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

Tom wade: on 8/11/21 at 5:53am UTC, wrote Hi, The abstract he share is worth reading it provides dissertation help...

Paul Butler: on 6/10/20 at 15:02pm UTC, wrote Dear James, The things that makeup the various quantum weirdness concepts...

James Arnold: on 5/19/20 at 2:34am UTC, wrote Thank you, Jeff. I think you're right: Examples are needed! Determinism...

James Arnold: on 5/19/20 at 2:00am UTC, wrote Edwin, I disagree with your disagreement! The wave-function is a...

James Arnold: on 5/19/20 at 1:50am UTC, wrote John, following up, I should have pointed out that I don't I agree with...

Edwin Klingman: on 5/18/20 at 20:22pm UTC, wrote James, I tend to agree with your outlook, while disagreeing with a number...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 5/18/20 at 20:10pm UTC, wrote Hello Jim, Nice essay. Writing for a general science readership and still...

James Arnold: on 5/17/20 at 20:09pm UTC, wrote Hello Peter I've read your essay with appreciation! Jim


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: From inability to facility by James Robert Arnold [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author James Arnold wrote on May. 9, 2020 @ 14:32 GMT
Essay Abstract

Decidability, computability, and predictability are held to be questions determined by our more or less implicit beliefs in the nature of reality. Both determinism and indeterminatism are criticized as obstacles to satisfying and productive inquiry and discovery.

Author Bio

I am retired, a former visitant of The University of California at Santa Cruz.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 11, 2020 @ 00:18 GMT
Dear Prof James Robert Arnold,

Thank you nice essay in simple words where you pored your wonderful experience. Your words.........If there are ill-considered beliefs about nature that render our investigations problematic, misinterpretations and misdirections are bound to result.................. are exactly correct. I fully agree.

I will say we have to think and consider framing rules properly and make our mathematics accordingly. If some mathematical frame work is not behaving properly we have to discard it and try for new theories, which are based on better ethical and foundational principles, what do you say?

Your words.........And a world that is fundamentally spontaneous seems not so alien to a world of conscious beings – beings that can be regarded as highly organized products of spontaneity............................

This point i disagree, I feel macro world or the cosmological world is based on causality. I discussed this in my essay " https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3416 " and gave an example of Dynamic Universe Model developed and used by us for the last forty years, solved many unsolved problems in physics.

I hope you will spend your valuable time to look........

Best regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 11, 2020 @ 16:03 GMT
Satyavarapu, thank you for your comments.Yes, we are in substantial agreement. And I don't disagree that the macro or cosmological world manifests causality, just that it is not "based on." Sperry's wheel, based on random or spontaneous quanta, manifests an entirely causal object rolling down a hill.

I look forward to reading your essay!

James Arnold

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 11, 2020 @ 16:34 GMT
Dear Prof James Robert Arnold,

Thank you for your reply, I am looking forward you to see my essay and rate my essay....

Meanwhile can you please give me your mail Id....

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James Arnold replied on May. 13, 2020 @ 20:36 GMT
My email is swprod@sonic.net

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 11, 2020 @ 17:59 GMT
Dear sir

thank you for reading my essay. Hope you have already rated it, thanks for the observations......

I left a reply on my essay

best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author James Arnold wrote on May. 13, 2020 @ 20:01 GMT
Having read a number of posts mentioning randomness, I realize I should have addressed the idea directly.

Given a precision-made coin-tossing machine and precisely minted coins, placed in a vacuum chamber and insulated from all outside influences, one can get heads 100% of the time. What is commonly attributed to randomness is actually due to interference by extraneous factors – to conjunctive influences.

True randomness would be an action that is un-caused, and if not actually spontaneous rather than random, the absence of a cause would be the best explanation for nothing happening at all. Spontaneity is thus a better explanation for an undetermined event: It is self-caused, neither random nor determined. So as highly organized, essentially spontaneous beings, our intuitive sense of being free (within limits) to choose an action, is vindicated.

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous wrote on May. 15, 2020 @ 16:02 GMT
Dear Sir,

You are right that both determinism and indeterminism lead to contradictions and cannot satisfy the emotional as well as rational intelligence of the human being.

Please, view our essay "New ontology..." We try to apply the algorithms of time projections patterns from the point of scientific scepticism and the deeper reality than we try to cover by simplicity formalisms

Best Regards,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 19:56 GMT
Thank you. I will check it out.

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 11:02 GMT
James,

I found that a beautiful jargon free analysis, right on topic. I also agree with most all. I don't recall if you read my essay last year, but have a proposition for you to consider, which you may be one of the few to understand;

Take your cue ball and a red. Both are spinning on some axis. When they meet there's an exchange of momentum (actually absorption/re-emission, but just think surface rotation).

Now both balls have TWO moment sets, polar rotation, and linear equatorial speed, which change inversely OVER 90oby the COSINE OF THE ANGLE OF 'LATITUDE'. (just like Earths rotational velocity). Just do 3D vector additions, and we have NEW intensity. Then to the same again at the photomultiplier, and we get QM's data output. So you're right, it's an interaction mechanism, which Bohr didn't think of, and it resolves all weirdness.

The problem is those who'se job it is to teach QM are so sold on the weirdness they just reject the possiblity that common sense can prevail!

Of course uncertainty of clockwise anticlockwise goes to 50:50 at the equator. Seeemple!

Thanks for confirming some do believe in causal reality. I hope you get a chance to read & score mine this year, which considers the wide & foundational implications of just that mechanism.

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 20:09 GMT
Hello Peter

I've read your essay with appreciation!

Jim

Bookmark and Share


John Joseph Vastola wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 19:48 GMT
Interesting essay. I see what you're getting at with your point about the paradigm for physics (and maybe science in general) as a world in which one thing's behavior is entirely determined by external influences. In a slogan, we might say that intrinsic properties are meaningless; only properties relevant to interactions matter.

But on the other hand, what should be our conception of science, if not something like that? Maybe I just need to open my mind up, but it's hard for me to conceive of another (equally successful) way of looking at physics. But perhaps you're right that something new is required to understand things like consciousness, which in large part have eluded us so far.

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 20:04 GMT
Hello John

I actually agree, that science should be concerned with observables, and confirmables, but that's my criticism of quantum theory, which took quantum mechanics into an un-scientific realm, opining on everything from multiple universes, the nature of reality, and consciousness. "The collapse of the wave function" as some sort of physical event? That's telling of enthusiasts who are out of their element. My advice to them: Get back to work!

Bookmark and Share

Author James Arnold replied on May. 19, 2020 @ 01:50 GMT
John, following up, I should have pointed out that I don't I agree with "intrinsic properties are meaningless." Maybe that's not what you meant to say. I argue that intrinsic properties are affected by external influences, but they are also self-determining, and it's that aspect that even quantum theory fails to appreciate -- hence the reduction to "randomness."

Bookmark and Share


Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 20:10 GMT
Hello Jim,

Nice essay. Writing for a general science readership and still being able present a clear theme is the biggest challenge and you have met that challenge. I would suggest that you use more examples, but my writing style is example heavy. Macroscopic irreversibility in thermodynamics (entropy) could be considered a strong argument against determinism that is not on the quantum scale.

Sincerely,

Jeff Schmitz

P.S. If Occam were alive today would he use an electric razor?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on May. 19, 2020 @ 02:34 GMT
Thank you, Jeff. I think you're right: Examples are needed!

Determinism describes a world that is. The human ability to say "no", "that's not enough", "that's wrong", "this would be better" is to negate. And a world where negation is even possible is a world that cannot be fully determined. Because a world that simply [/]is could not be even conceived as other than what it is. Ultimately, to believe in determinism despite the existence of negativity, creativity, values, etc. is to engage in magical thinking: Give an urn of water an infinity of shakes and presto! It's possible to have wine.

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 20:22 GMT
James,

I tend to agree with your outlook, while disagreeing with a number of specifics.

I certainly agree that “if Ockham were alive today he might be incited to mayhem” by the Multiverse.

Unlike you, I do believe that the wave function is physical, as Bell described deBroglie-Bohm. I see it as induced by momentum density (mass current) and as self interacting. Hence one free particle is essentially deterministic, traveling soliton-like, whereas many particles interacting with each other’s fields and fields with themselves are effectively non-deterministic, requiring statistical treatment.

In the same way, one ‘spin’ is actually a 3D entity, whereas many spins in magnetic domains line up in a manner reasonably described as ‘qubits’, a math projection, not a physical reality.

By formulating Stern-Gerlach as qubit-based, Bell derived the ridiculous ‘entanglement’ whereas a classical-like treatment of 3D spin in an inhomogeneous magnetic field yields exactly the correlation that Bell claimed was impossible, while reproducing the distribution of states seen on the famous postcard to Bohr.

In short, single particles are well-behaved (deterministic) whereas many particles and associated fields interacting nonlinearly effectively yield ‘spontaneity’ for all practical purposes.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author James Arnold replied on May. 19, 2020 @ 02:00 GMT
Edwin, I disagree with your disagreement! The wave-function is a description of the effects of conflicting, more-or-less independent influences. The wave function is a mathematical function. It doesn't produce anything like a "collapse", it describes a range of probabilities that may culminate in an actuality.

Bookmark and Share


Paul N Butler wrote on Jun. 10, 2020 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear James,

The things that makeup the various quantum weirdness concepts in physics today have come about due to a lack of information about the structure and internal operations of things at the smallest level, such as field, energy photon, and matter particles. Man has always desired to believe that all matter should behave like the solid billiard balls that you mention in your paper. ...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Tom wade replied on Aug. 11, 2021 @ 05:53 GMT
Hi,

The abstract he share is worth reading it provides dissertation help to many researchers like myself.

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.