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

Mozibur Ullah: on 5/23/20 at 17:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Jason, First of all, thank you for your kind words about my essay....

Pavel Poluian: on 5/15/20 at 7:57am UTC, wrote Dear Mozibur Rahman Ullah! Your essay made us very happy.)) We agree with...

Peter Jackson: on 5/14/20 at 18:22pm UTC, wrote Dear Mozibur, My spirits raised on reading your excellent essay, pointed,...

James Hoover: on 5/13/20 at 17:13pm UTC, wrote Mozibur, Vastly underrated so far. An intelligent, definitive and...

Alyssa Adams: on 5/11/20 at 1:09am UTC, wrote Hi Mozibur! I really enjoyed reading your essay! I want to ask you one of...

Jason Steinmetz: on 5/8/20 at 21:06pm UTC, wrote You present a very good argument that appears to be very similar to...

Luca Valeri: on 5/6/20 at 11:13am UTC, wrote Hi Mozibur, In fact it is difficult to find stuff about Paul Lorenzen and...

Mozibur Ullah: on 5/5/20 at 16:56pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thanks for taking the trouble to read my essay. Your...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

jim hughes: "I'm not a mathematician. So what I see here is some smart people who..." in Consciousness and the...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello FQXi, the members and all, I try to do my best to unite and convice..." in Global Collaboration

Lorraine Ford: "The idea of a smooth mathematical evolution of “the wave function”, and..." in Consciousness and the...

Georgina Woodward: "Broken machine: What do[es] I see next? The I that was, E.I, has not been..." in The Room in the Elephant:...

Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is..." in The Present State of...

Lorraine Ford: "We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy,..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "I've copied the comment to the thread where it belongs. This orphan can be..." in The Room in the Elephant:...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you John. What did you think about the questioning whether altitude..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

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.


FQXi FORUM
September 28, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Logics with a Future by Mozibur Rahman Ullah [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Mozibur Rahman Ullah wrote on Apr. 25, 2020 @ 01:32 GMT
Essay Abstract

I argue that the phenomenon of undecidability implies that we should give up the universal validity of the Law of the Excluded Middle and moreover, that logic should be grounded temporally; that time, pace Einstein, is real and that the future is open. Further, that when logic is so grounded, we should also give up the classical notion of a contradiction where everything follows when a contradiction is found - the so-called Principle of Explosion.

Author Bio

Educated at Oxford and Imperial College. Worked as software programmer. Now independent scholar in the Philosophy & History of Physics and sometime poet.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 25, 2020 @ 05:00 GMT
Dear Mozibur Rahman Ullah,

I enjoyed your essay and will have to think about what you mean that ‘logic should be grounded temporally’. One essay, by John Schultz’, suggests that algorithmic logic yields no-go limitations on knowability, but that non-algorithmic patterns might not impose such limitations. I recommend his essay.

I also deal with issues of knowability, even including “what it’s like to be a bat”, per Nagel. I invite you to read my essay and comment. Deciding on the nature of time and space.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Mozibur Rahman Ullah replied on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 22:03 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for taking the trouble to read my essay. Much appreciated. I'll make sure to read your essay properly when I get a chance. I just had a quick look through now and left a comment.

Warm wishes

Mozibur Ullah

Bookmark and Share


Gabriele Carcassi wrote on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Mozibur,

I finally got a chance to read your essay. Very nice! In general, I like topics in the history of science and philosophy so I especially enjoyed the first four pages. The exposition of the two incompleteness theorems was also nice and compact. I always wanted something along those lines as an introduction for students or lay people.

If I may, there are a couple of things I have not quite understood. For example, are future statement an example of yet unknown things? Or you are arguing that they are special? I can state many things in the present that are unknown to me, and I can state other things about tomorrow that I know will be true.

Thanks!

Gabriele

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Mozibur Rahman Ullah replied on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 21:22 GMT
Dear Gabriele,

I'm really glad that you enjoyed the opening four pages. Originally, the philosophy and history part was going to be longer but then I remembered that the contest rules asked for 'rigorous argument' so I thought I should put in some mathematics to show that I know what a rigorous argument in mathematics looks like!

I too also wanted a compact way of understanding Goedels incompleteness theorems as I struggled to understand the details of his work - it's not like I wanted to work as model theorist or logician - so it was a real discovery that proveability theory made the whole thing more focused. In fact, I thought this is the way that they should teach it as what he was trying to say comes out much more clearly.

I'm basically saying that quantum physics is telling us something about the nature of time. A lot of quantum interpretations work hard to remove it - for example Everetts Many Worlds; but I've never been someone who thought twice about the collapse postulate. To me it appeared to be quite natural and it showed that time, on a deep level, is irreversible and this is of course what we happen to know is as one of the key attributes of time. Of course, Newtons laws is time symmetric which should have been one of the first clues it wasn't the full story.

"are future statement an example of yet unknown things? Or you are arguing that they are special? I can state many things in the present that are unknown to me, and I can state other things about tomorrow that I know will be true."

Good question. It probably means that we would need to make the basic apparatus of modal logic a little more sophisticated so that we can handle the difference between future statements that are neccessary and those that are contingent.

Thank you for taking the trouble to read the essay.

Warm Wishes

Mozibur Ullah

Bookmark and Share

Gabriele Carcassi replied on Apr. 27, 2020 @ 13:42 GMT
Dear Mozibur,

>I remembered that the contest rules asked for 'rigorous argument'

>so I thought I should put in some mathematics to show that I know

>what a rigorous argument in mathematics looks like!

I debated the same thing, and then decided not to include it. I essentially took this as an exercise to introduce the ideas we are working on in a light way... I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Mozibur Rahman Ullah wrote on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 23:13 GMT
I'd like to expand upon the point that I've made in my reply to Gabrielle:

In the Order of Time by Rovelli, he writes that:

"The difference between past and future is deeply linked to this

blurring. . . So if I could take into account all the details of the exact, microscopic state of the world, would the characteristic aspects of the flowing of time disappear? Yes. If I observe the microscopic

state of things, then the difference between past and future vanishes."

I'm saying that the collapse postulate shows that it doesn't - that is it establishes a direction of time; moreover, I think some aspect of thermodynamics must hold here too since - although we might model just one particle quantum mechanically - we know that there are many, many more; that's one of the main outcomes of incorporating special relativity into quantum mechanics.

Moreover, I actually think that the symmetry of time we find in Newtons Laws is something of a chimera. This is because by postulating time symmetry we can come up with Newtons theory. Usually, that time is a symmetry of Newtons theory is shown as something that we can deduce. I'm saying here, its actually an input into the theory.

Bookmark and Share

Luca Valeri replied on May. 1, 2020 @ 13:30 GMT
Dear Mozibur,

I just read your Essay with great pleasure. I will give a comment shortly. Meanwhile could you qualify, what you mean by "I actually think that the symmetry of time we find in Newtons Laws is something of a chimera. ..."? And that time symmetry is just an input into the theory. What does follow from that?

Thanks

Luca

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Luca Valeri wrote on May. 1, 2020 @ 16:18 GMT
Dear Mozibur,

I enjoyed your essay very much. The story I heard was the story of the struggle to find the right language to understand and describe quantum phenomena and maybe also a handle on the incompleteness theorems. The language can be found in the paraconsistent logic which can be grounded in the phenomenology of time: factual past and open future.

You seem to take the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Mozibur Rahman Ullah replied on May. 5, 2020 @ 16:22 GMT
Dear Luca,

Thanks very much for your comment. I read it with interest and I'll make sure to read your essay. I've just had a look at it and thought it interesting and well-written but I want go through it a bit more carefully before responding to it.

First, I want to say that the 'story' you heard is on the right lines and you summarised it very well. I liked your term - 'factual...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share

Luca Valeri replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 11:13 GMT
Hi Mozibur,

In fact it is difficult to find stuff about Paul Lorenzen and Dingler in the net. I recall that Lorenzen, for the prove to construct an Euclidean measurement apparatus, used symmetry arguments. That is why I think Weizsäcker's argument is a good one and central to the view in my essay. In the presence of strong gravitational fields the rotational symmetry is broken. This will exercise forces on the stones and deform them while the are rubbed against each other. The constructions will fail. It is not possible to realize concepts independent of the laws that they ought to describe. It is this unity of law and definition of concepts that makes intuitionistic mathematics interesting for physics in my opinion. But then if mathematical operations are equivalent to physical ones, then the laws the conditions under which these laws can be realized, become relevant also for the mathematical structures. Although we would like to think them independently of the physical world.

Hope this makes sense.

Weizsäcker for me is the best physicist who knows philosophy and vice versa. If you want you can look him up a little in one of my essays called Knowledge and time.

And again: Great essay you wrote.

Luca

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lachlan Cresswell wrote on May. 2, 2020 @ 14:20 GMT
Dear Mozibur,

Thanks for a stimulating essay.

In your conclusion you state: “In calculus we have infinitesimals. Newton called them fluxions, the infinitesimal element of change. It is something close to zero but not quite zero.”

It would seem that Newton’s fluxions solve the dichotomy paradox of Zeno of Elea and its extensions, where infinitely many points can be reached in a finite time. The early Greek school of atomism, founded by Democritus and Leucippus, claimed that matter is not infinitely divisible, and by a similar argument, distance in space. Successive division of matter eventually terminates in atoms, that is, in discrete particles incapable of being further divided. Modern reductionism has now been formalised and currently stops at quarks and leptons, but my preon theory reduces both of these further to gimlis, at which stage we reach the bottom of the stack of turtles regarding matter. The only smaller particles are the ginn (aether) which form inseparable force relationships with gimlis (matter). Thus Newton’s fluxions are the best way of mathematically describing my form of objective reality.

You conclude: Thus dropping LEM, far from ushering us into a no-mans land of paradoxical, hostile and recalritant functions, has instead found us, if not a Cantorian paradise, then a Brouwerian paradise of an endlessly open and real future. To this I would respond, borrowing from Wittgenstein “I would say, ‘I wouldn’t dream of trying to drive anyone out of this (Cantorian) paradise.’ I would try to do something quite different: I would try to show you it is not a paradise – so that you’ll leave of your own accord. I would say, ‘You’re welcome to this; just look about you.’” Ha ha. The Brouwerian paradise is my “universe” of ginn and gimlis, that exists only in the now, but promises an endlessly open and real future!

Cheers

Lockie Cresswell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Mozibur Rahman Ullah replied on May. 5, 2020 @ 16:31 GMT
Dear Lachlan,

Thanks for taking the trouble to read my essay.

‘I wouldn’t dream of trying to drive anyone out of this (Cantorian) paradise.’ I would try to do something quite different: I would try to show you it is not a paradise – so that you’ll leave of your own accord. I would say, ‘You’re welcome to this; just look about you.’”

Actually, I think von Neumann had pretty much the same idea. The day that Goedel announced his theorem he wrote to Carnap saying that Hilbert programme was dead in the water and the only game in town was intuitionism, but he didn't like it on 'aesthetic grounds' which for him was the 'key factor'.

I think those were early days, remember classical logic has had a very long innings. Intuitionism by that kind of timescale is barely a child - still, from what I've seen of it, it's looking at quite a rosy future.

I'll make sure to leave a reply on your entry.

Best

Mozibur Ullah

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on May. 4, 2020 @ 13:41 GMT
Dear Mozibur,

You presented a very interesting essay in the spirit of a deep Cartesian doubt, with historical analytics of the development of science and philosophy, important ideas and conclusions to overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science.

Morris Kline in "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" showed well the entire hundred-year-old...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Mozibur Rahman Ullah replied on May. 5, 2020 @ 16:56 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for taking the trouble to read my essay. Your comments are very much appreciated.

What Zenkin has to say about our current zoo of logics is very appropriate (there is an even bigger zoo in algebra and please don't mention geometry) ... Still, one musn't mistake the many variations of a theme for the theme itself and this, in my reading was the rebirth of logic, in the early 20C.

It was ripe for a rebirth as Hegel himself didn't think much of logic. He said, philosophy is always leaping ahead and logic is always limping far behind ...

I can't say that I'm keen on what is now known as the philosophy of science. It feels rather narrow and constraining. I much prefer the ancients, they had a much broader view. Aristotle not only wrote on physics and logic, but also on poetry, politics and how to lead the good life.

It's advice we could all do with following to find the flourishing life (and a flourishing planet).

Warm Regards

Mozibur Ullah

Bookmark and Share


Jason W Steinmetz wrote on May. 8, 2020 @ 21:06 GMT
You present a very good argument that appears to be very similar to my own essay. Hence, I will proceed by contrasting our approaches.

Since you referred to the sacred texts I will begin by pointing out that both (the psychologist) Carl Gustav Jung and (the Egyptologist) R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz made the case that the story of Genesis refers to the awakening of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Mozibur Rahman Ullah replied on May. 23, 2020 @ 17:21 GMT
Dear Jason,

First of all, thank you for your kind words about my essay. They were appreciated.

I haven't read anything by Jung, although I did mean to once. I found his notion of archetypes intriguing. Indeed, I think I read once, somewhere, that the myth of Prometheus, was also a story about the awakening consciousness of man. However, perhaps because I am older (but not necessarily wiser), I'm more apt to return to my own religious roots and read the sacred texts, as they were originally intended, as a gateway into a more numinous realm; although, admittedly, with my scientific training, and the kind of secular world we live in now, that is not always easy.

I also appreciate your honesty in your assessment of the progress you have made on creating the kind of language you are hoping for. I think this is often true for any task that is worth the trouble of doing well. Often it is one step forward, two steps back, and then a third step sideways.

I think this is the same task that Liebniz embarked on. So you have illustrious predeccessors. My own take on this, is that modern scientific language is the language in which to express such objective propositions about the world. Nevertheless, because we are human, because we are many, and thinking is diverse and plural, such a language is likely never to be uniform. My own experience of mathematical language, which many people take to be uniform, I find is often shot through with many discontinuities, and I so often wished that people would stick to a uniform notation!

Warm wishes,

Mozibur Ullah

Bookmark and Share


Alyssa Adams wrote on May. 11, 2020 @ 01:09 GMT
Hi Mozibur!

I really enjoyed reading your essay! I want to ask you one of my favorite questions: Do you think the only entity in the universe with access to complete information about the universe is the universe itself? I wonder this myself, since it seems like a trivial result, but then the subset of universe minus a single atom would probably have access to complete information too (since the universe could use probably deduce the movement of the lone atoms based off the interactions it has with other, known atoms).

Just curious to know what your thoughts are!

Cheers!

Alyssa

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 13, 2020 @ 17:13 GMT
Mozibur,

Vastly underrated so far. An intelligent, definitive and entertaining discussion of the ambiguities and the certainties of our difficult subject. Your adventure into being a bat is not only humorous and clever, but instructive.I go for the endlessly open and real future too: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3396. My rating is your 8th.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 14, 2020 @ 18:22 GMT
Dear Mozibur,

My spirits raised on reading your excellent essay, pointed, out by another who saw our theses matched. You do a far more comprehensive job than me in demolishing the indivisible atom and Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM), but I focused on explore the important consequences of a replacement 'Law of the reducing middle', a Gaussian or sine curve, which I proposed 3 essays ago.

I also suggest more than just 'time' falsifies the Law of non contradiction (LNC). If Aristotles 'sea battle' had involved just 3 boats against 3, or 1 vs 1, or a 3/5ths each fleet, would it have been that 'battle'.

I'd also proposed the very concept of the = sign is flawed, and the root of the problem, by pointing out that everything observable in the universe is different!, a proposition nobody[/] has yet falsified! The consequences, when tested in physics, have proved to have a massive resolving power across all physics, shown in my last few essays & papers and reviewed this year. The last paper (see refs) effectively used Newtons 'fluxion' as the Wilczec 'Higgs Condensate' particle, now well rationalised in Wolfram et al's seminal new paper here; (maybe best read from p360 on). arxiv.org/abs/2004.08210

I think and hope you'll appreciate my essay as much as I appreciate yours. I note our scores are close, and doubtless yours had received some 1 scores as mine has (or if not it probably will!) so I suggest a pact and mutually high scores. But please do read mine and give your views and comments.

Very best.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pavel Vadimovich Poluian wrote on May. 15, 2020 @ 07:57 GMT
Dear Mozibur Rahman Ullah!

Your essay made us very happy.)) We agree with many of your theses. We evaluate it by the maximum possible rating of 10 points. We also believe that understanding time depends on logical principles. Therefore, we propose introducing some new principles for understanding time, which will allow us to understand in a new way both classical logic and set theory.The following definitions are given: 1) there is a set that we call "Time"; 2) this set consists of an infinite number of individual elements, which we call "Moments"; 3) all elements of a given set have a peculiarity: if one element is REAL, all other elements of the set are UNREAL; 4) we will call sets of this type – "AREAL SETS". It was found that the elementary areal relation is a logical law of contradiction: statements A and NOT-A together form an areal set of two elements. Formulating the law of contradiction, Aristotle and all the logicians after him constantly emphasized: there cannot be A and NOT-A in the same respect at the same TIME. We propose to rearrange the emphasis: in our formulation, AREALITY is a special logical relation that can simulate natural Time. The new model defines the time order in the form of definite characters’ sequence. The proposed ontology is related to the definition and introduction of the digital physics paradigm.

We hope that our approach will be useful to you.

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

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.