Essay Abstract

The following article is my attempt to analyze the connotations of the word 'Fundamentality.' I have given as much emphasis to the nature of language and linguistics as I have to our current position as far as the physical sciences are concerned. By the end of it, it is my hope that the reader knows exactly what he is talking about when he uses the aforementioned word, and that the knowledge which was made in him extremely implicit becomes explicitly known.

Author Bio

Aditya Dwarkesh is interested in and fascinated by theoretical physics and analytic philosophy with nothing by his side to guide him on these swampy, unused roads but an immense amount of intense curiosity. He is in grade eleven studying at R. N. Podar Institute.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Adytia,

I found your essay enjoyable.

My opinion is different from yours, as you might like to read in my own essay. For me, fundamentality needs to be rooted in, and discriminated by, the empirical content of theories; it should be related to what we can learn from "nature". However, semantic problems are today overlooked, and should deserve further attentions.

Congratulations for the clarity of your thoughts at such an early stage of the student career, and good luck!

Flavio

    Dear Aditya,

    "Language is what we make it" - or are we what language makes out of us? Isn't language a widely autonomous thing giggling about our attempts to make positive sense of it?

    Heinrich

      Dear Flavio,

      Thank you so much for your response, and your encouraging words! I have posted my own thoughts on your essay in the relevant comments section.

      Dear Heinrich,

      I would say that both the statements you have made are correct. I suppose one can form a (very) rough parallel and say that it is a bit like how evolution shapes society, which in turn directs evolution further down the line. Certainly language determines what we are to a large extent, but it is also true that language could not exist without people to use it: Many have even claimed it to be purely operational in nature.

      Apologies for the typo made in the title, it is supposed to read:

      'Fundamentality' as a Linguistic Paradigm (and Linguistics as a Fundamental Paradigm)

      Dear Aditya Dwarkesh,

      I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

      Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

      Dear Aditya,

      reading your essay here has been a truly refreshing experience. Just now I would like to mention that my contribution to the topic seems to share some points with yours: we both write about 'bootstrapping' and weight on linguistics. To make things clearer I could say that I have reworked the well known Semiotic Triangle into something which is dubbed in the title "A fundamental loop".

      Even if I have perhaps rather strong reservations about your view of the experts' role in determining meanings, your argumentation is impressive as whole.

      Best

      a.losev

        Dear Aditya Dwarkesh,

        Language is your friend; you wield it like a sword. Normally I tend to judge on physical concepts and physical content, but I believe this contest has broader aims. In physics, formal models are supreme, but the question for this essay is more semantic, and beautiful prose is very appropriate.

        Nevertheless, my own essay contains formal analysis. Specifically it analyzes the literary invention of additional time dimensions and shows how this essentially semantic action ricochets through physics for a century or more. Thus words are powerful, especially when called 'axioms'. I hope you will read and appreciate my essay, and I welcome your comments.

        Korzybski reminded us "the map is not the territory." The word is not the reality, but it is the best map we have, particularly when buttressed with logic and math. When words such as "the relativity of simultaneity" are taken as gospel, the integral universe of time as universal simultaneity is fractured, and the effect of this on our consensus worldview is enormous. It is no exaggeration to state that such a fracture is difficult, almost impossible to overcome, and the result is a more schizophrenic worldview, "fundamentally" askew.

        You discuss differences in worldview. Some, as your difference in 'string' and 'fields', are secondary in significance. Others, like our innate sense of time are first-order fundamentals. That is the focus of my essay analyzing the historical evolution of this fractured time and its non-intuitive consequences that come to be considered appropriate. Like many authors have stated in this contest, 'non-intuitive' is unlikely to be appropriate. It is more likely a serious sign that things have gone off the tracks. You imply something similar with

        "...back when quantum mechanics was young and busy clobbering physicists over their heads with the shocks."

        Ninety years would seem to be time to get the train back on the tracks, and enormous effort has been expended toward this goal, but we cannot yet get up a head of steam. Even today respected scholars do not know whether the wave function is ontological or epistemological.

        I very much appreciate your essay and your skill with words, and I hope you will appreciate the ideas in my essay.

        My very best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear A. Losev,

          Thank you for your kind words. I just read your article; I myself am a great admirer of Hofstadter's thoughts, and to see you integrating him and Penrose in the way you did in this context was a great joy indeed! I can particularly see parallels in the wonderful Hofstadarian bootstraps we both have ended up with.

          The lack of concrete answers at the end of your analysis does leave one wanting, but this lack of concreteness may well be what things are actually like-I suppose this is how the physics community felt back when the superposition was being discovered. Having read both Penrose and Hofstadter previously has made it a lot more palatable to me.

          As for your comment regarding experts determining meaning-I highly recommend you read Hilary Putnam's paper "The meaning of 'meaning'" (which I have mentioned in my article) to get a more explicit and infinitely better description of what I am talking about.

          Regards,

          Aditya

          Dear Edwin,

          Thank you for your comment; I'm glad you think so highly of language and my article!

          Meditations on the nature of time have become some of the most important streams of post-Kantian thought. I must say, however, that I do feel a sense of reluctance towards committing myself to time in any ontological manner. Who knows what our perception of it will be after a few more million years of evolution? How different the world (mathematics, science, etc.) and its fundamental constituents must have been when we were all fishes! Certainly I may be wrong and time may be important in a sense that goes beyond evolution and other such things, but I do not think we have any answer to that question yet.

          At any rate, in our current degree of evolved-ness, we can say very definitely that very little holds a position as important as time. With that in mind, I can say with complete honesty that you have made an exemplary analysis in your essay.

          Regards,

          Aditya

          • [deleted]

          • Post #12

          Dear Aditya Dwarkesh,

          In qualifying the aim of the 'What is Fundamental?' essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: "We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.

          Real Nature has never had any abstract finite levels.

          I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

          Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

          Dear Aditya Dwarkesh,

          In qualifying the aim of the 'What is Fundamental?' essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: "We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.

          Real Nature has never had any abstract finite levels.

          I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

          Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

          5 days later

          Dear Aditya,

          being interested in philosophy of language, I found your essay very pleasurable, interesting and well written - it deserves my high vote. I found many interesting points in common with my essay as well, specially when you argument about the relative nature of languages and theories.

          You write that "With respect to a given theory at a time T, its fundamental entities are the elements of a set which is both necessary and sufficient for the construction and explication of the theory in its entirety and does not contain any non-necessary elements.".

          It's an interesting point, but since the properties of "construction and explication" are related to the speakers, it changes depending on them.

          i.e: in a quote like "give me that apple", "give" and "apple" looks more fundamental. But if I've never seen an apple, "apple" is useless and I would require "red thing". If my listener doesn't speak English, I would need different words etc.

          Good luck!

          Francesco D'Isa

            Dear Francesco,

            Thank you for your kind words.

            I too found what you pointed out to be of interest! In fact, I have given this a mention in section 3: "Something to note here is that it is only the proponent himself who is in a position to decide which entities are required and which ones are not."

            Regards,

            Aditya

            5 days later

            Dear Aditya,

            For an 11th grader (16 year old?) you write extraordinarily well! Excellent writing and scholarship. I appreciated your linguistic take on `fundamental' and its association with `indispensable'.

            I will come back with another post if I have something more to say.

            What would you regard as fundamental, from the point of view of physical theories about the universe?

            I do hope your essay will do well in this contest.

            Tejinder

              Dear Tejinder,

              Thank you so much for offering such encouraging words!

              There are a whole lot of extremely speculative fringe physical theories out there that purport to explain it all; excluding those and looking only at the well-established ones, I suppose one could reasonably say that the quantum state (vector) and the procedure for deterministic Schrodinger evolution coupled with the procedure for the (decidedly non-deterministic) collapse of the wavefunction form a powerful trio.

              Many (Roger Penrose and David Z. Albert most prominently) have also spoken of intimate connections between these and thermodynamics (particularly the second law)-but we are now once again inching into the land of speculation.

              Then there also exists the behemoth that is Einstein's relativity.

              Furthermore, calling the state-vector, etc. fundamental itself is a bit of a jump-we do not yet have a satisfactory explanation of how the quantum world gives rise to the classical world, although postulated phenomenon such as decoherence are getting to said explanation.

              My technical knowledge is sadly lacking, so I cannot go into much further detail, but I think we can fairly say that this is a reasonably good approximation (given by a layman) of where our best physical theories stand.

              Regards,

              Aditya

              Chy Aditya Dwarkesh

              Wonderful command over language "`fundamental' and its association with `indispensable"dear Aditya Dwarkesh, I really appreciate it.... Best wishes to your essay.......... very nice idea using English keep it up.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

              I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

              Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

              -No Isotropy

              -No Homogeneity

              -No Space-time continuum

              -Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

              -No singularities

              -No collisions between bodies

              -No blackholes

              -No warm holes

              -No Bigbang

              -No repulsion between distant Galaxies

              -Non-empty Universe

              -No imaginary or negative time axis

              -No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

              -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

              -No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

              -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

              -No many mini Bigbangs

              -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

              -No Dark energy

              -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

              -No Multi-verses

              Here:

              -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

              -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

              -All bodies dynamically moving

              -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

              -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

              -Single Universe no baby universes

              -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

              -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

              -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

              -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

              -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

              -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

              -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

              -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

              - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

              http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

              I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

              Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

              In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

              I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

              Best

              =snp

              Dear Fellow Essayists

              This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

              FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

              Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

              All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

              Only the truth can set you free.

              Joe Fisher, Realist

              7 days later

              Aditya, i really commrnd you for your boldness in expressing your thoughts in a public plateform. My first author too Anil Shanker was just a 15 year old boy without formal education when he gave a lecture on Physics to the faculty at Kurukshetra University. I am sure your talent too will see the light of the day soon. May i request you to look up our essay and comment on the same. I will do the same on your Essay too.