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


Previous Contests

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

Joseph Shulam: on 3/1/10 at 9:59am UTC, wrote The issue of science is and remains not that of consciousness but of truth....

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 12/14/09 at 14:24pm UTC, wrote Daegene and Edwin: When using words like "real" or "reality" along with...

Edwin Klingman: on 11/5/09 at 0:40am UTC, wrote Dear Daegene Song, I enjoyed your essay, but like other commenters, I...

nn: on 10/29/09 at 16:09pm UTC, wrote Dear Song, i see that you claim that observer and the observed has no...

Lev Goldfarb: on 10/27/09 at 13:06pm UTC, wrote You said: “The only thing which I find inadequate in quantum mechanics...

Daegene Song: on 10/26/09 at 14:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Prof. Goldfarb, Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, I would...

Narendra nath: on 10/26/09 at 12:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Song, i sing praise in music for you. After all, all that we perceive...

Lev Goldfarb: on 10/24/09 at 15:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Daegene, I would like to note that, although you are right regarding...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." in First Things First: The...

Steve Agnew: "There are some questions that do not seem to have answers in the classical..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Agnew: "Yes, there are two very different narratives. The classical narrative works..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 14, 2019

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Subjective Universe by Daegene Song [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Daegene Song wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 15:02 GMT
Essay Abstract

We show that, using quantum theory, the subjective experience including that of observing the representation of the universe, i.e., not the universe itself, is all that exists. This is called the 'Subjective Universe'.

Author Bio

Daegene Song obtained his Ph.D. in physics from Oxford University. His research interest includes quantum foundations and quantum computation.


Essay removed by author request.

Bookmark and Share



Lev Goldfarb wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Daegene,

I would like to note that, although you are right regarding the subjective tint associated with quantum mechanics, I would draw a completely different conclusion from yours (that “the universe does not exist! Only the subjective experience does!”). I would conclude rather that the current underlying formalism is *fundamentally* inadequate, mainly due to the flaws associated with the numeric measurement processes.

As I outlined in my essay (see also the link in ref. [15] there), if we switch to a different (non-numeric) representational formalism—though the physics has not yet been developed in it—it suggests a much more satisfactory match between the objective and subjective realities, the match without which the entire scientific enterprise loses its principal value.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra nath wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 12:17 GMT
Dear Song,

i sing praise in music for you. After all, all that we perceive is based on the sensors of our body, the most sophisticated of these all is the human mind. None of us know where in the body is it located. To me it is the awareness / consciousness associated with individual that does the job through interaction with the universal cconsciousness, its own mother. There is no way that we can subjective about it as we ourselves are within the universe and there is no way we can get out of it. Thus, there is hardly anything in this universe that we can visualise outside ourselves! Yes, the creator of the universe may well be partly within us as well as outside us but how to know about Him in a scientific manner is rationally ruled out but emotionally we can sense a non-human Creator without physical form.

As you may not visit your own site to respond to this comment, i wish you all success in winning an award in the contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Daegene Song wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 14:31 GMT
Dear Prof. Goldfarb,

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with you in regards to quantum mechancis. The theory has been tested so many times with unparalleled precision. I believe the theory is correct as it is including the numeric measurement process. The only thing which I find inadequate in quantum mechanics is that it assumes the separation between the object and the observer which leads to two picture formulation which is the fourth axiom discussed in the paper.

Dear Prof. Nath,

Thank you so much for your great compliment. I sincerely appreciate it. It seems we share a similar thought in regards to the universe. I am not completely sure about this, but I do not believe it is just consciousness that exists as claimed by Descartes or Berkeley. I believe the existence is more of da-sein type proposed by Heidegger. Of course, we are not talking about philosophy but about physics. Nevertheless, it is very nice to meet someone having similar thoughts. I also wish you all sucess in winning an award in the contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 13:06 GMT
You said:

“The only thing which I find inadequate in quantum mechanics is that it assumes the separation between the object and the observer which leads to two picture formulation which is the fourth axiom discussed in the paper.”

The reason the “separation” exists is precisely the one I mentioned.

Best wishes!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


nn wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 16:09 GMT
Dear Song,

i see that you claim that observer and the observed has no affect on another as per quantum mechanics. How then we claim the truth about the Uncertainity relation. Implicitely it implies interaction between the observer and the observed through an unseen interaction. The universe seen by one inside the universe can be different from one outside the universe. As we observe one conjugate quantity precisely the other one becomes hughly inaccurate accordingly. The reality is that both have their instantaneous values that we disturb in the process of observation between the subject and the object.

May be i am not perfect in my language expressions.

Regarding the philosophy of Heidigger that youn mention, i am ignorant about it. To the 'creator' of the universe, the opinions of human beings have no relevance or significance. Such things are confined within our circle of humanity, as we live in a world of duality. The creator to me is unitarity itself! Creation is just a part of the Creator, as we all are too!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 00:40 GMT
Dear Daegene Song,

I enjoyed your essay, but like other commenters, I hesitate at the conclusion that "the universe does not exist, only the subjective experience."

For another interpretation that includes subjectivity, you may wish to look at my essay, "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness", wherein I outline an approach to the interaction between consciousness, considered as a field, and the physical world, considered as real, but derived from consciousness.

Everyone here is selling his own ideas, and few are buying, but many are obviously very devoted to understanding key problems, and some help may be available from other essays.

Thanks for your essay and I look forward to any comments you might have.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 14:24 GMT
Daegene and Edwin:

When using words like "real" or "reality" along with other notions/ideas, it is necessary to provide definitions, or the discussion is unintelligible.

Next, thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. Thought, emotion, and feeling are different, and yet they are fundamentally interactive. Accordingly, the integrated extensiveness of being and experience not...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joseph Shulam wrote on Mar. 1, 2010 @ 09:59 GMT
The issue of science is and remains not that of consciousness but of truth. In our modern world it is the issue of "truth" that needs a new scientific definition that takes into account more than one type of truth and there is such a thing as a subjective truth that is no less true for those who are subjectively experiencing that truth. Science after the quantum theory can look at truth from different vantage points and still define truth as something objective and not only subjective in all cases truth must be examinable and evident to all who can put it into the test-tube and loot at it with measurable instruments. Not knowing something does not automatically mean that it is not true, and knowing something without proof does not mean automatically that it is true. Subjective Universe is a very interesting idea and in Judaism we have many such ideas that are as we say "tatrei de satrei." "Renew our days as of old!"

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.