Dear Ian. In your essay you mentionedEinstein's statement --the eternally incomprehensible thing about the world is its comprehensability. In my essay I mention Einstein's elaboration on that comment in his "Letters to Solovine" New York, Philosophical Library, 1987. From that reply one can see that Einstein considered the conversion of chaos to order (the overcoming of entropy) to be the "miracle" that makes the world comprehensible. In my essay, I introduce a self creating process that converts chaos into order. In its originating process, it created the foundations for the creation of intelligence, the physical world, mathematics, computations, life, humanity etc. - in the originalSuccessful Self Creating Unit (SSCU). Progressive scale-up by self replication and self organization then produced those entities. The point I am trying to make is that the SSC process created everything needed for us to comprehend the universe. You will find mere specifics in my essay. Let me know what you think (leave a comment or questions) and I will respond. John D Crowell

Hi Ian, in your examination of the question of whether a falling tree makes a sound if nobody is there to hear it, you do not examine what it means to 'make a sound'. Is producing pressure waves enough to qualify as sound? Or is to make sound the processing of pressure wave sensory input into the heard experience necessary? Without the decision over what the phrase means it is ambiguous. I'd say the falling tree only produces potential sensory information that may or may not be received by an observer; that processes it into heard sound. Two observers might agree that there is an objective source of the sound, external to them, in the forest. However that objective by corroboration does not mean a true truth value can be given to the 'yes' answer. It only applies if you count sound wave production as sound. If not (sound is heard qualia),'no' has the true truth value.

    Your point about consistency of reality is good. To reality check the second observer must generate the same observation product. Did you see that? may give a negative or positive response, if 'that' is for example a moving hare. Not having seen it does not mean there was not a hare in the first person's viewpoint. A subjective, uncorroborated viewpoint is not necessarily wrong. Replicating experiments many times helps by getting many corroborating results, if the experiment works, which minimizes the impact of erroneous ones. As you point out consistency of the meaning of language is also very important. That is where the issue of ambiguity comes in. The language of Physics does not usually distinguish between potential sensory information in the environment and the product generated by an observer. eg. Light, sound, smell, frequency.

    Hello, indeed it is sure that the mathematics are important and essential like the experiments to prove our assumptions, works, extrapolations, physical works and papers, but they can also imply confusions and false roads also.

    I beleive strongly that the physics are the pure deterministic road and the maths a Tool wich must ne utilised with the biggest wisdom mathematically, physically and philosophically. The maths for me are not the main essence of this universe, but the physics yes.

    Regards

    I will begin by quoting Wolfgang Pauli (in a letter from Pauli to Niels Bohr, quoted from Wolfgang Pauli: Writings on Physics and Philosophy):

    "..., it seems to me quite appropriate to call the conceptual description of nature in classical physics, which Einstein so emphatically wishes to retain, "the ideal of the detached observer."

    It appears that this debate is on-going because it seems like many, if not most, physicists still emphatically wish to retain this conceptual description and call it objective reality.

    You wrote: "If the Principle of Comprehensibility is valid it would seem to imply that there might exist problems that are undecidable for physical reasons. That is, if Wheeler is right and all that exists derives its very existence from "apparatus-elicited" answers to yes-or-no questions, then there are elements of the physical universe that are simply unknowable. Furthermore, the origin of that unknowability is both logical and physical. Some aspects might be unknowable because we cannot construct an algorithm that is guaranteed to lead to a correct truth value for some truth-conditional statements. Other aspects might be unknowable because the universe's fundamental fabric is such that no machine can be constructed to produce a correct truth value for some truth-conditional statements. These are distinct points unless the universe itself is a Turing machine."

    That certainly is the question, is it not?

    You wrote: "Any attempt to comprehend it must necessarily depend on the fact that we are a part of it. Indeed the very act of comprehension is itself a part of it and is thus shaped by it."

    And this is the answer to the question, but is really an answer or is it just an unsubstantiated statement; a means by which to attempt to comprehend reality?

    Certainly a very interesting and insightful essay. My only complaint is that it does not go far enough. I wish you the best in the contest.

      Hi Ian,

      This is the good essay while the essay contents themselves feel to be different from the contest title. I would like to ask you about the relationship between this context and anthropic principle.

      Best wishes,

      Yutaka

        Your central question seems to me among the most important in all of science! Did the universe have to be comprehensible? I don't think it did, since physics allows us to conceive of all sorts of crazy alternatives (many of which do not include us); this makes us quite lucky.

        I also wonder about whether science can really be reduced to sharply worded and contextualized questions. I am inclined to believe that it can, for the most part, but it's hard to think of a way to test a philosophical claim like this.

        Great point about it being important for observers to have some kind of consensus (for example, on the meaning of a question and whether a given test is appropriate for determining an answer); this is something I never thought about before, possibly due in part to physics thought experiments tending to only consider one or two observers at a time. If you had to define scientific knowledge, would it be something like a collection of 'justified' consensus beliefs among some particular group of people?

        John

          Dear Ian,

          thank you for an(other) excellent, very enjoyable essay.

          I particularly liked your lapidary concluding remark "The universe has fundamental limits baked into it. But it is these very limits that allow for the universe to be comprehensible."

          Best of luck for the contest!

          Cheers,

          Flavio

            5 days later

            Dear Jochen,

            My apologies for taking so long to respond. I have been busy wrapping up the semester and trying to hire a new faculty member, all while stuck in my house. Anyway, I agree with much of what you said.

            "But I think maybe that's your point---this analyticity is precisely what hampers our inquiry into 'the things themselves', so to speak. "

            Exactly!

            Thanks again for your great comments!

            Ian

            Thanks for your comments, Jason. I agree that I probably could have gone further, but I was pushing the page limit as it was and had to cut several references just to fit that on a single page. Perhaps in a future form I will expand on it.

            Hi Yutaka! It's great to hear from you! I think the contents of my essay are directly related to the contest though, since I am essentially presenting a physical analogy of Gödelian incompleteness. But anyway, as for the anthropic principle, that's a good question. I do personally think that there is an objective reality outside of human existence and perception. That is, I absolutely believe that the universe will continue to be here once humans are long gone. But I think my aim with this essay is, rather, to say something about the limits of human knowledge, which is entirely different from the limits of objective reality.

            Hi John,

            Thanks for the comments!

            "If you had to define scientific knowledge, would it be something like a collection of 'justified' consensus beliefs among some particular group of people?"

            To some extent that's essentially what the anonymous reviewer (quoted by Eddington) said: science is the rational correlation of experience. But Eddington takes pains to define what each of those terms actually mean and so I think it's important to note that it's difficult to reduce it to a singular sentence. It is entirely possible for a group of people to act irrationally while thinking they are acting rationally. There is a certain level of "good faith" that is built into this entire enterprise. That is, we are assuming that the majority of scientists are acting in good faith.

            Thanks Flavio! Best of luck to you as well! (Your essay is on my reading list for this week...)

            Dear Professor Ian Durham,

            It was a joy reading your essay, and I think your emphasis on how we posit scientific questions, and how it constrains scientific answers is brilliant!

            Though, if I hazard a guess as a layperson ( I am merely an undergrad), that would anchor science to logic and mathematics at a formal level, would it not?

            And perhaps make the 3 un's constraining factor in our scientific quest?

            Lastly, I want to give praise to your conclusion:

            "Like the god Odin from Norse mythology, who is said to have

            sacrificed an eye in order to attain wisdom, our quest for comprehension limits our very ability to

            comprehend, and the universe remains always partially veiled."

            My submission co-authored with my brother ( Rastin Reza) speaks of an veil, and we argue such a veil concealing nature is inherently mathematical.

            I hope you find time to read it.

            Kind Regards,

            Raiyan Reza

            (PS: Both my brother and I are open to the idea that our guess based on our rudiment knowledge is crude and of course, reading all the marvelous entries at FQXI, along with further readings in, will lead us to re-evaluate our stance)

              Well, I beleive that you have some good ideas and you are a member but I am going to be frank, you beleive that you are special ? you seem to have a kind of Vanity, you beleive that you know better the generality of this universe, answer to what I tell and respect the ideas of others and answer them, if you dislike my reasonings and theory, try to critic correctly in forgetting this problem of Vanity, the problem is Always the same , people Thinks that they are better and it is not the case in fact, you speak about the comprehensibility but you cannot be comprehensible in respecting the people, and it is not comprehensible, I spoke about the Vanity and you prove that you are not comprehensible due to this parameter, The same problem exists inside the sciences Community, we are all persuaded but it exists real humble thinkers and the fake ones who don t understand neither the humility nor the universal altruism. In fact don t never forget that a theory evolves like all and if you dislike my theory in having encoded bad opinions about me, so try to discuss in transparence instead to make your comportments of vanitious like if you were special. For me I am frank, you fear maybe to answer and develop in front of me and transparence. I repeat you are not special, you have just some good ideas in details. Work your Vanity , be respectfull and try to answer about what I have explained. We are here on a platform relevant and transparent with a Community to learn, teach, discover, not to be on a platform to satisfy a small Community and memebers. If this planet is in this state, it is due to this parameter, the Vanity, greed also and the lack of universalis, so your free will must take into account this, because the Vanity changes the choices and opinions , do you agree?

              Lol let s go for a comprehensible politness inside a private small Community satisfying their own friendships , and I know that you don t like me both of you, on face book also, you Sabine because I have asked you to give maths about a good idea of you and a friend, a girl arrives and makes a hormonal comportment and after I have answered , because this girl had testoterones, so I was adapted to her. I know that the women must be strong inside this Community but in these conditions it is odd, You have blocked me to protect your friend and you beleive also that you are maybe special ? and you Mr Durham you don t support neither me nor my thewory because we have discussed many years ago here on this platform and so you have encoded bad things about me and now you cannot change your opinions about me both of you, this Vanity is a real global problem, because even now if my theory has evolved and is relevant, you don t accept neither me nor my works, it shows that your Vanity is stronger than your humility recognising the relevances, for me you are neitehr good teachers, nor thinkers altruist and universal, you just want to be recognised in trying to be celebrities , but I am frank, you are not Einstein, Planck, Newton,Heisenberg, Feynmann, Lorentz, Galilei, Godel,Maxwell,Schrodinger... you are just members of a small Community trying to be revolutionary, but no, sorry , I know that my Words can irritate you but be sure, work your Vanity and don t be angry and try to discuss , do you fear of Me or what , do you fear to discuss in transparence? me I want well but there are limits, I never begin these kind of discussions and you know both of you why I speak like that, now if you are real universal thinkers able to share ideas in transparence and go deeper , show me your real heart and relevance. And don t complaint on FQXi , we are I repeat on a transparent platform where the strategies of discriminations and silence don t exist,so be transparent without fear and respectfull if it is possible of course. Never underestimate a general work and the evolution of people, never.

              You know, what I tell is simple, instead to improve the sharing of ideas and this evolution, so you decrease it in having these kind of vanitious comportments simply, it is sad because now due to this, you cannot change your opinions and choices and discuss in transparence because this Vanity eats you and this anger against me. What I tell is true and you know it, and now in logic you have 3 comportments, the silence like if you were wise and more intelleigent but it is just your choice, not a truth, or you can compete and try to give me a lesson just due to this Vanity still and competition of intelliegnce or you can be humble and tell me , steve you exagerate there, we have nothing agianst you and we know the generality of this universe, the humility and this universalism and we are civilised and can discuss about things without fear, you see ? it is Always a question of psychology, but when we speak about this free will or the comprehensibility, so let s admit that this human psychology is non deterministic about many choices of comportments. I Think that you are better than these vanitious conmportments and that you can evolve and be deterministic , it is your choice now, show me who you are really, we are not in a game of vanitious competition but we search answers to this universe and its main unknowns and the complementarity is Always the best choice to reach relevant innovative results, I d like to know your general universal philosophy , don t fear to discuss, and show me what are these foundamental objects also for you, it d be easier to go deeper.

              Me personally I have nothing against nobody, I just Always discuss in respecting at the begining the people, I am not perfect and I know that in the past I was rude sometimes on FQXi, I was not well I have lost all my familly more other serious problems, but I have evolved and I am more quiet and civilised. I never make a kind of competition or a fight, but I can adapt me quickly in front of vanitious persuded and we know all that inside our Community it is the most vanitious Community in theoretical physics, but I am a nice guy netheir better than my fellowman nor more skilling, we are all equals after all. Be real universalists and be relevant in physics, it is just this that I want to explain you. We learn all Days and we share ideas to explain our unknowns for a better world. I insist about this Vanity destroying all on this Earth and Dividing, it is sad.We are not on this Earth for this, we are here on Earth to optimise what we can optimise with the deterministic Tools that we have around us with sciences and consciousness simply.