Hello contributors to this forum. As I mentioned in my initial reply to MalochitePony, there is an essay in this contest that claims “… one process converts chaos to order and creates/becomes all of the order in existence. It is a new paradigm for science to consider. It’s claims satisfy the requirements to be the Ultimate Theory. For some reason people do not believe successful creation is possible. It is too far removed from normal science. I wrote the essay in question. So let me clarify some aspects about the successful creation theory, how it came about and how that fits with the discussions of Malachite’s essay.

The current science - 25 years ago- was not producing the Ultimate Theory and a new paradigm was needed. I had just retired. What I like to say is that I left the world of consensus reality. I could do what I wanted- by myself. My incentive was to accomplish something no one else had been able to do. I wanted to discover/produce the Ultimate Theory - not only a scientific theory but one that goes past science and includes everything we sense, feel, observe, experience, think, etc.. First I explored the assumptions of science, philosophy, religion, mathematics, etc.. The one assumption I found in all of the disciplines was that intelligence has always existed and it is in effect everywhere, all of the time and it never changes. However. the physical world had a beginning and a progression. There was no suitable evidence that the intelligence assumption was true. So, I focused on those assumptions and I found that both were created in conjunction with each other.

What I eventually discovered was the lowest level of existence and the progressive process introduced in my essay. This could not have been accomplished without the independence to do what I wanted. Anyway, successful creation fills the fundamental gaps, shows why math and physics correlate and, most of all, provides a complete and comprehensible theory - at least in my mental and mathematical models.

Now for the problems. When I left the realm of consensus reality, I cut all of my ties.Now that I have discovered the Ultimate Theory, I have no one to help validate the theory (beyond my own validation). Also, as in the development of any new product, the initial development was not expensive. I did everything myself - a lot of time, little money. Now it needs “scaling up”. It needs to spread through the different disciplines- sciences, religions, philosophies, mathematics etc. and that takes time, money and capabilities that I do not have. That is why I asked Malachite “How can we we make this happen?” Also, PurpleYak, in my essay, I provided the first steps that science could do to test and improve both the theory and science. Also, Vladimir, the theory does go to the remote depths (beginnings and progressions) of the universe. For this theory to be tested and spread through the disciplines, there must be an acceptance by those that regulate and promote science to test the theory. Successful Creation is a theory that is ready for scientific scrutiny. When it passes the scrutiny, it will revolutionize science. Regards to all contributors to this forum

Admin Comment Thank you for flagging this comment. Commenters please keep on topic

7 days later

Hi MalachitePony
Following is a summary and review of your essay performed by AI Chat GPT 4. I've provided it for you to demonstrate the theme of my essay, that AI will play a role in the future of peer review. My essay is titled "Age of Knowledge"
I hope you enjoy this review of your **work.

Admin Comment: Please keep your comments on topic, this is borderline as point is to advertise your own essay and was not written by you. Please be courteous and respect fellow forum users by keeping on topic.**

Chat GPT 4
The essay "The Accumulation of Understanding" explores the accumulation of scientific knowledge from two different perspectives: Popper's linear view and Kuhn's model of scientific revolutions. Popper's approach suggests that scientific understanding progresses through falsification, with each disproved theory leading to the development of a more accurate one. On the other hand, Kuhn's model views scientific understanding as progressing through paradigm shifts, with normal science and puzzle-solving leading to periods of crisis, which then results in a new paradigm that better explains the problematic data. The author argues that Kuhn's model better represents scientific progress, and likens it to mountain climbing rather than climbing a ladder, with different groups arriving at the summit through different routes. The essay concludes by questioning whether an ultimate theory of nature is possible, and if so, whether it would be the result of the linear accumulation of knowledge or a paradigm shift.

The essay provides a clear and concise explanation of Popper's and Kuhn's perspectives on scientific progress, and the author's argument is well-supported with examples. The analogy of mountain climbing is effective in illustrating Kuhn's perspective and the non-linear nature of scientific progress. The essay's conclusion opens up an interesting debate about the possibility of an ultimate theory of nature and the different approaches to scientific activity. Overall, the essay is well-written and insightful, and the author's arguments are well-supported.

The essay discusses the ideas of Wigner and Popper regarding the possibility of a mathematical ultimate theory that describes reality. The essay argues that while it is challenging to imagine an ultimate theory not based on mathematics, Gödel's incompleteness theorems and quantum mechanics place limits on the predictive power of physical theories. Furthermore, the connection between mathematics and a description of reality is far from obvious, and it is not clear that there must be an ultimate theory, that it will take a mathematical form, that it will be deterministic, or even unique. The essay also examines the question of how scientists can achieve their scientific agenda, given the largely successful paradigm, and the unfortunate rise of unproductive scientific activities like predatory journals, self-citations, and publication of conference papers. The essay concludes that science is an activity performed by humans, and while motivations range from egoistic to financial to scientific, no one motivation is necessarily best for furthering a scientific agenda. The essay encourages scientists to be grateful for the miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics and hope that it will remain valid in future research. The essay is well-written and makes valid points, and therefore, it receives a quality rating.

Chat GPT 4

The essay provides a very good understanding of the Kuhnian view of evolution and structure of science. Indeed, a very elegantly written article. I like the discussions of the two questions. Regarding the 2nd question, I have attempted to give an answer in my essay, titled "A Robust Community-Based Credit System to Enhance Peer Review in Scientific Research". You might want to take a look if interested.

Thank you for writing such a remarkable essay. You present an inspiring view that reads in a riveting fashion! I seldom read something to completion, but enjoyed every word of yours.

Your descriptions of the motivations for paradigm shifts seemed 'spot on'. There is one missing piece in your essay regarding an ultimate theory. Finding such a theory may well be close to impossible, but communicating it may be even more challenging.

In the real world I would love to meet with you, but suspect the feeling might not be shared.

    ChampagneEgret Thank you for the kind words! I completely agree that communicating the prospect of an ultimate theory would be extremely challenging, since our scientific system is rooted so deeply in the notion of falsification. I tried to address this point with my hypothetical future scientists wondering if they have finally achieved such a theory, and tried to reframe it as a practical question of what route they could pursue to prove their potential ultimate theory is flawed. In other words, judging it to be "ultimate" or not may well be beyond our capabilities, but I believe this is distinct from the question of whether it would be a worthwhile scientific program to attempt to falsify it when a functional understanding of all natural phenomena has already been achieved.

      This is a beautifully written essay! A joy to read. The only thing I wish you wrote more about is the last part -- how we could follow our agenda. I felt that your suggestions in this were -- I hope you won't consider me rude for saying this -- fairly general statements which are mentioned in many discussions, not concrete enough to be implemented.

        Optimism is much needed these days. I hope I also transmitted this feeling in my essay, entitled ""More diversity and creativity for a different science". I invite you to take a look at https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2330#control_panel.

        Admin Comment: Please respect other entrants and don’t just reply to advertise your own essay. Please keep on topic.

        This essay is eloquently written and reflects a broad knowledge of how science works and the history and philosophy of science. But it is profoundly conservative. Instead of answering "How could science be different?" the essay answers "Why should science continue to be the same?".

        Of course, there are many achievements that science can claim. I'm proud to be a scientist, and proud of the community of scientists. There has never in the history of humanity been a more reliable arbiter of truth than the world community of scientists.

        And yet, there are big questions that science has not answered. Some of these are not just missing pieces in the puzzle -- some of them seem to imply that we have reached dead ends. We need new foundations, new paradigms, new ways of understanding how the world works.

        A few examples...

        • Monica Gagliano has demonstrated that plants sense sound in the environment without ears or even a nervous system. Plants learn and remember. Plants strategize and make educated guesses about the future. We associate all these activities with synapses and neural networks. Plants do these things in a fundamentally different way.

        • The 30-year legacy of Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne demonstrates with 6-sigma certainty that human intention in the abstract can influence events at the quantum level. Why are there no physicists seeking to incorporate their experimental results into a new formulation of QM?

        • The study of life's pre-Darwinian origin has made much progress in synthesizing biochemical precursors from abiotic starting materials, and yet it is becoming clear that a self-reproducing system ("hypercycle") is elusive. This is the prerequisite for the beginning of a Darwinian process, so we can't attribute it to natural selection. We may have to face the fact that our current understanding of physics and chemistry is incompatible with life's origin.

        • There are dozens of labs around the world that have demonstrated cold fusion, and yet their research is excluded from mainstream publications in physics and engineering. Understanding cold fusion as a new bulk quantum phenomenon has the potential to offer solutions to most major environmental problems, and a new perspective on many-particle quantum phenomena. But the subject remains a backwater because of scientific taboos.

        • The Pyramids of Giza could not have been built by any technology we know today. Full stop.

        There is a compelling need for new scientific paradigms. We need to re-establish the open-minded attitude that Niels Bohr epitomized when he said, "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."

        Amitabha Lahiri Thank you for your comment!
        I readily accept your criticism that my suggestions in the latter half of the essay (regarding how we can best pursue a scientific agenda) were a bit vague. I believe we require a restructuring of how we (both scientists and the public) approach normal science, to eliminate the misconception that only revolutionary science is a worthwhile pursuit: revolutions only result from a breakdown of a paradigm developed to its breaking point, making normal scientific activity absolutely critical for progress. I mainly wanted to emphasize this shift in perspective, which can then be implemented in a number of different ways (e.g., a restructuring of the hierarchy in research institutions or a rethink of publication practices).

            Yaakov Fein
            You are absolutely right that normal scientific activity is critical for progress. However, I believe science administrators are fully in favour of the normal research -- indeed, research grants are given almost exclusively to "normal" research, you would be exceptionally lucky to get a grant for doing something that no one (including yourself) has done yet! The public hopes for, and notices, revolutionary research, but scientists keep doing what they have always done, only occasionally straying out. Funders almost never support the unknown. In my essay "Efficient funding produces better science" I have tried to suggest a solution that would help both kinds of research -- just in case you might be interested.

                Amitabha Lahiri I think we may be referring to somewhat different concepts with the expression "normal science". I mean it in the very specific Kuhnian sense, that is, science guided by a given paradigm. While this can sometimes involve incremental progress building closely upon previous research (which I think is what you had in mind), this is not necessarily the case- seminal discoveries which lead to the downfall of a paradigm (for example, the Michelson-Morley experiment) I would still consider as part of a normal scientific agenda, since the experiment could only have been conceived in the framework of the time.

                Perhaps the term "normal" science is problematic, since it sounds so negative and conservative compared to "revolutionary" science- maybe "paradigmatic" would be a better term. In any case, while funding agencies may be willing to fund some types of normal science (like the safer, incremental kind you describe in your essay), they are more resistant to explore higher-risk normal science (the kind really probing the limits of a paradigm) without some technology or application as an additional societal bonus.

                I will certainly have a closer look at your essay, it looks very interesting!

                    quote
                    While such open questions indicate that we are still far from a complete description of nature, it
                    is impossible to deny our successes, and in particular the success of mathematics in science. The
                    reason for this deep connection is far from obvious and is a recurring subject among scientists
                    and philosophers. The theoretical physicist Eugene Wigner explores this connection in his
                    widely-discussed essay, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Science
                    (Wigner, 1960). He readily acknowledges that the correspondence is not one-to-one, since only a
                    small fraction of mathematical concepts are employed in the context of physical theories. Despite
                    this, Wigner sees a strong indication that the connection is more than coincidence based on the
                    incredible ability, particularly obvious in physics, to extrapolate a mathematical description far
                    beyond its original domain: “… the mathematical formulation of the physicist’s often crude
                    experience leads in an uncanny number of cases to an amazingly accurate description of a large
                    5
                    class of phenomena. This shows that the mathematical language has more to commend it than
                    being the only language which we can speak; it shows that it is, in a very real sense, the correct
                    language.
                    end of quote
                    While I like this essay I wish to point out that we have a long way to go in terms of optimization of mathematical analysis
                    quote
                    Differential Dyson–Schwinger equations for quantum chromodynamics
                    Marco Frasca
                    The European Physical Journal C volume 80, Article number: 707 (2020) Cite this article

                    761 Accesses

                    7 Citations

                    1 Altmetric

                    Metricsdetails

                    A preprint version of the article is available at arXiv.

                    Abstract
                    Using a technique devised by Bender, Milton and Savage, we derive the Dyson–Schwinger equations for quantum chromodynamics in differential form. We stop our analysis to the two-point functions. The ’t Hooft limit of color number going to infinity is derived showing how these equations can be cast into a treatable even if approximate form. It is seen how this limit gives a sound description of the low-energy behavior of quantum chromodynamics by discussing the dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry and confinement, providing a condition for the latter. This approach exploits a background field technique in quantum field theory.

                    1 Introduction
                    The main difficulty of quantun chromodynamics (QCD) is that, at low energies, the theory is not amenable to treatment using perturbation techniques. This implies that some non-perturbative methods should be devised to solve them. The most widespread approach is solving the equations of the theory on a large lattice using computer facilities. This permitted to obtain, with a precision of a few percent [1, 2], some relevant observables of the theory. This method improves as the computer resources improve making even more precise the comparison with experiment. Use of numerical techniques is a signal that we miss some sound theoretical approach to compute observables.

                    A similar situation is seen for the correlation functions of the theory. Studies on the lattice of the gluon and ghost propagators, mostly in the Landau gauge, [3,4,5] and the spectrum [6, 7] proved that a mass gap appears in a non-Abelian gauge theory without fermions. Theoretical support for these results was presented in [8,9,10,11,12,13] providing closed form formulas for the gluon propagator. Quite recently, the set of Dyson–Schwinger equations for this case was solved, for the 1- and 2-point functions, and the spectrum very-well accurately computed both in 3 and 4 dimensions [13,14,15]. Confinement was also proved to be a property of the theory [14, 16].

                    Indeed, the Dyson–Schwinger equations were considered, since the start, the most sensible approach to treat a non-perturbative theory like QCD at low-energies [17,18,19] and, more recently, [20]. In any case, the standard technique is to reduce the set of equations, that normally are partial differential equations, to their integral form in momentum space. Some years ago, Bender, Milton and Savage [21] proposed to derive the Dyson–Schwinger equations and treat them into differential form. This way to manage these equation was the one used to find the exact solution [13]. This technique appears more general as it permits to work out a solution to a quantum field theory also when a background field is present. This is a rather general situation when a non-trivial solution of the 1-point equation is considered. Such a possibility opens up the opportunity of a complete solution to theories that normally are considered treatable only through perturbation methods. The idea is that, knowing all the correlation functions, a quantum field theory is completely solved.

                    The aim of this paper is to derive the Dyson-Schwinger equations for QCD in differential form.
                    end of quote
                    Let me run this by you, so you can see it. QCD is, according to this abstract NOT particularly well solved by PERTURBATION THEORY

                    Why is this so important ? There have been cases of series solutions of the QCD equations having very large contribution from terms way down in the line of series expansion solutions

                    It means that there is more work to do.

                    In about 100 years from now if we have not killed ourselves off, our solutions to many of these equations may look very different

                    5 days later

                    I enjoyed reading your well-written and engaging essay. You nailed it by pointing out that breakthrough discoveries require risk-making and supporting new ideas with an open mind. As you said, We should be confident enough to retreat in our ideas, even at the cost of explanatory power, and be willing to approach new ideas with open minds.

                    Another issue that I believe has been overlooked in academia is that universities and research institutes mainly hire graduates of the top universities of first-world countries. Well, it is the safest decision because the graduates of the top universities are among the best in the world. But overdoing it (the way it is happening) is destructive for science. We all have our own knowledge & vision boxes, formed by our backgrounds and alma maters. When academia highly focuses on top-rated universities, it may impede the exploration of out-of-the-box ideas and hinder breakthrough discoveries. Someone with a different background and educational system can bring new perspectives and ideas.
                    I should also mention I liked FQXi's anonymity rule.

                    I raised related ideas in my essay and would be happy to have your opinion on them.

                    You say: "we consider successful scientific paradigms to be the ones best suited, compared to
                    competing paradigms, to describe our observations of nature." [p.3] I do not think Kuhn would agree with that at all. Kuhn's main argument was that the accepted scientific paradigms are not any better than the competing ones. You say that your essay is a "Kuhnian approach", but it is the opposite.

                    Thank you for your comment! This is a point I am happy to discuss.
                    Indeed, in this section from which you quoted, I begin to depart from Kuhn's views, as I say at the start of the preceding paragraph:
                    "Notably, Kuhn himself would protest to this aspect of the analogy. In comparing the development of scientific paradigms to natural selection, he emphasizes that it is a process which proceeds without an external guiding hand and
                    without any defined end goal (Kuhn, 1962)..."

                    I don't think Kuhn would object that each new paradigm offers some form of advantage over previous ones- he himself uses natural selection as an analogy, implying that successful paradigms are somehow better suited to survival (not the same as "better", and perhaps this is really the point) than their competitors. The new paradigm may not even agree better with the data than the old one, but something about it makes it more "promising" to the scientific community, leading to its acceptance. However, Kuhn firmly distanced himself from the idea that this implies progress toward some grand ultimate theory. In my essay, I make the claim that an evolutionary progression of paradigms does lead in the direction of some sort of ultimate theory, albeit in a weighted random walk sort of way. However, you are completely right that Kuhn (and likely many others!) would not agree with this.

                    I wrote that my essay follows a "Kuhnian approach" because I work in the framework of his paradigm model and use his divisions of eras like "normal science" and "crisis" throughout my essay.

                      Yaakov Fein Kuhn claimed that the new paradigms were incommensurable with the old. Scientists might prefer the new to the old, but not for any good measurable or rational reasons. He portrayed scientists as irrationally jumping from one fad to another, without making progress.
                      You say: " Copernicus’ heliocentric model was not a dramatic improvement on Ptolemy’s geocentrism based on the data available at the time". Yes, that seems to be what drove Kuhn's view. The rest of the history of science does not match what he says at all.

                          Roger Schlafly I think we are mostly on the same page, but I'd like to clarify two points (not defending my own position, just clarifying what I have understood to be Kuhn's position):

                          As you say, Kuhn did not believe that paradigms progressed in a cumulative fashion (like "normal science"), and that a new paradigm is only selected from among its incommensurable peers as a result of persuasion. However, such "persuasion" is not necessarily based on irrational ideas, as Kuhn writes in his postscript to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:
                          "Nothing about that relatively familiar thesis implies either that there are no good reasons for being persuaded or that those reasons are not ultimately decisive for the group. Nor does it even imply that the reasons for choice are different from those usually listed by philosophers of science: accuracy, simplicity, fruitfulness, and the like."
                          What I suspect you find disconcerting (as I do!) is that he regards such reasons as "values", making it ultimately a rather subjective affair, which would seem on the surface to inhibit any form of progress through paradigms.

                          However, Kuhn did not entirely deny the notion of scientific progress (although not in a sense leading toward some ultimate scientific truth), as he writes in the same postscript where he is discussing how one could perform a "genealogy" of scientific theories if one did not know their history a priori:
                          "...it should be easy to design a list of criteria that would enable an uncommitted observer to distinguish the earlier from the more recent theory time after time. Among the most useful would be: accuracy of prediction, particularly of quantitative prediction; the balance between esoteric and everyday subject matter; and the number of different problems solved. ... Those lists are not yet the ones required, but I have no doubt that they can be completed. If they can, then scientific development is, like biological, a unidirectional and irreversible process. Later scientific theories are better than earlier ones for solving puzzles in the often quite different environments to which they are applied. That is not a relativist’s position, and it displays the sense in which I am a convinced believer in scientific progress."

                            16 days later

                            Hello MalachitePony. Your essay:
                            "In other words, judging it to be "ultimate" or not may well be beyond our capabilities, but I believe this is distinct from the question of whether it would be a worthwhile scientific program to attempt to falsify it when a functional understanding of all natural phenomena has already been achieved".

                            You have to think big!
                            It is known that Newton determined the gravitational coefficient through the parameters of the orbits of the planets of the solar system. If the gravitational coefficient is determined in a similar way from the parameters of the orbits of electrons in the Hydrogen atom, then the gravitational coefficient of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom becomes 40 orders of magnitude greater than in the solar system. Then the Planck parameters of the Hydrogen atom are the parameters of an electron with its radius equal to the radius of the Compton wave of the electron. Those. each level of fractal matter has its own “Planck parameters”, and the generally accepted Planck parameters are an abstract delusion and have no real meaning at all. Indeed, what relation does the gravitational coefficient from the parameters of the Solar system have to the parameters of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom? None!!!

                            You have to think big!
                            The fine structure constant can be easily calculated with an accuracy of up to 7 digits, assuming that all elements of matter have a fractal structure. Then, therefore, "black holes" do not exist, and there is no event horizon. Those. inside putative "black holes", there is deterministic matter that obeys the simple quantum laws of fractal matter, which unify gravity and quantum phenomena of the deterministic functioning of matter on all scales of the universe [ appendix: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fqxi.data/data/essay-contest-files/16/reference_id_2304.pdf
                            https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2304#control_panel ].

                            Write a Reply...