S
Syed Raiyan Nuri Reza

  • Joined Apr 23, 2020
  • Dear Dr. Priyanka Giri and Professor Tejinder Pal Singh,

    I am yet to read your submission in detail, but found your essay title and the analogy you present to your unique interpretation of QM to be poetic and beautiful!

    Excited to see how determinism is regained in what seems to be a very well thought out argument even though if the technical details may elude a lowly undergrad as I.

    Best Wishes,

    Raiyan Reza

    • Dear Professor Adel Sadeq,

      Thank you for drawing attention to your essay!

      The claim you had discovered that mathematical structure underlying our reality is very strong and beyond my scope of education to even comment on.

      I hope, however, more knowledgeable people than I can verify your claims and comment on the technical material.

      Best Wishes,

      Raiyan Reza

    • Dear Professor Adel Sadeq,

      Thanks for leaving a comment here!

      I will read your work!

      Best Wishes,

      Raiyan

    • Dear Cristi,

      Thank you for taking time in reading my work, your positive feedback and leaving behind a comment here!

      I am glad that indeed upon reading our work you find mutual grounds with your presentation, research and reasoning; which coming from a researcher to an undergrad like us is vindication!

      Thanks a lot for engaging in conversation, and it was once again, a delight discovering and reading your work!

      Best Wishes,

      Raiyan and Rastin

    • Dear Professor Mihai Panoschi Panoschi,

      I apologize for missing an honorific in my first response.

      Thanks for replying and your thought provoking comments!

      That said, yes I fully agree grammar and syntax play an important part in semantics of sentences and indeed cited Wittgenstein in my own work to advocate my stance, though I by no means claim your level of expertise or depth.

      Having said that, in day to day conversation we rely on "informal" systems to communicate.

      Unless you propose to reduce everything we have said to a formal system ( which is time consuming) than some degree of leniency on regards to grammar, and syntax is warranted, even in scholarly works.

      That said, I am confused you attribute cause/effect to the sentence, "If it rains, the ground gets wet". Implication is not causation, something I remember being from my Discrete mathematics course. Let us attribute false value to the proposition p," it rains", and truth to the proposition ," the ground gets wet", the truth value for p implies q would still be true. However, a causal understanding would tell us a different scenario.

      Again, thanks for your detailed critique and replying here!

      All the best for this essay contest and researches! And, I suppose apologies for semantic ambiguity and resembling "naive wishful thinking".

      Best Wishes,

      Raiyan Reza

    • Dear Cristi,

      Thanks for replying and sharing the longer version of your work, we will read it with great interest!

      We wish you all the for this essay contest and research!

      Raiyan and Rastin

    • Dear Mihai Panoschi Panoschi,

      Thank you for your response!

      Since you disagree with Professor Cristinel Stocia, you should direct your disagreements to them.

      Grammar errors and such are something I can look over. I am also failing to see how the statement goes against Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and its computational analogue, Turing Machine.

      To quote you, "It's logically inconsistent since Gödel's results express exactly the opposite, namely, the even in mathematics there can never be a complete and self-sufficient system of knowledge grounded on a finite set of axioms, therefore mathematics is inexhaustible in itself."

      Actually, Godel merely says if a formal system can express or encode arithmetic then it cannot prove its self consistency with a finite set of axioms. So if a finite set of axioms strong enough to encode or interpret arithmetic is incomplete in the sense we will have statements which we cannot decide it is true of false with the statements we have. Which is what Professor Cristinel Stocia's clearly states; if there exists a mathematical structure isomorphic to our physical reality, we cannot prove its self consistency. The implicit assumption is that such a structure much include formal systems strong enough to encode or interpret facts about arithmetic. They state, " Our knowledge will always be limited by Godel incompleteness (Godel, 1931) and Turing's noncomputability result (Turing, 1937)". It is very clear to those familiar with Godel and Turing's results. The limitations are we cannot verify the consistency of the mathematical structure.

      As for the hypothesis being unfalsifiable, that itself is not true. Read Principle 2, "The collection of all true propositions about our physical world admits a mathematical model"

      Thus, if have a mathematical model ( which we can derive from the said mathematical structure), that produces all the true propositions as verified through observation, measurement, and experiments we have a way of connecting the mathematical structure to the physical world. Whether or not they are the mathematical structure itself is a useful abstraction or actually exists is a separate question.

      Professor Stocia cites Tegmark, and I think if you refer his work you would fine a more detailed explanation of a mathematical structure, how it is corresponds to our physical world ( by doing a set of mathematical operations deriving physical symmetries) and such.

      Again, I am no expert here, but the extend Professor Stocia detailed her work, and from what I know I see and understand I cannot detect any "anamoly", and grammar errors while unfortunate is something I have no interest in penalizing someone for.

      Kind Regards,

      Raiyan Reza

    • Dear Professor Ian Durham,

      Thanks!

      And, I am glad you found my remarks worthwhile.

      Best,

      Raiyan Reza

    • Dear Professor Cristinel Stoica,

      I found your line of reasoning demonstrating the hard problem of consciousness in fact exists, and its centrality to our conception of reality using arguments grounded in mathematics both ingenious and beautiful.

      I will keep a copy of your work for further reading, and references ( if any circumstances arise).

      What also pleases me is that I sense in between your work and ours ( link: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3563) we share mutual ground, and we conclude indeed limitations of mathematics are equivalent to limitations of natural science along very similar lines of reasoning; something which you nicely summarize as:

      "But even if we would know with what mathematical structure our world is isomorphic, it

      wouldn't mean we would know everything, because our knowledge can only be expressed in a finite

      number of axioms, and our proofs can only have finite length. Our knowledge will always be limited

      by G¨odel incompleteness (G¨odel, 1931) and Turing's noncomputability result (Turing, 1937)."

      Indeed we share a similar stance to what you have said, "Science

      is a way to decode the book. It proceeds by identifying various words in various contexts, and

      the result is a dictionary, along with some grammar rules. Each word in the dictionary is defined

      in terms of other words, but there are no primary words whose meaning we understand. All the

      definitions in the dictionary are eventually circular. And the grammar rules, which correspond in

      this metaphor to the laws and principles we propose to describe the world, are purely syntactical.", and propose a grand lexicographic project for constructing a complete dictionary for Nature.

      We hope you have time to read our work!

      And thank you for your marvelous entry and the joy and insight we found in your work is reflected in our rating!

      Kind Regards,

      Raiyan Reza, and Rastin Reza

      • Dear Professor Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

        Sure, I will keep an eye out on your blog.

        Thanks for your comments here!

        Best Wishes,

        Raiyan Reza

      • Dear Professor Ian Durham,

        Thanks for replying and sharing your thoughts!

        Well, the way I interpreted this is when posing questions and constraining the universe of answers, we make sure it corresponds well to certain underlying grammar and semantics; and thus physics gets anchored to logic and mathematics.

        In other words, science is projection of our observation onto the canvas of formal systems, such as logic and mathematics; hence why I stated physics gets anchored to mathematics and logic rather than the other way around.

        In many way your work resonates well with Wittgenstein's seminal work Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus where he emphasis the centrality of language in understanding the world.

        Best Wishes,

        Raiyan Reza

      • Dear Professor Kevin Knuth,

        Your essay was a joy to read your essay!

        Your focus on addivity and expounding on its centrality to the sciences made for a nuanced and intelligent argument. My submission (co-authored) has a similar focus, where we interpret mathematics as the exclusive language of natural science and try to work out the implications it has and how the 3 un's become relevant. We view science as a function mapping observations to numbers, which I think is consistent to your statement:

        "In science, we quantify things so that we can rank them: quantity, mass, volume, voltage, probability.

        To maintain such rankings, quantities must be assigned consistently, especially in situations in which

        things are combined or partitioned to form other numbers of things."

        And, thus, like you conclude ( though nowhere as rigorously as both authors are undergrad level students) that we will have statements that are undecidable.

        Whereas we differ in our work , is that we do not think observation and its interpretation through probability theory can rescue us, and found your arguments very convincing!

        Raiyan Reza

        (PS: I have you find time to read our work : https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3563 )

      • Dear Professor Walker,

        This was a delightful and thought provoking essay.

        Sincerely,

        Rastin Reza

      • Dear Professor Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

        I will continue to address you as Professor as acknowledgment of your status as a researcher.

        That said, I will keep your advise in mind. Lastly, I had rated you well(would shift your score higher) at the time of my original comment. Though, I do not recall which one of the ratings was mine according to numeric order.

        All the best!

        Kind Regards,

        Raiyan Reza

      • Dear Dr. Flavio Del Santo,

        As a layperson (I am a lowly undergrad and majoring in CS), I found your work to be simultaneously profound and accessible!

        Prior to reading your work, I presumed determinism was built into the foundations of classical physics, and it was a joy to discover otherwise.I kept a copy your essay on my computer for repeated reading and future references ( some of the formalism eluded me).

        Indeed, showing how determinism contradicts physicality provided me with a lot of food for thought ( determinism implies infinite information content, which violates the physical nature of information was a very interesting thing for me to know)

        I dare to say the common view of classical physics as inherently deterministic is usually told and taught to everyone ( I was never told otherwise until now) is because:

        a) Many find determinism to be powerful;knowing a sufficiently advanced intellect can predict with absolute certainty gives us hope that human civilization may become that intellect, so this tacit assumption is mistaken to be a part of the orthodox position.

        b) Mathematics is deterministic in most cases ( we can prove with certitude certain statements from a set of axioms; thought Godel's Theorem gets in the way of perfect determinism, some statements cannot be proven) and we like physics to confirm as closely possible to mathematics ( something my and my co-author's essay (link: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3563) addresses).

        Kind Regards,

        Raiyan Reza

        • Dear Professor Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta ,

          I am sorry for missing out on this thread!

          And, thanks for your remarks on my future potential. and for your good rating!

          Best Wishes,

          Raiyan Reza

        • Dear Professor Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

          Thanks!

          Read your feedback, and have produced a reply!

          Best Wishes,

          Raiyan Reza

        • 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)

          • Dear Professor Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

            Thank you for your response!

            The famed Schrodinger's equation, features imaginary numbers, and the equation has made correct predictions about the behavior of electrons in atoms and is the basis for other more refined quantum models of nature. The more accurate Dirac equation too features imaginary number in its formulation.

            Even in the field of cosmology, imaginary numbers to the best of my knowledge plays a role. If we are using Newtonian model of gravity ( which is a good approximation) imaginary numbers will crop up in differential equations.

            Again, I am just lay person here and merely citing what I know from my general knowledge of physics.

            Wish you all the best for the contest and thank you actively engaging with me and other contestants here!

            Kind Regards,

            Raiyan Reza

          • Dear Professor Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

            I have read through your essay; and I found your view of extreme empiricism interesting.

            Most curious is your stance that every piece of mathematics must correspond to tangible entities; yet in using mathematics that is not tangible modern science has made numerous accurate and precise predictions.

            Imaginary numbers are ubiquitous in physics. In classical physics, they natural crop up in many scenarios. Indeed, electrical engineers use their own notation , "j", to denote the imaginary number so as not to confuse it with "i", which they use to represent current.

            And, in quantum mechanics imaginary numbers are essential, and quantum mechanics has passed many rigorous empirical tests! So I was wondering, how would your world view address the usefulness of abstract mathematics yielding accurate and precise predictions, since ( if I understood correctly) you champion that mathematics in physics must always be tangible?

            Best Wishes,

            Raiyan Reza

            (PS: Thanks for your kind feedback on my essay, and I left an evaluation of yours too!)