Flavio, whether interpretation is at the core of science is debatable. I agree with you. I think it is our explanatory frameworks that let us make sense of the world, whether true or not -and science is about (or at least in my opinion should be about) understanding not just data collection and calculation. Mathematics in physics seems to be elevated in importance in contrast to your view, as mere aesthetics. I think its place is somewhere in between. A theory should be able to be represented with mathematics, which as well possible utility allows another kind of evaluation. Gedanken experiments also help convey ideas and can provide check-able mathematics.

Re. Using observation as "the ultimate judge of the truth of an idea" (as you say). It does not work for Relativity because the error is in the a priori structure used to evaluate the results. What is being investigated is already assumed as causal and not consequence of what has happened to the EM signals. An example: Gravity probe B (operational 2004-11.) Testing " 1) the geodetic effect--the amount by which the Earth warps the local spacetime in which it resides; and 2) the frame-dragging effect--the amount by which the rotating Earth drags its local spacetime around with it." NASA, Gravity probe B in a nutshell, Nasa.gov pdf. Predictions of the theory confirmed. Though the predictions are confirmed it does not mean the spacetime explanatory construct is correct. The effects on the signals received by the telescopes can appear to corroborate external spacetime curvature, Yet the apparent spacetime is the consequence of what has happened to the light and not cause of the effect. Observation is not in this case the ultimate judge of truth. It is unintentionally deceptive.

Which is to make my point that, in a way, to emphasize experimentation over all other kinds of evaluation is also another kind of bias. Re pretty statements... to be science they must be scrutable and vulnerable to disproof in some way, not necessarily by experiment. Self consistent but irrefutable statements are not in themselves science but an explanatory framework may require some philosophical foundations that are accepted as necessary for comprehension.

This is just meant as food for thought. Not in any way as a disrespect for the views expressed or the devaluation of the essay. Kind regards Georgina

Flavio,

Given, critical arguments by Alan Kadin, Declan Traill, Peter Jackson, Robert McEachern, Joy Christian, and perhaps others too are not entirely wrong altogether, shouldn't you then be ready to go back and question "those important results, so far very well established, on the fundamental difference between quantum and classical physics" and find whatever it is, whatever alternative insight will replace them?"

I doubt that Schulman was correct when he localized the border between micro and classical physics in terms of a length.

Again, did you try 1609.0129 instead of 16009.0129?

Still courious,

Eckard

Dear Flavio Del Santo and Dr. Chiara Cardelli,

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

I'd like to thank Chiara Cardelli and Flavio Del Santo for their very interesting paper, which, in spite of the narrow limits imposed by the rules of the contest, made me think about the delicate problems concerning the foundations of scientific knowledge.

My score is 'only' 9, because I would not take for granted the definitive failure of reductionism.

As a matter of fact, in the History of Scienze, great processes of unification - and then ultimately of reduction - are rare, but revolutionary: Newton's apple, which 'downgraded' heavens to the Earth and promoted the Earth to heavens, and the atomic theory, which reduced (in the strongest sense which physicism attributes to this word) the entire chemistry to the physics, are not processes of reduction?

Leopoldo Tansa

    • [deleted]

    • Post #41

    Dear Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli,

    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 Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli,

    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 Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli,

    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 Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli,

    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 Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli,

    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 Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli,

    You wrote in the Abstract: "Commonly accepted views on foundations of science, either based on bottom-up construction or top-down reduction of fundamental entities are here rejected." Unfortunately, this poor English language translation am incoherent. Real science could only have one single real foundation. It follows that real scientists ought to know what the real fundamental foundation of real science am. The mysterious anonymous folk you mention that seem to have formed some sort of common viewpoints apparently know next to nothing about reality. Please try to get a better translator.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Dear Mr. Tansa,

    thank you very much for your appreciation and comments.

    Indeed you are right; surely scientific progress has benefited by reductionism in many instances, and you recalled a few of them. In our essay we do take for granted an euristic power of reductionism. However, ehat we wanted to point out is that reductionism (and even more its stronger form of physicalism) is not necessarily the best research program to be pursued, because it can prevent us from approaching theories more holistically. And we provide some evidences from the literature of anti-reductionist approaches. It is just a way to think less narrow, that it is in my opinion the way to get towards an understanding of the foundations, istead of merely separate systems in smaller and smaller or more and more (theoretically) elementary components.

    Thank you again, and all the best,

    Flavio and Chiara

    I liked your essay showing the interesting facet of the foundations problem - progress by overcoming older beliefs such as local realism (LR), simultaneity, and one could add belief in left-right parity P (violated for weak interactions) leaving the product CPT as a likely goal of "fundamental constraint" (FC). Perhaps one could also add a prejudice of the "unreality" of wave-function represented by complex and hypercomplex variables separately from (or prior to) Born Rule actualization (psi-star-psi). Protein folding is also interesting--such as left handed amino-acids making right handed alpha-helices misfolding to beta sheets. Proteins have so much complexity that it seems hard to avoid a landscape having many possible energy minima for foldings.

    I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Dear Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli,

    I read with great interest your extremely deep essay on the problem of fundamentality in natural scientific knowledge and your conclusions on a new methodology for finding a reliable support for knowledge, a higher form of a philosophical approach to the fundamental problems of natural science with the aim of overcoming the crisis of interpretation and representation, the crisis of methodology , the crisis of understanding. Great essay. My highest score. Yes, indeed, it's time to "demolishing prejudices to get to the foundations".

    Successes in the contest!

    Yours faithfully,

    Vladimir

      Dear Vladimir,

      thank you som much for your very kind words. I really appreciate them!

      I posted my commments to your thread already.

      I really wish you the best of luck for the contest.

      With my best regards,

      Flavio

      Dear Flavio and Chiara

      Your essay is a very high quality work, mainly as a critique of the physical sciences for determining what is fundamental.

      A very in depth discussion of the Popperian falsificationism, as applied and adapted by physicists in different frontiers of physics.

      It is a very good methodological application of epistemology for "demolishing the prejudices" implicit in the construction and falsification of scientific theories in physics.

      But it ends abruptly without constructing or proposing an epistemological methodology for establishing what is and what is not fundamental in science, avoiding the biases of reductionism and implicitly accepted traditional conceptions. This would have made a superb closing for this essay.

        Dear Del Santo and Cardelli,

        Your paper is very well written. Your focus on no-go theorems with respect to quantum mechanics is a good overview of that area. It is as you indicate the case that modern physics does lean on such ideas. In relativity there is something similar with the invariance of the interval that gives a "no-go" theorem result that information and matter must move at the speed of light or slower.

        These bounds on quantum mechanics and no-go theorems such as no-signaling and no-cloning have interesting analogues with spacetime. For instance we have the no-cloning theorem that a quantum state |П€> can't be cloned in a unitary transformation |П€> в†' |П€>|П€>. This can be seen if we write this quantum state as |П€> = a|1> + b|2> so this cloning is

        |П€>|П€> = a^2|1>|1> + b^2|2>|2> + ab(|1>|2> + |2>|1>),

        but cloning on the basis {|1>, |2>}gives

        |П€>|П€> = a^2|1>|1> + b^2|2>|2>.

        This means cloning is basis dependent, which violates unitarity. This connects with spacetime physics if we assume we have a spacetime has a wormhole. A wormhole where one opening is transformed under a succession of Lorentz boosts or a send and return motion will exhibit closed timelike curves. It would then be possible to clone a quantum state. An observer with the quantum state |П€> will have a copy appear so that |П€> в†' |П€>|П€> if that observer later throws one |П€> into the wormhole.

        The types of spacetime solutions that may exist could then be constrained by quantum no-go theorems and restrictions on quantum measurements. I wrote a paper last year on a correspondence between the Tsirelson bound and the invariant interval of spacetime and how spacetime is built from entanglements. In general we then have that spacetime physics and quantum mechanics are mirrors of each other. The limits in both of these areas are then specific manifestations of the same constraints. It could be that the ultimate foundations of physics is just plain vanilla quantum mechanics.

        I wrote an essay that attempts to look at this correlation between quantum mechanics and general relativity. In part I attempt to look at empirical ways of supporting or falsifying this. At any rate I enjoyed your essay

        Cheers LC

          Dear Mr. Aybar,

          thank you for your comments.

          You are indeed write that we do not propose a new methodology that can open up frontiers even more.

          What we showed is that (1) we should not rely on very intutive thought, that incorporate prejudices, a reductionist approach, and naive empiricism as a methodology. Falsificationism surely brought new ways of testing a new variety of phenomena.

          We will anyway take your suggestion to further develop our ideas.

          Best wishes,

          Flavio

          Dear Mr. Crowell,

          thank you for your appreciation.

          As I state in the essay I strongly believe that results such as no-signaling theorem and its relativistic analogous no-fast-than-light-movement are the most fundamental that we have so far. They might change and be surpassed, possibly in different methodological framework (but who knows?). The fact that such constrains arise from different theories, are surely a fuerther evidence of fundamentality, in my opinion.

          I was not aware of the connectionof no-cloning with relativity that you point out. I will have a look at it.

          I look forward to read your essay. Very many thanks once again for your kind remarks.

          I wish you success,

          Flavio

          Chiara and Flavio

          Your idea that we should look for very basic assumptions and prejudices is in good agreement to my article. I regard the confusion in physics to be started before Einstein and even before Lorentz and in reality due to Stokes.

          I therefore think that it would be very interesting to here your opinions about my article. So, I hope that you will take a look at Fundamental Errors in Physics.

          Regards from ______________ John-Erik Persson