Essay Abstract

A fable about the assumption of forgetting all assumptions. The moral of the fable is left open for reader to fill. Nevertheless the notes and references are important to understand the fable.

Author Bio

Juan E. Ramos Beraud: Bachelor in science studies on Mathematics (UNAM). Studies on Machine Structure (UC Berkeley). General Director and V.P. of Technology of S&C Constructores de Sistemas (a 300 employee IT company). Husband. Father of three. Marathon runner. Friend of my friends. Once a year -more or less- I submit an essay to fqxi.

Download Essay PDF File

Israel:

I've read your essay already. I didn't want to submit any comment until I had my essay published.

Since my essay is up, I will start commenting several of the essays I find interesting.

You'll find some comment on your essay's thread later.

About your comment here and some quick thoughts:

Philosophically I think your essay and mine take quite opossite positions; nevertheless they are so distant they can touch.

A preferred system of reference might be seen as an assumption based on the need of "absolutes". And the only "absolute" I would assume is perception and measurement.

Although, also your proposition on a preferred system of reference can be seen a very usefull tool to calculate things; as it has been for centuries. I will gladly support anything that facilitates prediction. A preferred system of reference is almost always used-needed to create virtual reality when several player-users, each of them with its own VR engine, interact with each other.

Dear Juan

Thanks for your reply. I'll looking forward to receiving any comments from you. I would like to mention only that the preferred system of reference is suggested above all by light.

Israel

  • [deleted]

Dear Mr. Beraud,

I thought your fable about a a smart monkey was fabulous. The moral I obtained from my reading of it was: whatever you do, always start from scratch.

Joe:

I am glad you find my Fable fabulous. -It is a fable after all. Thank you.

Fables, and several other types of literature, are great because there is a moral -interpretation- for each reader.

The porpoise of the contest is to find which assumptions are wrong.

Any assumption might be wrong if not tested, and if something is tested is not an assumption.

So yes, even it is not the moral I thought, what you obtained is a great way to interpret the fable.

As stated in a comment before this one, I'll be sending some posts on the different essays I find interesting now that my essay is published. Your essay is one I've read and I should comment shortly.

In the mean time and as a quick thought I think your essay and mine tend to the same line of thought:

Each human can find her/his own truth, but no one should pretend to have a general truth for all.

7 days later

Juan,

I would say that your fable says to assume nothing and consider all possibilities. In my own essay I cannot claim to do that but do try to evaluate empirical data, even data that is ridiculed.

Jim

    James:

    Thanks for your comment.

    I have read your essay quickly, but I better read it again and leave a comment on your thread.

    Thanks again and good luck.

    Juan

    Juan

    I suggest; "think small" is the lessen to be learned if the smallest answer is always true, with which I agree.

    Indeed it is for this reason I found there may indeed be no moon if nobody is looking. The observer is an integral part of the process, at the tiniest scale, the implications of which far more important than have been realised.

    My essay deals with precisely this. I do hope you can have a go at the kinetic visualization which should bring unification. I too have some fun with some characters.

    So did the monkey find this all before humankind? Would that be a shock?

    Best wishes

    Peter

    a month later

    Dear Juan,

    In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (subject of my essay) the answers to your questions are possible: 1). The universe may be has no acceleration. 2). Time is a construction for measuring of speeds of processes with regard to clocks as a standard processes. 3). The science is developing as living beings, sometimes it stopped then rise again. The limit of science overcoming when civilization change its position at the levels of matter. 4). It is really question of philosophy. As author of the book Osnovy sinkretiki: filosofiia nositelei (The fundamentals of syncretics. The philosophy of carriers) Moskva: Editorial URSS, 2003, 464 p. ISBN 5-354-00375-X, I want say that reality is digital and analog at the same time. 5). Space is modeled in geometry by dimensions for determining of place of a point body. In physics these dimensions may be changed by other variables with the same result. Dimensions of space depend on our approach and imagination. For example may be used multidimensional spaces for describing of reality. See also Scale dimension as a fifth dimension of spacetime. 6). Free will is real or just an illusion at the same time. 7). About single theory of everything. Le Sages theory of gravitation gives a mechanism of appearance of gravitation. At the level of particles there is supposed Strong gravitation , which can explain strong interaction, see §10 of the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm: S.G. Fedosin, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0. The weak interaction in the particles is transformation of substance of the particles in the same way as stars substance transformed under action of fundamental gravitational and electromagnetic fields or fluxes of neutrinos or other particles. Fundamental fields have long distant action but weak interaction always short distant and take place only in substance. All the forces and phenomena at different levels of matter (particle, star, metagalaxy and so on) are connected with coefficients of similarity.

    Sergey Fedosin

    6 days later
    • [deleted]

    Dear Juan,

    I've read your entry. I was rather puzzled until I noticed your explanation to Joe.Now it makes more sense. I'm not sure if what you wrote was intentional- Quote: "The porpoise of the contest is to find which assumptions are wrong." It paints a very bizarre picture in my mind.

    Your point in that post -about the truth as it appears to an individual not necessarily being a universal truth that is applicable to another is good.You could have developing the ideas into a longer essay. Making it more of a quirky and unusual essay rather than predominately quirk without the satisfying substance. I'm sorry if that sounds unkind, its not meant to be. I just think since you made the effort to enter you could have done more.

    Kind regards to you, Georgina.

    After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

    Cood luck.

    Sergey Fedosin

    If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

    Sergey Fedosin

    Dear Juan,

    I found your essay rather unique and with a great sense of humor, which I'm afraid might have gotten lost one some. Also, while the shortness of your essay should have been a boon to the ambitious reader who wants to read all 272 essays, it might have provoked less of a thoughtful response than it deserved.

    I was a little thrown off by the video game bit at the end, but then the point you made to Joe about tested assumptions no longer being assumptions made this perfectly sensible to me. One might argue that there is a lot of richness hidden beneath this statement, as not all tests are equal in how well they refute or confirm an assumption, and not all assumptions are equal in who much testing they require before they are considered confirmed or refuted, but certainly if one can create a faithful model of reality with a simulation then the assumptions underlying that simulation may be considered tested and no longer assumptions.

    All the best,

    Armin

    Dear Juan!

    Serious humor ...

    Properly, begin to answer the questions of fundamental physics to a famous phrase of Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum", armed with the Scriptures of the First Axiom, "In the Beginning Was the Logos ..."

    And "Occam's Razor" is useful in a way ...

    Good luck in the contest!

    Sincerely, Vladimir

      In addition ... the truth about ...

      Alexander Zenkin wrote a good article for thought (and not only for mathematicians): "SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATITSS." He made a good conclusion: "..the truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spetstators" ...

      That is represented, as I understand it, in a simple integral symbol. This is well said Edmund Husserl: "Only to the extent, to which in case of idealization, the general content of spatio-temporal sphere is apodictically taken into account, which is invariant in all imaginable variations, ideal formation may arise, that will be clear in any future for all generations and in such form will be transferable by the tradition and reproducible in identical intersubjective sense "("Beginning of the Geometry").

      • [deleted]

      I rate yours 10

      on 10/5/2012

      • [deleted]

      Moral of the story...you are trying to explain the nature of the Game, when it is nothing more than an Illusion.

      This monkey has an innate curiousity to understand the Illusion, whether it is possible or not...

      • [deleted]

      FRS George F R Ellis just said that many posts on 2012 FQXI contest are trash.

      Stephen Hawking went to China to cheat money and fame. FRS G F R Ellis came to FQXI to cheat money and fame. They thought they could save Physics. Amazing!!

      But they and their assouciates can control physics on Earth indeed.