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

I wrote in the above post about the PHYSICAL information and physical laws. Your argument about radar guns is not about PHYSICS; For example, the uncertainty principle is a physical information but not guns, cars, ships and so on - It's about technology.

Your essay use generally known physics information that was NOT created by you. Therefore it is true that the essay contain physical information copied from the textbooks and Internet. I understand that really you learned all this information at the University and then you prepared your essay using your memory. However, it is the same - your essay contains GENERALLY KNOWN PHYSICAL INFORMATION copied from external sources.

For example, infnitesimal changes, parabolic functions, Zeno's paradox, Doppler effect, Spekkens' epistemic interpretation of quantum mechanics - it is generally known information copied from textbooks. If you comments about quantum mechanics and SR it does not means that it is YOUR information: ''Quantum field theory combines quantum mechanics with special relativity and so technically deals with a at (Euclidean) spacetime". You are NOT the creator of this physical information. The essays filled with such information and authors commentaries is not original and contains information copied from general sources as textbooks, papers, Internet and so on.

Please show me the PHYSICAL information created by YOU in your essay.

Also, I don't see any proofs in your essay that the Universe is digital or analog. The discussions about radar guns prove nothing about reality.

Constantin

Dear Juan R. González-Álvarez,

Thank you for support. In my view, the FQXi prize deserves the people who really are able to create PHYSICS; the prize is not for writers and copiers.

There are a lot of the essays and I do not have time to analyze all. Nevertheless, I'll analyze the Singh' Essay more carefully.

Regards,

Constantin

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?