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

Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 1/8/10 at 17:29pm UTC, wrote Gagandeep and George: George, you previously said to author Gagandeep: " ...

Narenadra Nath: on 11/2/09 at 12:28pm UTC, wrote i liked your response when you said that chaos is only apparent , as...

Edwin Klingman: on 10/30/09 at 1:12am UTC, wrote Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia, I too enjoy a discussion on the relation...

Gagandeep Bhatia: on 10/29/09 at 17:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman, Good to see your comment. I have always wanted...

Edwin Klingman: on 10/24/09 at 20:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia , Thank you for your compliment, "I tried to...

Peter Jackson: on 10/24/09 at 14:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Gagandeep Much underrated, I've tried to up it a bit to what it...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/24/09 at 12:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia, I have always thought that the chaos was a...

Gagandeep Bhatia: on 10/23/09 at 19:27pm UTC, wrote Dear George Schoenfelder, The basic pure sciences seem to follow the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Robert, thank you. I now understand the difference between decisions and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Making a decision, means selecting between discrete, a priori established..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." 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 15, 2019

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Physics and limits of Human Thought by Gagandeep Singh Bhatia [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Gagandeep Singh Bhatia wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 21:44 GMT
Essay Abstract

The essay aims at analyzing possibilities in physics, like – How much is the development of physics aided or hindered by the human thought process? Should we ever expect to understand the nature in its entirety? Is mathematics really the natural tool for a physicist or just a beautiful well-fit mind-nature analogy? Each question posed follows an explanation, and later an attempt to find answers. The essay will at times pose open-ended questions which are expected to help realize the limitations of human thought.

Author Bio

Gagandeep Singh Bhatia is a Computer Science Engineer (from Kanpur, India) with interest in Cosmology. Having received his degree from Kanpur University (also known csjm univ.), is currently working independently.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 13:09 GMT
Hello dear Mr Gagandeep Singh Bhatia ,

Nice to know you.

Your essay was a pleasure to read .

You know ,I was always been fascinated by your country .I see in the sciences researchs ,a spirituality and an universality .It's important for the evolution of sciences in an universal point of vue where the unified correlations are a reality beween them .

Good luck for the contest.

Best Regards

Steve.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra nath wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 07:25 GMT
Dear gagandeep,

the simplicity of your arguments in the essay sre compelling me to wonder how you are an Engineer and not a fundamental philosopher. You have put things objectivity in the way that you remained attached to the subject but appeared detached from it personally. it is a quality that is much desired to be objective in one's appraoch. i also wonder why Physicists these days mainly go on harping on developments in purely mathematical form. Hardly any one tries to present the conceptualisation aspect and appraoch experimentalists posing a specific experiment to them. Mostly one is happy with the newere and newer mathemaitical treatment one is using to tackle a problem in Physics.

I saw the only other comment made on your forum by Steve, who clearly indicates that it has something to do with us being from India. It is a profund statement that we need to really look into deeply and objectively. The subjectivity needs to be tackled correctly.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


anonymous wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 13:23 GMT
gud to read but naive...

your friend

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


NN wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 03:25 GMT
Anonymity is there if one has something to hide. friends do not need to hide as that reduces trust. Be frank and no right thinking person can mind the same.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Gagandeep Singh Bhatia wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 08:26 GMT
Dear Mr. Steve Dufourny,

Universality is really what sciences vouch for. After all, the ultimate reality has to be universal.

Nice to see your comment too. It will motivate me.

Thanks and regards,

Bookmark and Share



Author Gagandeep Singh Bhatia wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 08:35 GMT
@ Narendra Nath

Though an engineer, I have always been fascinated by theoretical physics. This fascination only grew more as I got short-term exposure to astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology, particularly at IUCAA, pune last year. Few of the ideas in my essay, I developed as an undergraduate student. They would have remained in my brain to no end, but FQXi provided me the right topic and opportunity to present it to the community.

Mathematics has really done wonders to both experimental physics (by providing accurate calculations), and theoretical physics (by providing concise tools to handle theories). But the important message is to question the very basic assumptions, that sometimes are taken to be obvious even in the simplest of physical theories.

Thanks for analysis,

With regards

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 22:48 GMT
Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,

I have read and enjoyed your essay. In this comment I will attempt to link some of your ideas to some of my own.

You state that:

"The relation between physics and human consciousness may never be fully answered (due to the fact that it is "all in the brain"), but understanding the limitations of brain as a thought machine will help realize the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 16:00 GMT
Hello Gagandeep Singh Bhatia ,

Edwin Eugene Klingman ,Narendra Nath

I am very happy ,thanks a lot .Me too that motivates me ,the synergies are so important .

Dear Narendra ,of course .It will be a honor .The united is so essential in an universal love .

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 07:06 GMT
Gagandeep Singh Bhatia:

As many others above, I liked your essay a lot and also find it similar to some of the ideas I expose in my essay. -would be glad to have a comment from you since I also live from computer science-

I find it interesting many of the discussions circulate about the existence of a TOE . Positions varing from for example Mr Edwin Eugene Klingman who propouses one -very good one, by the way- and Giovanni Amelino-Camelia who basically argues there will not be a TOE. It's fun the way computers work today and an understandable human error brought the disscussion to your place.

I find possible for a TOE to exist, in the sence there could be a relativly small amount of basic components (axioms) and some rules of tranformation that produce everything. Nevertheless I do not think we -our brains- are capable of really UNDERSTAND all. How is it that we think? How does DNA produces what each of us is? Etc...

What do you think?

Best...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Schoenfelder wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 03:44 GMT
Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,

I applaud your first sentence of “All…physics is…human thought.” I very much liked your essay because I have been thinking along those same lines for many years now.

In this regard, recently the greatest breakthrough of physics is the overwhelming evidence that proteins build and operate the human brain from egg and sperm to grave. (If you have a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Gagandeep Singh Bhatia wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I tried to keep my essay open-ended so as to foster linking of ideas such as yours (as in 'consciousness field'). It is a thought-provoking idea.

A very important point that is hidden in your comment above is the distinction between counting and measurement. Counting is a sub-set of measurement. Counting, being a discrete procedure, is based in natural numbers. It is the basis of quantization. Measurement, on the other hand, may be discrete or continuous, but usually made to be discrete by the limits of accuracy of our experimental systems. Hence measurement is based in the set of real numbers. To clarify further, what I want to imply here is the type of physical quantities, and their measurements.

Please excuse me for late reply.

Regards,

Gagandeep Singh Bhatia

Bookmark and Share



Author Gagandeep Singh Bhatia wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 18:36 GMT
Hello Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud,

Your comment raises a very important point of distinction between the existence of ToE and process to 'understand all'. A ToE aims at explaining our observations, suggesting what can and cannot exist, etc. On the other hand, to 'understand all', one has to justify that why such a ToE exists, and its laws fallowed by physical system.

Please see my next comment too.

Regards..

Bookmark and Share



Author Gagandeep Singh Bhatia wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear George Schoenfelder,

The basic pure sciences seem to follow the following order of theoretical dependency --

(Maths (Physics (Chemistry (Biology) ) ) )

This implies, for instance, that all chemical systems have to be based on physical systems, but not necessarily vice-versa. This is to say in support of your comment "we physicists .. are biologists by default", with due respect to people of both fields.

Also, the question that whether 'universe's fundamental operating system' is organized or chaotic cannot be answered conclusively without an approved ToE. Till then the question will remain open-ended. There is a fine line too, between chaos and organization. What might seem apparently chaotic may be organized underneath and vice-versa. A mathematical analogy is seen in Mandelbrot set as in fractals.

Thanks and Regards..

Gagandeep Singh Bhatia

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 12:17 GMT
Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,

I have always thought that the chaos was a human invention ,like some other imaginaries or human extrapolations without limits and walls of perception.

I see the chaos like a simple very short moment ,due to the relativity .

We see the chaos only in an instant foto in fact.

But what I find relevant and fundamental is the process where the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 14:25 GMT
Dear Gagandeep

Much underrated, I've tried to up it a bit to what it deserves.

I think my own offering here helps to prove you correct, and I think you're one of the few who may really understand it. If you have time check out; 'Perfect Symmetry'.

All it neeeds is some maths!

Best of luck

Peter Jackson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 20:05 GMT
Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia ,

Thank you for your compliment, "I tried to keep my essay open-ended so as to foster linking of ideas such as yours (as in 'consciousness field'). It is a thought-provoking idea." I believe that your approach is well taken and is to be recommended.

You state that: "A very important point that is hidden in your comment above is the distinction between...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Gagandeep Singh Bhatia wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 17:54 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Good to see your comment. I have always wanted a discussion on the relation between counting and measurement. Below is the reason that led me to initiate so -

Let me assume (unless a ToE is approved) that there is one physical property that cannot be quantized. Now say the property takes all values within a finite real range [a,b] for a system....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 01:12 GMT
Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,

I too enjoy a discussion on the relation between counting and measurement.

You assume that "there is one physical property that cannot be quantized. Now say the property takes all values within a finite real range [a,b] for a system. Irrespective of the scale or unit of measurement, or the size of the range, there will be uncountable values of the property, containing both rational and irrational(subset of real) number multiples of the chosen unit. These irrational values (or real) will always remain independent of the choices."

I accept the premise, but you are describing the physical property only. There must also be a measurement apparatus. And such measurement apparatus must, in the final analysis, be constructed/composed of some physical entity. If you can use a single electron or even a neutrino as the measuring device, this is still a discrete phenomenon. And to actually meaningfully count events will take more than one. Even if the count is based on 'exposed' atoms of film, there is a minimum discrete unit of exposure, ie, one atom. In most cases, there is a threshold event which 'triggers' a counter, and the counts are discrete, leading to the question, "Why would one insist that measurement is not based on integer multiples of the most smallest measurable unit?"

You say because -

"Measurement is discrete if a single value is concerned as we can always define a new scale to avoid irrational values. If we consider an entire continuous range above, we are bound to encounter irrational values, that cannot be expressed discretely as they have uncountable non-cyclic digits. This is where approximation/extrapolation play the practical role and equations/symbolism play the theoretical role."

I believe that this too ignores the discreteness imposed by the measurement apparatus. The postulated existence of the continuous physical property does not imply the ability to measure such using real physical apparatus. Until one begins to mathematically manipulate multiple measurements, I do not believe that one can encounter real/irrational numbers. Thus I continue to believe that physics is based on counting, and 'counter logic' produces integers and, per Kronecker, past this point, math comes from man. This is not an argument about whether actual continuous physical entities/properties exist, so much as an argument about the origin of mathematics and its relation to physics.

I hope this clarifies my position somewhat,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narenadra Nath wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 12:28 GMT
i liked your response when you said that chaos is only apparent , as underlying it may well br ordreed. hat goes well with the logic of evolution of the universe. The events happening may appear random but there is an order that follows a logical design.

i would like Gagandeep to provide what he thinks about the sequential emergence of the force fieds, viz. gravity, nuclear strong, e.m, and finally the nuclear weak. Some one said on the forum that may well be the reason why gravity has the lowest strength? May we think, that as new field emerged, part of the role of the previously existing field changed. It is still a mysterious subject to investigate if the Big bang was governed by the Unified potential field that always exist/existed representing pure energy. Only the birth of the first mass starts the physical universe. Then, we still have the distinction to worry about the nature of matter constituting the dominant dark matter and a miniscular visible matter. Why it is so?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 17:29 GMT
Gagandeep and George:

George, you previously said to author Gagandeep:

" I applaud your first sentence of “All…physics is…human thought.” I very much liked your essay because I have been thinking along those same lines for many years now. "

The most elemental/fundamental/deepest way (or manner) in which human thought is [comprehensively and consistently] enmeshed and interactive with physical (and this includes sensory, of course!)experience is the source of our deepest genius and of the deepest and broadest conclusions/unifications that are revealed (and possible) in physics.

This above is in keeping with the FACT that the ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

Essay author Frank Martin DiMeglio

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.