I agree. Contact me after the end of this competition and I will send you my new text to be a chapter for a common book. All writers in this Competition are wellcome.
JJenny Wagner
- Joined Apr 21, 2020
Jenny Wagner Will I be third?
Dear Beige Bandicoot, your point is well taken and I agree completely:
if we want to foster this culture among the next generation of scientists, we need more people who are willing to change their viewing angle, reach out to establish interdisciplinary collaborations, and are given the time and the opportunities to be more creative and innovative.
No systemic change can happen with a single intervention from a single angle. In my essay I proposed one way, which I find easier to act on from my own position, but your point about top-down changes in university management and in the role of scientists is just as important (if perhaps harder).
Perhaps the most likely path to success is to do these things (and more) in parallel, a bit at a time, so that they can synergize and gradually snowball into something bigger.
In the end of this FQXI competition I would to add more pages to my article because the main important ideas I had sad them in comments. Those ideas comes from the articles in this competition and I think that If I add new pages it is possible to made a new paradigm in physical science but the rules of FQXI team don't permit this option.
Many of your questions centered around humankinds propensity for war and aggression, something that perhaps could be different. They are questions that certainly could make a difference in scientific thinking and development, considering that our militaristic bent impacts a lot of science and technology. I like especially your parting statement that point out how the frenetic pace of life build physical and mental barriers to intellectual and scientific progress. My essay, "Global Externalities and a new science" follows similar lines regarding how the corporate culture controls and commercializes many endeavors in science, even to the point of fostering a greed and focus leading us on the edge of extinction. You have many good questions but would like to see your ideas on solutions too. The new anonymous system seems to have led to a dearth of rating. I plan to do a lot of this in the last few days. Hope others do the same.
Marco Giancotti Your essay is the only one whose success I control. I'm surprised at the lack of attention.
Everyone knows: The system is not capable of reforming itself. The withering away of the old gives way to the new - evolution and involution. Currently, acceleration is created by changing external conditions. External conditions change, those who pay. In all processes, everything depends on people. The essay proposes to influence science not only with money, but also by expanding the popularization of knowledge (information that is understandable). Popularization will require explanations of purpose and meaning, destroying the "fog" of the need for research, for research (Example. Why find thousands of exoplanets now. Without engineers, science will not reach exoplanets. Without verification, information becomes verbiage, and verbiage, information). If the providers of money demand conditions for popularization, it will be easier to see the naked king.
Why did I write this? Knowledge creates a worldview - understanding. Understanding is harder to destroy than information. As a result, past knowledge negates information that can change the worldview.
I have come across this fact. As a mistake, in my essay, I was presented with the classical definition of temperature. Knowledge of the classics allows one to ignore the fact of changes in knowledge about the nature of radiation, electrons and energy. Popularization will make it possible to overcome the excess of fundamentalism in science.Aleksandr Maltsev
"Two 4-dimensional worlds create 3-dimensional and 5-dimensional." as you say.
I can consider the 4-dimentionnal space as the inertial time of a corpuscle so we get in all five dimension (4 space and 1 time). Let's continue and we can say "Two 5-dimensional worlds create 4-dimensional and 6-dimensional." but the question what is the significance of the 5-space dimension ? we built theories like this and we haven't any issue to prove it experimentally. It is like string theory which I had never beleive in it because there is no issue for experimental data or procedure to do it.BeigeBandicoot, KhakiHeron.
To your discussion, my opinion about space (part of the article).
Can the real world be n-dimensional?
To increase the dimension, there must be a ruler of dimensions 1,2,3,4….n. Linearity implies a dual system (1 and 3 are dual to each other, with respect to 2). For the emergence of the 3D world, the next possibility is to combine the 2D and 4D worlds and separate them into dual components. Two 4-dimensional worlds create 3-dimensional and 5-dimensional. From two two-dimensional worlds, a 3-dimensional and one-dimensional one arises. A variant of the emergence of a one-dimensional "arrow of time" and a 3-dimensional Nature was realized.
Why are space, matter, energy, etc. 3-dimensional? The 5th dimension is more diverse and more complex. In existing conditions, the main property of Nature is the desire for stability. Stability is achieved in two ways: by maintaining the potential in dynamics (conservation laws) and by accepting a minimum potential. In the cases under consideration, the minimum for the decay into integers is two.About the starting point.
Nature is dual (zero splits into dualities). Therefore, the starting point must be and not be. Taking as a reference point the Void (the basis for decay), we make an analogy with the Universe. In the Universe, the property of the Void is possessed by Space. The universe is huge and in fact there is a reference point and there is no point.
Example. Start on a spaceship, the observer sees the Earth is moving away with acceleration. The observer makes a fundamental discovery: "There is a "dark" energy that can accelerate the movement of the Earth.
If we take the resting Space as a starting point, then the Nobel Prize will be awarded to another researcher.Causal relationship.
A cause-and-effect relationship is given by an analogue of thermodynamics - the movement goes from a large potential to a small one. This is how learning arose, that is, human behavior is subject to the same laws as physics. The great potential of the mind created the desire to know the unknown.Question. How do you feel about horror in physics? (A lot of darkness, uncertainty, etc. terms, but fear / horror is not yet used).
Jenny Wagner
My statements are of course in Restreint Relativity and not in GR . The 4-vector identity which I introduce in the first time in Minkowski space-time is as follows:
4-vector momentum= universal constant times 4-vector identity
4-vector identity=(speed of light times inertial time of the corpuscle, speed of the corpuscle times inertial time of the copuscle)
Inertial time of the corpuscle =universal constant times the energy of the corpuscle
It is evident now that:
4-vector wave-vector= universal constant times 4-vector identity
The inertial time is like a five dimension of space. The ordinary time is only change. Inertial time does'nt change if the energy of the corpuscle is constant.Jenny Wagner It is indeed a shame that scientists and science hasn't done more to investigate UFO technology in terms of scientific advancement. Several essays have mentioned wholistic approaches, one using the term interstitial realism looking for harmonic wholeness.
Dear BeigeBandicoot,
I just realised that I did not yet answer your question what I think about different strategies to solidify claims by some proof-like arguments.
I think that what I am doing when analyzing certain claims, I simply look for inconsistencies. With that I am surely not able to at the same time proving the existence of something (for example God, or a timeless realm beyond spacetime) instead of the original something that I found to be inconsistent with logics.
I am aware that with logics alone I cannot prove any empirical reality to be ontologically true – or even plausible – since I am not in the position to dictate how the external world should be. The plausibility and the evidence therefore must come from experiments, and surely also from the analysis of the data obtained.
I am not in the position to answer what is the best proof. Not only because this depends on whether one wants to prove something within the discipline of maths, or within a physical model, but because I am not an expert in mathematics and also not an expert for all the details of all the physical models about reality that exist up today. In my opinion, when it comes to proving a physical model for its evidence to be the right guess by experiments, predictions play a crucial role.
But as with Newtonian mechanics, even predictions that then fit the experimental data, are not sufficient to really “prove” the theory to hold in all cases. There may be always exceptions, black swans and the like. I cannot dictate how nature is. I not even can dictate that nature should always behave logically. I only assume that it does, in the same whay I assume that Zermelo-Fraenkel-Arithmetics is consistent. This assumption is based purely on logics, since otherwise I could stop inferencing.
Surely, in my heart I am totally convinced that nature is behaving logically, with the one caveat that I have no explanation for why there exists logics with its properties to be consistent or inconsistent other than attributing it to a higher intelligence. So in my opinion, such a higher intelligence may even be able to intervene in nature in a way one would say is illogical – namely by wonders – since the latter introduce a black swan, an exception from the rule. But these are personal beliefs and are much harder – if at all – provable to be possible in principle.
I admit that the big bang theory is merely a theory, not a proven fact. Nature could behave differently than postulated by the big bang theory. When thinking what this could mean for what the bible says about the creation of the world, I have to options if the big bang theory should be false.
Either I consider the creation story in the bible as false, or I say that I simply do not understand what is written there. There are many things that I do not understand that are written in the bible, since there are also many things that I understand. For me that is no obstacle, in the same way as for physics and mathematics it is no obstacle that they do not yet understand certain things, but well do understand many other things.
Even if the universe would be eternal in time, that would be no obstacle for me. I not even could grasp what it should mean that colliding particles, colliding stars and all the stuff are eternally doing what they are doing, not to speak about an infinitely large space where statistically our earth with its current configuration should be found somewhere within that infinity infinitely many times.
My take on all this is that if a God exists, he must exist beyond space and time. That is also the traditional way of looking at God. Otherwise certain prophecies in the bible couldn't come true (independent of whether one believes in these or not). Surely, per an assumed infinity of space and time, there would be always worlds where these prophecies then come true. But the point is that we would only live in one of these worlds, causally disconnected from these other worlds.
In conclusion, since I also am not in the position to grasp what it would mean to exist beyond space and time, I think that I am not in the position to evaluate what it means for a higher intelligence (existing beyond space and time) that something – the universe – had existed forever, is eternal in time (and maybe also in space). Whenever infinity is invoked, I personally am cautious, since infinity escapes my mental abilities. Moreover, what would eternity mean for the nature of time as well as for the nature of logics?
When thinking about Cantor and others, they up to date managed to construct various classes of infinities, without ever constructing them algorithmically by infinitely counting. Surely, this is the realm of pure mathematics, not the realm of a physical universe. But the assumption that the universe may be infinite in time is surely possible by the very same shortcuts the mathematicians use to construct their infinities, thus it is possible by virtue of logics being what it is: you can always set something on top of something else or underneath it. Logically, this is like an infinite regress, as surely also is what Nietzsche had in mind.
Nietzsche presumably did not believe in God, but in absurdity, and I think partly because he took logics as something that cannot be transcended and therefore cannot establish a link to any purpose of existence.
I honestly think that Nietzsche, as well as Boltzmann and Cantor, took the prevailing paradigm of a mechanistic universe too seriously. Scientific theories can only ever be provisional, claiming the opposite would in my opinion be equal to claiming that one is all-knowing. If I look at the plethora of different theories out there about the world, I am forced to conclude that most of them must be incorrect models of the external world. So I do not take any of them too seriously, but seriously enough to say that we indeed can make progress in finding things out with the help of the scientific method. Therefore I also appreciate any attempt to examine the phenomenon of consciousness further. I fully agree with you. Even every attempt that fails is worth doing it, since it eliminates the range of possibilities. That is what I like – amongst others – about your attempt to handle different theories!
At the essay page of “The brain in a plat....” →
I tried to give an argument against an exclusively information processing world view. I would be happy if you would give me some feedback about how convincing my lines of reasoning are that I facilitated at that page.
Hopefully what I wrote there will be inspiring your thoughts, but anyways, I would be delighted about some feedback from you!
Best wishes
AquamarineTapir“Concerning proofs, I think they are only realiable as far as our definitions of each of the ingredients of a proof are reliable ontologically. Here the problem occurs, since for proofing or disproofing a certain ontology, one at first had to know whether or not that ontology is real or not.”
Well, I haven't formulated this well enough in my second to last reply. What I mean is that unambigously disproving something necessitates that one also must PROVE the single steps, ingredients and ontological terms one uses for disproving something to be logically AND empirically true.
- Edited
Hi BeigeBandicoot, thanks a lot for your benevolent comment!
As for the origins of the universe, I cannot exclude the possibility that maybe it has and will exist forever in one or the other form. So if true, there would be no big bang and time would be somewhat a fundamental thing. Surely one also could argue that within that eternally existing thing called universe / multiverse, there could be regions where time is somewhat distorted, different from other regions – for example if one defines the ground level of that universe as some kind of quantum fluctuating essence, or as some geometry that automatically gives rise to a time direction etc.
So even for a universe that has existed forever and will forever exist, one can “choose” (maybe until it is decided, if decidable, which of the possibilities is the true one) what its ultimate foundation should be: quantum fluctuations, a deterministic finite state automaton, a continuous geometry that automatically gives rise to a time direction etc. In any case, if it would be true that the universe existed forever, then this is clearly not the world that the bible describes in genesis (as far as i understood it).
Personally I don't think that the question whether the universe is eternal or not can be unambiguously decided, since that would demand strong proofs for several ingredients such a claim must use.
Concerning proofs, I think they are only realiable as far as our definitions of each of the ingredients of a proof are reliable ontologically. Here the problem occurs, since for proofing or disproofing a certain ontology, one at first had to know whether or not that ontology is real or not.
But that does not mean that one cannot come closer to truth, because when one assumes that the world is not an inconsistent conspiracy, one can at least expose certain explanation schemes to be inconsistent. For making them consistent again, it then would need a re-definition of certain ingredients of that explanation scheme. Then again, one could try to expose that scheme to be inconsistent.
Now, some people say that at a certain point, we must and should stop re-defining those ingredients and simply take some of them as given. I would say this makes sense, as long as we do not discover a certain new and surprising category that would enable to free us from terms like material, immaterial, deterministic, random, consistent, inconsistent, causal, non-causal.
My own guess is that such a surprising category must have something that would seem to us as being highly irrational. In my own world model, I adopted such an irrational element (irrational in relation to materialism) as very important for me, namely the belief in a Creator. You are right that my belief in God demands something moral from me – but something that I love to give, namely at least trying hard to obey the first two commandments. I love my belief in God very much and so I also love God and respect his creatures and try to treat them in the same way I wish to be treated.
Beyond that, there is another interesting and meaningful command in my opinion, namely to not facilitate a detailed picture of God. This makes sense to me, since otherwise I once again get forced to deduce / induce from one false / incomplete ontological property of that picture in a deterministical, “logical” chain to “all” properties of God, whereby that result then would be totally inadequate since I already started with a false / incomplete ontological property for God.
I simply think that God has a kind of spiritual ontology, one that is not understandable by human beings in the same sense that a computer program, even if partially conscious, cannot deduce on what kind of system it runs unless it is revealed to him from some external world that is more conscious than the program itself. If all of that is not true and is merely an incorrect model of reality in my mind, then at least that model is able to influence my acts in this world, although the model itself wouldn't have been developed because I would be somewhat clever or special, but unavoidably by a kind of deterministic process I cannot fully transcend and forces me to act the way I act.
Luckily, such a determinism mustn't be the case, independent of what a strictly deterministic world view says: I always can consider my consciousness and its contents as being merely parallel to what happens in my brain and assume an intricate psychokinetical feedback loop between me an my brain as the real ontological explanation for my will to act in certain ways.
Happy that you are about to rate my essay :-) !
It seems to me that the author is a researcher in the field of parapsychology. It is evident that his knowledge of statistics is very good. He wrote "Here, there are real experiments that have been done to attempt to answer the question directly, and there is solid evidence that the answer is, “no”.". I am interested in whether orthodox science has any credible arguments against this claim about REGs?
He writes about zeroth law in science. Here would be useful to mention John Webb and his "Spatial variation in the fine-structure constant" https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4758, although this is not in direct connection with his theory.He wrote also: "include the accepted value within their error bars, but only 2 actually do." Can he explain more about this 2? It seems to me that this is a lapse, is it maybe 3?
He wrote also: "Human-designed machines are engineered to perform reliably" and he compare this with the human brain. It is a very good theory.
I hope that he will upgrade his theories also with a more intense focus on neuroscience.
I am also surprised that there is no comments for this essay...
- Edited
Jenny Wagner
The problem is that today there is no open competition between models of the universe.
General relativity is a phenomenological (parametric, operationalist, "effective") theory without ontological justification / substantiation (ontological basification).
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin left a good philosophical testament to theoretical physicists (cosmologists):
"The true physics is that which will, one day, achieve the inclusion of man in his wholeness in a coherent picture of the world."
More than a quarter of a century ago, the mathematician and philosopher Vasily Nalimov set the task of constructing a "super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World." ("The Self-Aware Universe").
[https://web.archive.org/web/20111205183605/http://v-nalimov.ru/articles/111/395/]
In the same direction, the ideas of the Nobel laureate in physics Brian Josephson (which are not very noticed by mainstream science), set out in the essay "On the Fundamentality of Meaning" [https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3088]And which of the physicists will fulfill the philosophical precepts of John A. Wheeler "unsung paragon of science":
"We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."
"To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?'"In your model of the World (the Universe), its physical/metaphysical origin, are there places for meanings/senses?
There are some lovely ideas in this essay that really struck me - that scientists should be explainers rather than discoverers - that we cannot make ourselves understand; the most we can do is to foster a state of mind, in which understanding may come to us - that we cannot know where new discoveries come from, we can’t know who’ll provide them or what paradigm they’ll use: the most we can do is foster a general environment of creativity and communication, and hope for the best.
Just excellent stuff!
I love thinking about science and making up theories i.e., trying to explain things and solve mysteries and puzzles (and reading other people's ideas too). I do it because I really enjoy it. I'm not part of an academic community, I will never have a paper published and I'm not interested in winning prizes. I can make the world a better place, but I don't think it will be through some great discovery but rather (perhaps) by helping others discover the joy of thinking for themselves - or maybe it's all just my excuse for lying on the sofa! So, going back to the title of your essay, science for me is not about discovery in the sense of a some breakthrough finding for the scientific community, but more about personal discovery and fun (and I hope that doesn't sound too selfish).Also thanks for your comments on my essay and I will try to post a reply that is helpful.
All the best,
AzureFlyingfishYour description of a different scientific approach of replacing "best-laid schemes" used to our advantage with a "science of senses" rather than building assumptions, coupled with your good metaphor of Robert Burns' poem, shows a different human approach for science. It reminds me of another essay regarding negative externalities humans create which exploit nature rather than observe and use what what nature offers. Both ideas attack a human approach which strips science and humans of a purity that science could and should pursue. Your "mice and men" is good metaphoric imagery for your human approach to a different science.
- Edited
typically when a conversation happen is like a zipper of turn taking of replies , i could imagine a scheme that include the one you sketched /teached Jenny Wagner for all kinds of interacting situations (between people and programed interfaces)
for example i'm not sure i have rated your essay properly i may have done it three times already
the same when people speak loudly or via chat sms, there is a specific, rithm : tiiiic taac tiiic taac at equal paced , the same with giving a grade i press the link complete the reasons and send rating accepted .
the message communication goes straighforward , regarding of consequences ,
an other example editing a file "do you want to delete this file?" -"yes" - "are you sure?" - "are you really really sure ?" - "yes!!", -"it is going to be deleted permanently" - "definitely yes- who programed this interface?!"the same with a conversation between two people,
A-"hello"
B - "you have greeted me with the word hello i'm not sure i've heard it right" ,
A -"yes i've said hello you ears functions properly"
B - so "you want to start the conversation with the word hello" ,
A - "yes hello is the first thing i speak"
B - "hello is recieved now is my turn to say something " -
A - "go ahead i'm preparing to listen "
B - "good day"
A - "you have made an answer containing two words"
B - "yes there are two words indeed- good day"
A- " it is your final decision to settle for this reply"
B -"yes i'm pretty sure i want to answer with good day"
A - "good day recieved,now is my turn to make a reply"
B - ...here the timing is still tiiic taac, maybe ideally should happen a lot of fast checks than going at the next step .the same with learning/science: is this the right evidence?, yes, there are little issue here - they have this and that potential solutions- have you verified the corresponding cases, yes , than this is an acceptable evidence- however with a dose of skepticism , in case this and that happen.
I did not know of the bicentennial man. Seems to be a nice story!
What do I mean by the terms you mentioned? I mean being different from a stone that – presumably – has no goals and does not think about anything. We take the latter for granted, but if we are pedantic, we also could argue that since there is no real turing test for consciousness available, therefore we cannot even prove the stone to be a thing without consciousness and goals (the latter independent of whether or not that stone can at all reach its goals).
By that example I want to highlight that we may be tempted to attribute some consciousness to something that isn't conscious at all, and exclude consciousness for something that indeed has it.
Another problem, one that I think you refer to is that we only know human consciousness. And it is not at all clear that there may be also forms of AI machine consciousness possible. The latter may not be able to pass the point of merely having a kind of dream-like consciousness, or a consciousness that is similar to when humans are totally absorbed by thinking about something heavily. Or one that is at the level of Jung's “collective unconsciousness” (whereas the latter in turn is again a totally fuzzy term!). You are right, it is very difficult to objectively handle these terms without anthropomorphising the whole subject.
Some researchers say that we at first have to figure out how human consciousness comes about and then compare the results with what we find elsewhere, be it in machines or apes. I do not reject this strategy since I really cannot exclude that it will be successful and therefore I appreciate all efforts in that direction. Believing in God does not mean to me that we cannot make progress in examining it and then be able to eventually define it more precisely.
Best wishes
AquamarineTapirHi BeigeBandicoot, thanks for having read my essay and for commenting.
You are right about what is relevant in the reduction is often due to our interests. Since I am very much interested in metaphysical questions, I have the strategy of not always looking at the details, but rather finding counterexamples to make progress in my “research program”. My “research program” therefore is driven by a kind of exclusion principle, I try to systematically sort out hypothesis / beliefs by trying to find contradictory elements within the framework. At least then the framework should be altered somewhat to be consistent. This is also part of what you in your essay also propose (I will soon give it a very good rating since I think you wrote an important proposal to make sciences better), but with the addition that you also emphasize the search for further supportive evidence. In recent years, I found a lot of supportive evidence for the existence of God, and therefore I find the belief in God useful to fill the metaphysical gaps that otherwise must be filled with ad-hoc, illogical assumptions (for example, reality arose from absolutely nothing, is intrinsically devoid of answering metaphysical questions because the answers do simply not even exist etc.).
The thing that I meant to be surprising is not that there are many different descriptions / interpretations for a certain phenomenon, but – without having it spelled out explicitely – that despite all the successes and failures, despite all the crisis in fundamental understanding of the universe, nothing ever changed over the centuries for the probability that our reality was created by God. Only the subjective probabilities changed dramatically over the centuries due to a whole package of reasons.
This should be surprising for people that heavily rely on probabilistic estimates and the like and that take their own probability measures for an established reality. But these measures must be subjective as long as it cannot be shown how one gained the information by other means than subjective measures. Since incomplete systems lack information for the purpose of being completed and the needed information about metaphysical questions is very unlikely to come from natural sources themselves, that's another reason for me to adopt an archimedic point of reference by re-introducing the idea of God.
I see that your approach is less metaphysical. It may also ignore some – important? - detailed questions about what is space, what is energy, what is matter, what is time, what is consciousness. And that is an equally legitimate strategy for being able to execute your proposals made in your essay. In a certain way our lines of reasoning are really similar and at the same time complementary (surely or presumably with the exception of the God hypothesis).
One remark about the God hypothesis: my observation is that – similar to a self-referential sentence – attempts to design a certain self-contained explanation scheme for all of reality is in all cases doomed to running in circles (what I tried to explain in my essay). In my view Gödel's results show the strategy to escape that circle without ending up in absurdity. By realizing that we inherently lack the needed information to make any “self-contained” explanation scheme watertight, it is possible to exit the vicious circle by simply stepping out of it. This does not mean to not asking further questions or no more doing science, but I assume that in the end it will mean that the answers will inevitably point to a Creator of it all. Sure, that is merely a subjective belief, but I think it is not totally unfounded when examining what all those “self-contained” explanation schemes have in common (their circular reasoning, propelled by beliefs).