In Search of Continuity: Thoughts of an Epistemic Empiricist by Ian Durham

I must agree with Constantin Leshan: if, indeed, FQXI intends

"to catalyze, support, and disseminate research on questions at the foundations of physics and cosmology, particularly new frontiers and innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of reality but unlikely to be supported by conventional funding sources"

the mission which requires a *very rear* kind of expertise, especially now when our overloaded schedules meet with the absolutely unprecedented in the history of science transitional period. This very rear expertise should be found and used effectively. Otherwise, the mission will not be believable, and, which is more, will only *undermine* the future similar undertakings.

I'm sorry, I mistyped: of course I meant "very rare" rather than "very rear" ;-))

Gentleman,

My essay deals with nothing but foundations, and so I can understand your frustration, but if you have an axe to grind you should take it up with FQXI not Dr. Durham!

Robert

Dear Constantin,

The FQXi is the "Foundational" Questions Institute. The idea is to probe the foundations of pre-existing theories, perhaps propose modifications to these foundations, or even (if absolutely necessary) to propose entirely new foundations. But really, proposing ENTIRELY NEW, completely original physics should be a last resort. I can think of no example where this method has been fruitful in the past. Take the discovery of special relativity, for example. There is a case in which the equations (the Lorentz transformations) were already "in the textbooks". Einstein reinterpreted them, employing a foundational analysis. Would you accuse Einstein of plagiarising here? An equation on its own doesn't tell us much. We need to know what it could mean. There are, in physics, usually (most probably always) multiple options in how we understand the mapping between equations and reality.

Your request for statements that "prove something about reality" must be, in the end, a request for a foundational (or interpretive) analysis (and an epistemological one at that). The point of many of these competitions (and the submissions) has been to probe just what can be said about reality GIVEN OUR THEORIES. You may think you are being a hard-nosed scientist, a la Feynman or Pauli perhaps, but you are in fact just espousing a very naive philosophical position. Feynman and Pauli might have spoken in a similar way, but their actual work revealed a very different, more sophisticated philosophical understanding.

Finally, I have to agree with Robert Spoljaric that your beef ought to be with FQXi.

Best,

Dean

Robert,

It goes without saying that my remark has nothing to do with Ian.

[ First, my apologies to Ian for 'using' his page. However, who knows, there might be some benefits to FQXi ;-) ]

"But really, proposing ENTIRELY NEW, completely original physics should be a last resort. I can think of no example where this method has been fruitful in the past."

Dear Dean,

The whole point is this: Can the development of physics continue successfully along the path similar to its historic past, or we reached the point of 'no return', when we simply have to begin anew? It appears that FQXi should allow for the latter to be at least one of the main possibilities. By the way, a number of physicists, including Lee Smolin, do believe in such possibility.

There are also a number of philosophers who firmly believe in that possibility.

It seems odd that this discussion and the one immediately above it should be occurring in Dr. Durham's forum. He does not agree with my ideas; but, I have found him to be a gentleman and as open minded a scholar as I have ever had a discussion with. He is a valuable resource for which I have not yet had to pay. I think that no one has a better chance for having their ideas evaluated by professionals than what takes place here at fqxi.org. I think that my ideas are great. However, until professionals agree, they remain not great. That agreement should it ever come must be for good scientific reasons and given willingly by qualified others. Until then, promoting my ideas are my problem and not theirs.

James

Dear Dean Rickles,

You're defending I. Durham because you have the same essay, - a simple story about physics. Your essay also is filled with general known information only. You are not able even to say if the world is digital or analog: ''The physical world.. is as digital or analogue as the theories themselves''. Today I read Durham's essay but tomorrow I'll analize your essay. I found flaws in 4 essays already, your essay will be number 5.

Regards

Constantin

Dear Constantin

You just evaded the two points I directed specifically AT YOU (not in defence of Prof. Durham, who I'm quite sure is perfectly capable of defending himself).

On another matter, you wrote: "Another option is to create artistic essays-discussions with Einstein, Bohr, or Aristotle following the example of Jarmo Makela."

Simplicio: imagine someone thinking you could make science out of dialogues like that?

Sagredo: I'd never do that. No scientific merit could emerge from such a thing.

Salviati: Agreed. It's just not science. Though it might have some artistic value.

---------------------------------

You also wrote: "Today I read Durham's essay but tomorrow I'll analize your essay. I found flaws in 4 essays already, your essay will be number 5."

Forgive me if I don't quake in my boots at the prospect...

Best,

Dean

About ''a problem with asking questions about technology''. I wrote in the first post about absence of original physical information in I. Durham's essay; He replayed his essay has ''unique'' information about radar guns. I replied that it is not physical information but technology. The discussion about Doppler effect is neither original nor new.

In general, it seems there is a lot of professional scientists here which simply ''makes money'' using FQXi and send senseless essays; For example, recently I found flaws in Tommaso Bolognesi, Dr. Elliot McGucken, Shirazi, Wolfe essays. If we want money then please create the true scientific papers in stile of Physical Review Letters but not simple stories about physics, radar guns, cars, women and so on. It is not the artistic magazine. I don't see any novel ideas in your essays. In general, the Durham's essay seems to be the collection of short stories without any logical connection between them and without any central idea. I'm surprised that FQXi community supports such simple stories. In future I'll try to create a beautiful dialogue with Einstein with great artistic value or the best story about physics filled with common information. It seems that our community loves just such senseless essays.

Dear Prof. Durham,

You are indeed a gentleman, and as such I feel somewhat guilty about you reading my essay. I sincerely thank you for taking an interest, and hope you find it interesting.

I would, however, like to clarify a point I made on the Feb 25th post. 'The Light' as defined in my paper is epistomological. However, it is the *basis* of Relativistic Mechanics, and as such entails a future ontological commitment. There is much left unsaid, but I don't want to spoil your fun!

All the best,

Robert

Sorry that should read Relativistic Dynamics.

OK, I agree that you have some original (technological or physical?) information about radar guns. Do you think this information deserves the FQXi prize?

Dr. Durham,

Yes I have an entry. Its down on the second or third floor. Actually I have enterred all three of the contests so far. I think my first one was perhaps the most important one. I don't do well; but, I think that that is understandable. Almost everything I write is at odds with accepted theory. I don't remember if I have said to you that I believe that theory went wrong right from the start when it choose to make mass an indefinable property. My own work begins by not making either force or mass indefinable. I define them both in terms of distance and time the properties of their empirical evidence. After that act there is no way for the rest of theory to remain the same. Anyway, I write what I think and do not expect easy acceptance or high ratings. This contest was the harder of the three for me. I felt that answering the question from the view of theoretical physics required one to be well versed in quantum theory. That is still a weak area for me. I am working on it. For that reason I chose to mix a little bit of new theory with some prose and general thoughts. I think we have some good leading essays. It is another educational year because of this contest.

James

Ian - Outstanding Essay!

As an educator - I always look for how understandable an essay can be to nonprofessionals and you hit this out of the park! I think being inclusive is very important as many outside the field often have valuable contributions. You do an excellent job of showing that the act of measuring will always be a weaker accuracy link that what is actually measured. This of course applies to the passage of time as well in our pursuit to determine if it is discrete or continuous.

By the way, if gravity is like a painting, then the problem is that we can't see the individual brush strokes since none have been detected. We assume (well, some of us, but not me) that it must be made of individual strokes despite Einstein's original theory telling us that it is the warping of the canvas itself that gives us the painting. I once had a crazy theory that gravity will ultimately be determined to be a "London Force" of EM. If that ever turns out to be true - at least we will have brush strokes, just not the kind we were looking for.

I will be sure to keep a copy of your essay with me so that the next time I get pulled over for speeding, I can point out the inaccuracies of the radar detection device!

Great job!

Chris