Interesting essay, but I have found something to object:

" forPopper, a statement is scientific if and only if it can be formulated in a way that the set of its possible falsifiers (in the form of single existential statements) is not empty"

I disagree because this misses the important distinction between particular statements and scientific theories. Particular statements are almost always unfalsifiable, to obtain falsifiable statements one needs complete theories, and (if one takes into account Quine's arguments for his holism) even a lot of different theories. Popper has discussed this somewhere in Conjectures and Refutations.

Then, there is no "impossibility of instantaneous signaling implied by both quantum formalism and special relativity". The impossibility is purely relativistic, non-relativistic QM has no limiting velocity.

"Indeed, a theory that would violate this condition allows for instantaneous signaling and it thus would mean a failure of the scientific method as we conceive it. It would be in principle not falsifiable"

This is wrong. Only a particular observation which falsifies relativity would not falsify this theory. The theory could make a lot of other falsifiable predictions. For example, such superluminal signaling would define a preferred frame. A natural falsifiable prediction would be that this is the CMBR frame.

    Dear Schmelzer,

    let me start replying from the most unfortunate of your comments. You say:

    "Then, there is no "impossibility of instantaneous signaling implied by both quantum formalism and special relativity". The impossibility is purely relativistic, non-relativistic QM has no limiting velocity."

    What you say is just wrong. The no-signaling theorem, which I have illustraded in my assay too, is derived ONLY using the non-relativistic quantum formalism. It proves that QM lies within the boundaries of instantaneuos signaling. Your comment that make use of the word "velocity" is obviously inappropriate because it is clear that I never made any claim on speed limits, but on the possibility of having instantaneous signals.

    Also your comments on Popper's I think are based on some common misconceptions, but I will comment separately on them.

    Regards,

    Flavio Del Santo

    Hi Flavio Del Santo

    Hi Chiara Cardelli

    Wonderful demonstration... "how the current scientific methodology entails a certain kind of research for foundations of science, which are here regarded as insurmountable limitations." to get to the foundations dears Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli............. very nice idea.... 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 Flavio and Chiara,

    What a lovely and insightful essay! We have reached remarkably similar conclusions. I have written more extensively in reply to your comments on my essay, "Reductionism Is Not Fundamental."

    A few additional comments: I was especially impressed by your treatment of Bell-type theorems, which you have done very elegantly and philosophically. In addition, I read and studied your arXiv paper on the new no-go theorem, your ref. [30]. It is exactly the type of "outside the box" thinking that modern theory needs.

    And Chiara, your algorithm for the correct folding of proteins is fascinating. It's neat that you can get a reasonable M just with directionality added to the toy blocks. Does adding additional characteristics of specific amino acids, such as the potential for hydrogen bonding, limit the value of M to one or a few "correct structures? Organic and/or biochemists should like your model, for they are adept at playing with realistic toy structures.

    All in all, a very impressive piece of work.

    Cheers,

    Bill

      Dear Flavio and Chiara,

      I very much enjoyed reading your essay. Your grasp of the topic is impressive and your essay is the most intelligent one I have read so far.

      Throughout my years of education in physics, electrical and radiological engineering I have appreciated the fact that curriculum is presented in "a building block" fashion because it is easier to learn, but I agree with you that the search for foundations of science by "decomposition of systems in basic building blocks of Nature seems to lead to a dead end." I guess it is as one would expect. After all, when we stand on the structure of science (which was built on a foundation of these basic assumptions and models), and peer out at the landscape of unknowns and anomalies, it seems insane to chip away at the fundamentals. Doing so would quake the very structure that brought us to the higher perspective. Surely, the brilliant scientists who came before us tested the foundation, so perhaps we trust them out of respect or we fail to challenge them out of humility.

      It is very difficult to publish a paper that challenges foundational concepts without knowing and addressing all of the most advanced theories and claims (I have tried). As you said, "Our fundamental theories look as they look also because they are derived under a certain underlying methodology." So there is a method to this madness and it is easy to be dismissed as a crackpot when proposing a new perspective.

      You pose a very good question when you addressed the requirement to "avoid a violation of the bound imposed by the (finite) speed of light. But why is it so?" Yes, why is it so? The standard (authorized) answer is because the mass of the particle increases to infinity. But why is that? I think I have stumbled on the answer to that question. I can't explain it in this brief post, so I ask that you read my essay, "A Simple Model For Integrating Quantum And Relativistic Physics with application to the evolution of consciousness" and tell me if you think my reasoning is sound on my page. Basically, the reason I think the speed of light is constant is because light is the fundamental reference - the only thing that is not moving. Everything physical in the universe is moving relative to something else. But the speed of light is not relative to its source, which makes no sense if light were actually moving. Do we actually measure the speed of light... or the speed at which darkness recedes?

      Ted

        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

          A brilliant paper, thank you! You have demonstrated a rigorous process for challenging philosophical prejudices (what I refer to as articles of faith in "Faith is Fundamental") with empirical and theoretic falsification. You have specifically debunked the prejudice of non-directionality or, as I put it, the faith in randomness. Interestingly, although you have not discussed it, this specifically calls into question the key premises of the multiverse theory. I agree, and believe that a variety of scientific findings in the past century in physics, life sciences and complexity have increasingly demonstrated a directionality or purposefulness in the cosmic evolutionary process.

          I would suggest however, that there are also logical constraints to the empirical enterprise. There are features of our universe that are self-referential, specifically invoking the logical limits of Godellian incompleteness. Under this constraint, there are categories of propositions that are not falsifiable. Certain things need to be accepted on faith - but we should be clear about our faith and humble about the possibility that we are wrong.

          Many thanks - George Gantz

            Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli,

            Let me ask you about a very specific physics example to see if I am correctly understanding (part) of the intent of your essay:

            Mathematically, regular space (xyz) and momentum space (pxpypz) are extraordinarily symmetric in terms of them being Fourier transforms of each other, and in terms of their importance in physics as alternative ways to formulate and interpret quantum mechanical wave functions. Momentum space shows up powerfully in phenomena as commonplace as mirrors and metals, for which conduction electrons form Fermi seas and are "more" in momentum space than in regular space.

            Despite this symmetry, few physicists truly momentum space as being "real" in the same way as regular space. That is in no small part because we live in regular space, not momentum space.

            For this very reason I think, theory level exploration of momentum space has been less intensive in comparison to regular space. There is no momentum space theory equivalent of general relativity, for example, and even the notion of time gets a bit odd due to energy being the proper conjugate of time for in momentum space.

            A machine intelligence (more my area of expertise) in theoretical exploration mode would not view the situation in the same way, because it would have no inbuilt bias from living in regular space. It would instead take both spaces as equally real views of the universe, an assertion with which most quantum physicists would at least tacitly agree.

            However, for a machine intelligence not interested in time, reputation, or other human biases, it would quickly notice an inexplicable imbalance of past research of issues in the two symmetric space, and then prioritize a major theoretical exploration of momentum space. In that exploration it would initially rely on dualism and complementarianism opportunities to build new ideas on the momentum space. It would use a game theory mode to fit the resulting tentative pieces of theory together into a larger self-consistent structure on the momentum space side. It would almost certainly uncover some interesting surprises during that reconciliation process, including new experimental predictions.

            My apologies for such a detailed lead in, but I wanted to be as specific as possible in building up my example of what I think you are saying.

            So, my question now is simply this:

            Would this analogical expansion of spatial aspects of quantum theory into momentum space, by a machine intelligence with minimal human biases and time limits, be an example of the transition you show in Figure 1 in which the blue oval of doable theory exploration expands until it approaches the oval of red limits imposed by non-human, more fundamental constraints?

            Sincerely,

            Terry Bollinger

            (essay https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3099)

              Dear Mr. Gantz,

              thank you for your kind words.

              I have to admit from the start that "faith" is a word that does not belong to my vocabulary, being the antithesis of critical thinking that should animate not only science but society as well.

              However, I don't want to judge your work on a prejudicial basis, so I will read it and comment on the dedicated section.

              All good wishes,

              FLavio

              Dear Theodore,

              thanks so much for your appreciative comments. I totally agree that it is very difficult to put together a very innovative and critical viewpoint that radically challenge the established knowledge. It was Max Plank, a very conservative physicist (and person) who realised that "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

              I will gladly have a look at your essay soon.

              All the best,

              Flavio

              Dear Terry Bollinger,

              thank you for your interesting comments. However, I don't really see the example that you consider in detatail as very representative of my proposal. It seems that what you are proposing is to switch from a mathematical description to another, but this barely have anything to do with fundamental science. I would also not claim that space is fundamental. My idea is much more based on hypothesis testing and it does not give any importance to the (mathematical, but not necessarily) structure used to describe and predict phenomena to be tested. Actually, I think that what you propose is done on a regular basis in quantum mechanics, when the freedom of choice of the basis allows one to use the momenta or the positions basis interchangeably.

              All the best,

              Flavio

              Fisher,

              is maybe the tenth time you write your more or less copied and pasted sentence (as you did with most of the authors) that has no meaning to me.

              Please, if you really wish to keep posting, contribute to the discussion in a reasonable and constructive way.

              Regards,

              Flavio Del Santo

              Dear Bill,

              Very many thanks for your very flattering words, and all the incisive comments! Thank you also for having read and appreciated our respective works in general, as well.

              Regarding the biophysics part, the introduction of directionality reduces the number of accessible structures M, but it is always the sequence that selects one unique native structure among these. In natural proteins, the extra constraints introduced by the protein backbone, and the hydrogen bonds (our directional potential is alreay the one commonly used to model hydrogen bonds in computational models) reduce M and then the sequence selects one native structure among the M structures.

              I really wish you success for the contest!

              With kindest regards,

              Chiara and Flavio

              Flavio, thanks. Your response clearly answers my main question: I clearly do not have even a clue what you are really talking about! Yours is still one of the most cogent essays I've read here, though. Good luck --Cheers, Terry Bollinger

                Flavio,

                After re-reading your (for me) puzzling response, I should emphasize that the intent was that even for a tool as widely used as the momentum wave function, unconscious biases can inhibit the range of hypotheses generated. I used math symmetries as one of many possible sources of hypotheses, and I used the physics of spaces only as an example.

                Cheers, Terry Bollinger

                Well, I a sorry to hear that you are so puzzled by my essay, which basically makes a trivial point. Scientists believe to use, or actually use (this doesn't change much) falsificationism as their methodology. That is, they discard stateements on the basis of empirical tests. What I am saying is that this particular methodology allows, to a certain extent, to test the fundamental assumptions, which are the postulates of a theory, often coming from a philosophical prjudice like the assumption of determinism, or a strong form of realism. The way one formalises the postulates, being mathematics or not, is not of prime interest here.

                All the best,

                Flavio

                Flavio,

                I'm not sure our views are all that different? What I call foundation messages in my essay (topic 3099), by which I mean the invariant realities imposed by the universe independently of anything we as human think or say, do not seem to be much different from your foundation constraints. The main difference in our approaches is that I suggest using an information-theory approach to uncovering and discarding human biases. That has the advantage of transforming them into "noise" with quantifiable metrics. Human self-examination in contrast is always a tricky business, and I say that as someone who knows the state of human cognition research pretty well (it was part of my day job).

                The best example in your essay of falsifying a philosophical stand is John Bell's inequality. But ironically, in Speakable and Unspeakable Bell asserts that he was able to derive his inequality only through the clarity of thought provided by his own version of the pilot wave model, which was both local and deterministic. Implementation of your strategy thus would seem at least partially dependent on having a vibrant complex ecology of diverse but individually biased researchers with enough enthusiasm (and luck) to create such tests.

                Finally, your paper (ref 30) on one-particle, two-way correlation is pretty fascinating. I gather it requires a conventional c-limited channel to validate the correlation.

                Cheers, Terry

                Dear Flavio Del Santo

                Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

                My essay is titled

                "Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

                Thank you & kind regards

                Steven Andresen

                Flavio and Chiara,

                Certainly we must make clear that searching for the fundamental involves "Demolishing prejudices to get to the foundations." Even the dominate theories like the Big Bang and the Standard Theory must be taken as theories and not override what the process of discovery focuses on as your reductionism and methodology sections point out. As my essay develops I point out the same cautions but not as emphatically as you do. Many times the expectations of looking for habitable exoplanets are constrained by the solar system we know. The Jupiter probe -- I pointed out -- revealed surprises to scientists. Your biophysics sections touched on bio studies that might not have seen the discovery of quantum coherence in warm, wet, turbulent systems such as plants in photosynthesis. Hope you get a chance to check mine out. Your essay rates highly in clearly showing the unencumbered road to fundamentalism.

                Jim Hoover