model over measurements.

So, while classical physics can be regarded to be PART of the world, 'modern' physics is just an explanatory model.

Heinz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 20, 2020 @ 18:15 GMT
Hi Heinz,

thanks for your comment! When using the term 'abstraction' i refer to something other i do abstract from in the first place. Would i not conclude that there has to be a metaphysical realm beyond physicalism and determinism, i couldn't refer to our world as being an abstraction of that metaphysical realm. But as you read, by assuming the existence of such a realm, the physical world becomes a kind of abstraction for me and i tried to justify this induction with several examples in the essay.

Anyways, thanks for your feedback which is always appreciated!

Best wishes,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 20, 2020 @ 16:14 GMT
Hello Mr Weckbach,

I congratulate you for a relevant general essay. You have well detailed and extrapolated the works of Godel also. The incompleteness theorems of Godel and the axiomatic system for basis arythmetic are indeed essential and can be correlated with our physics in fact because we have a kind of convergence between the partitions in physics and maths. That implies a kind of unpredictability indeed and uncomputability just because we are simply limited in knowledges, we don t know mainly the mathematical and physical objects nor the main philosophical cause of our universe and this is trua at all scales , quant or cosmol. That implies a kind of humility when we study our physics and maths, and that implies also a kind of prudence when we extrapolate this general philosophy , we cannot affirm simply in resume when we are not sure or that we have not proved generally speaking. It d be very vanitious even to pretend that we have all understood and that a TOE exists, we have so many things to add at this universal puzzle.

If I can like I am curious, could you tell me more about what do you consider like foundamental physical and mathematical objects ? strings or points or others and what is the main philosphy correlated ? is it a 1D main field of a geonetrodynamics and why ? and do you consider an infinite eternal consciousness beyond this physicality or do you Think that we come from the hasard like a mathematical accident from a lind of energy?

I have liked your essay and I wish you all the best in this Contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 20, 2020 @ 18:43 GMT
Hi Steve,

thanks for your comment and your questions. Firstly i agree to all of what you wrote and that a 100% certain knowledge about all these issues is not possible - except as a kind of 'belief'.

Honestly, i have no idea what the building blocks of physical reality are, how and why they work (to the expense that the 'how' can be modelled to a certain extend by mathematics). Since i assume these questions to be not answerable in a satisfying and objective manner, i tried to search for other general patterns that could link logics, mathematics and metaphysics (aka philosophical questions).

I think we are in a similar position as every system would be that tries to explain its own origins. Although a mathematical system isn't conscious but we are, i nonetheless assume - for several reasons - that we, too, are unconscious of many things between heaven and earth and that the fundamental questions you pose cannot be answered by any algorithmic or deductive means (at least not completely). A certain amount of belief will always remain. I conclude that answers to such fundamental questions must be searched for *outside the system* - as was demonstrated by Gödel. So if we want to have more certainty about these questions we must look for some answers outside the system. Since we are practically 'caught' within space-time, the outside of space-time becomes interesting at least for me.

As i already have wrote in another essay, i also take near-death experiences and certain (well-examined) supernatural experiences into account. These experiences are not taken serious by many people and / or scientists, but i think they could open the door for a realm beyond space-time that i mentioned above.

And yes, i believe in a higher entity, traditionally called 'God'. But i excluded such considerations from my essay, because it makes matters much more complicated. One can only begin to include it when one has realized the limits of the hitherto known tools for answering all this fundamental questions. My essay is supposed to show these limits and how they eventually could be linked.

Concerning the 'infinite' part of the consciousness you mentioned, i would say that we really do not know what 'infinite' really means or could mean ontologically. As for now i take this term as a shortcut for the term 'unknown until eventually revealed by God' and i think that fits well into the ancient scriptures, at last the Abrahamitian ones, since one should not facilitate a picture of God - it simply would be false or at least hopefully incomplete - and therefore misleading.

All the best,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 26, 2020 @ 19:08 GMT
Hello Mr Weckbach,

I like how you see the generality of our universe. Thanks for developing and sharing your thoughts. I know that the sciences Community is divided about God.

Personally I consider an infinite eternal consciousness beyond this physicality , a Little bit like Einstein, a God of Spinoza with determinism respecting our rational laws. In studying the philosphy of our...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 29, 2020 @ 09:37 GMT
Hi Mr Weckbach, see this for the quantum gravitation,

take a serie of quantum BHs farer than the nuclear forces,, take their mass , now consider particles of DM cold encoded in nuclei and encircling this standard model and particles, now consider the distances between a relative sphere of quantum BHs and the electrons encircled by this DM and now apply the equation of newton about the force of this gravitation between mass.....see the result …..quantum gravitation reached because the standard model is just emergent and we must take into account others distances and mass .

All this is due to fact that the main codes are farer than our actual standard model, now consider for the formalisation 3 E8 , and consider the finite series of 3D coded spheres, one for the space, vacuum, one for the photons, a fuel and one for the DM, an other fuel cold. Now consider the space and these finite series like the main codes and so see the finite series of quantum BHs…...do you see what it appears in making the fusion of these 3 E8 and their 3D spheres instead of points or strings ?

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 21, 2020 @ 03:59 GMT
Respected Professor Stefan Weckbach,

Wonderfully argued essay please. I just quoted some of your words............Let us now assume that we have a complete list of all things at hand that are impossible to exist. Let us further assume that this list is not infinite and that we have enough time to completely go through it...............

Now the question arises whether is possible form a complete list of all the things impossible to exist? How to do it?

Of-course I made a list of impossible things! in my essay (“A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy”)!!! Hope you will look make your comments please.....

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 25, 2020 @ 17:08 GMT
Dear Stefan,

A very important essay, topic and deep ideas that you give to comprehend, especially in the direction of the deepest metaphysics. I believe that the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science, its metology, is caused precisely by the crisis of metaphysics and ontology. Gödel sought metaphysics in tune with Leibniz's philosophy. He described his views as “rationalistic, idealistic, optimistic and theological. [Wang Hao. A Logical Journey: From Gödel to Philosophy. Cambridge, 1996.].

Gödel believed that in metaphysics there existed such fundamental primitive concepts, the discovery of which would be a genuine breakthrough in philosophy. Godel argues that philosophy has not yet been developed sufficiently to assert something with the necessary certainty. He even speaks more harshly about “the underdevelopment of philosophy at the present stage”. [Gödel 1995 - Gödel K. Collected Works. V. III. Unpublished Essays and Lectures. Ed. S. Feferman. NY, Oxford, 1995.]

I believe that a breakthrough in search of a stronger ontological basis of science, knowledge in general, its boundaries, carcass and foundation will help the dialectic, which for some unknown reason is ignored by modern philosophy of science.

Respectfully, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 18, 2020 @ 07:27 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

thank you for your comment and your appreciation of what i wrote. Thank you also for your citation of Gödel, this is very interesting. I soon will read your essay and if i have something to say, leave a comment.

Best wishes and stay healthy!

Stefan

Bookmark and Share


John David Crowell wrote on Mar. 29, 2020 @ 02:51 GMT
Stefan Thanks for your essay. I agree with he the conclusions of your essay even though our methods to attain those conclusions are very different. In my essay “ Clarification Of Physics: A Derivation Of A Complete, Computable, Predictive Mode Of “Our” Multiverse”, I present the Creation of your ..metaphysical realm” and the reasons for it to work. Successful Self Creation is the processing that becomes the metaphysical result and the reasons for it to work is that it has to overcome entropy in order to emerge from chaos and exist. Also the SSC processing produces and “uses” its own mathematics which “maps” to its processing and results. Hopefully, the mathematical model and its narrative can be of some help in your thinking. Also, I would appreciate your comments on my essay. JohnCrowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 18, 2020 @ 07:30 GMT
Dear John,

thank you for your comment. Honestly i do not think that something can "self-create" into existence - unless something other already existed (entropy, physical laws, mathematics etc.). I nonetheless will read your essay and look what you concluded.

Best wishes and stay healthy!

Stefan

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 04:58 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach,

Your essays are always fundamental and always enjoyable. Your first statement that grabbed me was concerning systems or machines and the “profound limit of their own abilities to deduce something to be ontologically true or false.”

Guthry’s essay; “no amount of computation will lead you to discovery of a pattern that wasn’t in the data in the first place.”

This seems to relate to your: “neither machine nor humans can reliably deduce that certain things exist or do not exist.”

I fully support your conclusion that “the naked act of deduction is really only a deterministic, mechanical process.

You and I treat ontology from quite different directions. I hope you will enjoy my take on a specific problem of ontology: Deciding on the nature of time and space

My best regards to you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 18, 2020 @ 07:33 GMT
Hi Edwin,

thanks for your comment, happy that you could enjoy what i wrote.

I will read your essay and if i have to say something constructive will comment on it.

Best wishes and stay healthy!

Stefan

Bookmark and Share


Member Klaas Landsman wrote on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 17:04 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Thanks for this stimulating essay, which, like every good essay, raises more questions than it answers. The link between deductibility and finite information has also been raised by Nicolas Gisin, and is the topic of the essay by his collaborator Flavio Del Santo in this very competition, perhaps you can read each other's essays and comment. My overall view on this, shared by Gisin and Del Santo, is that intuitionistic mathematics should be incorporated into physics to really deal with these issues. Concerning your own essay I would also make this point: to make your claims rigorous (apart from the ones that are already well argued) you would also need some of the ideas of L.E.J. Brouwer, especially about choice sequences. Otherwise, I agree with everything you write, and you write it very well!

Best wishes, Klaas

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 18, 2020 @ 07:23 GMT
Hi Claas,

thank you very much for your comment and the appreciation for my essay. I am happy if it could stimulate a bit. I already read Flavio's essay and rated it, good contribution to the contest indeed. I do not remember wether or not i also left a comment on the page, but i will soon check that to also give my appreciation about what i read in the essay.

Unfortunately i am not into intuitionistic mathematics, i googled choice sequences and the point seems to be to me that Brouwer aimed to limit or redefine the use and definition of infinities in maths. This surely would be along with my own lines of reasoning.

Wish you best of luck in the contest and stay healthy!

Stefan

Bookmark and Share


Christian Corda wrote on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 08:21 GMT
Dear Stefan,

For some reason, Lawrence Crowell cannot post on the FQXi and has not been able to do so for several days. FQXi is fixing the problem. In the meantime, Lawrence asked me to post here his comments on your Essay. I past them below. I profit by this email to inform you that I will also read comment and score your Essay soon.

Good luck in the Contest and best...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 18, 2020 @ 07:18 GMT
Dear Christian and Lawrence,

thank you for your comments! I am glad that you Lawrence haven't been attacked by that virus as much as i thought on first sight - keep on regenerating.

I appreciate your deep knowledge on mathematical relations and how you adopt that knowledge to big questions like black holes and the continuum. Although i am not an expert on all of this, i intuitively like your ideas, as mentioned in my comment on your essay page. Yes, i too think that Gödel's and Turing's findings are that deep that even black hole physics can't circumvent them. Therefore i argue that the logical possibility to always extent Gödel-incomplete logical systems - but they never will reach a state where they are completely complete is a hint to something beyond what we know today about the universe, spacetime and how logics is linked to physics and mathematics. My take is that if we do not want to end up with infinities in all directions - mathematical as well as physically - we should consider Gödel's results as a hint that points beyond algorithmic determinism. The problem with this route is that it would then point towards a transcendental realm that could well be defined as something "spiritually" or "religious" and this wouldn't be opportune for the physics community (as far as i can guess). But i think we can't circumvent some "spiritual" component because consciousness simply seems to be of that "spiritual" kind - in my opinion it can't be defined or understood exclusively only be the method of algorithmic determinism and there are many other essays here that assume the same.

Dear Lawrence (and Christian), i wish you a safe and healthy time and all the best in the current essay contest!

Stefan

Bookmark and Share

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 23, 2020 @ 21:02 GMT
I am finally back in action. For some reason I was locked out.

In college I read Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach and I remember I had a sort of reaction "So maybe there is a God." I can't say I lean much that way these days. However, Gödel was somewhat mystical and thought his theorem demonstrated a Platonic nature of mathematics and its relationship with the physical world.

Cheers, LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Israel Perez wrote on Apr. 17, 2020 @ 18:15 GMT
Dear Stefan

Congrats for you essay which is well argued and illuminating, you gave some details on Godel and Turing theorems that are quite interesting for me. In my essay I argue that science is about truth, in yours you seem to imply that truth is an illusion. In my view, as science progresses we are reaching a metastable truth. The understanding of electromagnetic phenomena, light, gravity, biology, condensed matter and nuclear energy are some of the clear examples where we can see some truth.

Good luck in the contest!

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 18, 2020 @ 07:01 GMT
Dear Israel,

i am happy that you found something interesting in my essay. Contrary to your assumption that my essay argues for truth to be an illusion, it argues for truth being something that is real, together with logics. The world is ordered in a mindful manner via patterns and other meaningful connections, and this is reflected by "The understanding of electromagnetic phenomena, light, gravity, biology, condensed matter and nuclear energy are some of the clear examples where we can see some truth.".

Logically, truth can't be an illusion because if it would, this would be a truth too! Every "illusion" - if indeed existent - is a truth (means the existence of an illusion would be a truth). When i speak about "the world as an abstraction" i do not claim that the world has no truths in it, but i differentiate between eternal truths and truths that come and go. If the universe is not eternal, then its truths haven't been around for eternity, but had to come from somehting prior to its birth (big bang etc.).

I will read your essay and if i have something constructively to say will comment on it.

Best wishes

Stefan

Bookmark and Share

Israel Perez replied on Apr. 24, 2020 @ 02:50 GMT
Sounds great; I agree with your view, it seems that it is quite in parallel to the one I express in my essay. I hope you find some spare time to read it, any criticism will be more than welcomed.

Good luck in the contest!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason W Steinmetz wrote on Apr. 29, 2020 @ 19:33 GMT
Since you have read my essay then you already know that we are in agreement, at least for the most part. Therefore, I will skip any minor criticisms as well as any agreements and disagreements so that I can directly address your Conclusions.

You wrote, "But human intelligence can transcend its antivalent logics by inferring that there must be some irreducible reasons for those...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yutaka Shikano wrote on May. 5, 2020 @ 00:20 GMT
Dear Stefan,

I agree with the opinion of your essay. I really enjoyed reading this. This seems to be ironical sense of the data-driven science. What do you think about this scientific style to open the new theory?

While I am studying quantum random number generation, in the context of the hacking of the random numbers, as discussed in my essay, how to show the limitation of the deduction?

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Rajiv K Singh wrote on May. 10, 2020 @ 09:09 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Please forgive me if my comments show the ignorance of what you have discussed. I tried repeatedly to give some ground to what I read, but I do not believe that I succeeded. Also, by the time, I got to the end, I felt, several deductions were on the lines that I thought correct, yet, I decide to log the discussion below.

1. You write, "Because for knowing the existence...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on May. 10, 2020 @ 10:51 GMT
Dear Rajiv,

thanks for reading and considering my essay! I will try to answer what you brought up:

“How does it fair against the existence of consciousness? Must we necessarily know the possibility or necessity of existence of consciousness, before we can have consciousness? “

You eventually misunderstood what I wrote about. I wrote about things we yet don't know if they...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share

Rajiv K Singh replied on May. 13, 2020 @ 08:55 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Thanks for responding.

From your agreement, "machines may become conscious", one may infer that you accept the objectivity of physical function that gives rise to consciousness. And if a process is objective, then it is repeatable, it is same for all, and it applies the same way in all applicable contexts, then its description must be constructible. The process of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on May. 14, 2020 @ 06:48 GMT
Dear Rajiv,

yes, I maintain that consciousness is fundamentally inexplicable, although I well see that many contents of intelligent consciousness are logically ordered. Logical rules, cause and effect etc. for example. I also see that the brain is somewhat related to the contents of consciousness (phantom limbs and other brain experiments!). But I also see that what I wrote in my essay in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Pavel Vadimovich Poluian wrote on May. 15, 2020 @ 05:09 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach!

In our opinion, 10 points is not enough to evaluate your work. We set 10.

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on May. 15, 2020 @ 11:14 GMT
Dear Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

i am happy that my essay had an impact for you and feel deeply honored by your lines and voting - so i want to thank you for both.

Best wishes to you both from Germany,

Stefan Weckbach

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 5, 2020 @ 22:20 GMT
2 replies

one re. local realism

one re. entanglement

kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 30, 2020 @ 01:59 GMT
Here is the paper at viXra Explaining Results of Stern Gerlach Apparatus Experiments with Gyroscopic Motion, Georgina Woodward

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 30, 2020 @ 02:03 GMT
Here is the paper at viXra Explaining Results of Stern Gerlach Apparatus Experiments with Gyroscopic Motion, Georgina Woodward

https://vixra.org/abs/2011.0188

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 30, 2020 @ 07:46 GMT
Dear Georgina,

thanks for your notifictation. I will certainly study the paper in the next few days and if you don't mind then give you some feedback.

Kind regards

Stefan

Bookmark and Share


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.