CATEGORY: Blog [back]

TOPIC: FQXi Essay Contest 2016: Wandering Towards a Goal [refresh]

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Dec. 2, 2016 @ 17:46 GMT





But there are other ways to think about physical reality. We can ask why did it happen? Was there a reason, or a reason it seems to have a reason? We can go beyond describing and try to explain, motivate. We can see beyond parts and think in terms of systems and wholes.



This shift in thought brings us to the next $40,000



This year’s theme is: Wandering Towards a Goal – How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions?



One way to think of physics is as a set of mathematical laws of dynamics. These laws provide predictions by carrying conditions at one moment of time inexorably into the future. But many phenomena admit another description – sometimes a vastly more useful one – in terms of long-term, large-scale goals, aims, and intentions.



The motion of the most basic particle can be described by the action of forces moment by moment or as the attempt to extremize an action integral, calculated over the particle’s entire path throughout time. Many-body systems can seem hopelessly complex when looked at in terms of their constituents' detailed dynamic motions, but neatly elegant when viewed as attempting to minimize energy or maximize entropy. Living systems efficiently organize their simplest components with the intricate aims of survival, reproduction, and other biological ends; and intelligent systems can employ a panoply of physical effects to accomplish many flexibly chosen goals.



How does this work? How do goal-oriented systems arise, and how do they exist and function in a world that we can describe in terms of goal-free mathematical evolution?



Relevant essays might address questions such as:



* How did physical systems that pursue the goal of reproduction arise from an a-biological world?



* What general features — like information processing, computation, learning, complexity thresholds, and/or departures from equilibrium — allow (or proscribe) agency?



* How are goals (versus accomplishments) linked to “arrows of time”?



* What separates systems that are intelligent from those that are not? Can we measure this separation objectively and without requiring reference to humans?



* What is the relationship between causality – the explanation of events in terms of causes – and teleology – the explanation of events in terms of purposes?



* Is goal-oriented behavior a physical or cosmic trend, an accident or an imperative?



We are accepting entries from now until March 3, 2017, with winners announced in June. The contest rules will operate as in past contests. Please read the



The contest is open to anyone, so please share this info with everyone. Good luck and good writing!



In physics we tend to stick to asking what happened, how did it happen? We like to describe, usually in minute details. We like to use the smallest possible components, “building blocks”, “unit cells".But there are other ways to think about physical reality. We can ask why did it happen? Was there a reason, or a reason it seems to have a reason? We can go beyond describing and try to explain, motivate. We can see beyond parts and think in terms of systems and wholes.This shift in thought brings us to the next $40,000 FQXi essay contest , brought to you with our partners at The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation This year’s theme is:One way to think of physics is as a set of mathematical laws of dynamics. These laws provide predictions by carrying conditions at one moment of time inexorably into the future. But many phenomena admit another description – sometimes a vastly more useful one – in terms of long-term, large-scale goals, aims, and intentions.The motion of the most basic particle can be described by the action of forces moment by moment or as the attempt to extremize an action integral, calculated over the particle’s entire path throughout time. Many-body systems can seem hopelessly complex when looked at in terms of their constituents' detailed dynamic motions, but neatly elegant when viewed as attempting to minimize energy or maximize entropy. Living systems efficiently organize their simplest components with the intricate aims of survival, reproduction, and other biological ends; and intelligent systems can employ a panoply of physical effects to accomplish many flexibly chosen goals.How does this work? How do goal-oriented systems arise, and how do they exist and function in a world that we can describe in terms of goal-free mathematical evolution?Relevant essays might address questions such as:* How did physical systems that pursue the goal of reproduction arise from an a-biological world?* What general features — like information processing, computation, learning, complexity thresholds, and/or departures from equilibrium — allow (or proscribe) agency?* How are goals (versus accomplishments) linked to “arrows of time”?* What separates systems that are intelligent from those that are not? Can we measure this separation objectively and without requiring reference to humans?* What is the relationship between causality – the explanation of events in terms of causes – and teleology – the explanation of events in terms of purposes?* Is goal-oriented behavior a physical or cosmic trend, an accident or an imperative?We are accepting entries from now until, with winners announced in June. The contest rules will operate as in past contests. Please read the contest pages for instructions and full rules.The contest is open to anyone, so please share this info with everyone. Good luck and good writing!

S.E. Grimm wrote on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 11:16 GMT





Research in the field of the foundations of physics/mathematics is perhaps one of the most earnest human activities. So it is correct to state that an essay have to be technically correct and rigorously argued. Nevertheless, the essay is limited to a stunning 9 pages so this “identification of top thinkers” isn’t serious. Personally I asked the FQXi administrator to delete my essay (bit from it) after a couple of days when I realized myself these inconsequences.



report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 12:17 GMT



Have you seen this



Longer than 9 pages wouldn't be manageable for peer review.



report post as inappropriate Hi H.G.,Have you seen this What makes us feel good about our work? - Dan Ariely It shows that for tasks requiring mental effort monetary reward is a poor motivator.Longer than 9 pages wouldn't be manageable for peer review.

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 12:40 GMT



I don't understand why You wanted to delete your work Mr HG,like I am curious ,I have seen the essays and I don't find.Could You post it or tell me what was this essay,please.



Regards



report post as inappropriate Hi Georgina, H.G.,I don't understand why You wanted to delete your work Mr HG,like I am curious ,I have seen the essays and I don't find.Could You post it or tell me what was this essay,please.Regards

FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre replied on Dec. 5, 2016 @ 17:55 GMT



The reason we're optimistic that top thinkers will submit essays is that they keep doing so! We've had a large number of essay submissions by many many FQXi members (who are highly regarded scientists) as well as lots from farther afield. Although an essay contest is not the place to fully explicate a large or highly technical piece of research, we've found that it's a great context for people to explore and think through ideas and get a lot of attention and feedback on them. The top essays tend to be very good and very interesting, but if you don't want to participate that's certainly your prerogative!



H.G.:The reason we're optimistic that top thinkers will submit essays is that they keep doing so! We've had a large number of essay submissions by many many FQXi members (who are highly regarded scientists) as well as lots from farther afield. Although an essay contest is not the place to fully explicate a large or highly technical piece of research, we've found that it's a great context for people to explore and think through ideas and get a lot of attention and feedback on them. The top essays tend to be very good and very interesting, but if you don't want to participate that's certainly your prerogative!

show all replies (3 not shown)

S.E. Grimm replied on Dec. 5, 2016 @ 18:41 GMT



Thank you for the answer. I wish FQXi a lot of success with the current contest.



report post as inappropriate @Anthony Aguirre,Thank you for the answer. I wish FQXi a lot of success with the current contest.

Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Dec. 6, 2016 @ 20:42 GMT



I am not a “top mind”, but I do enjoy being called a top mind. Entering a contest for the “top minds” and being included (perhaps by mistake) in that category makes me feel good. Apparently a monetary reward repels top minds, since I do not revolve in those high circles I must assume you are correct.



I do enjoy writing essays, reading other essays; writing comments about essays and having comments written about my essay. My chance of winning is slight, so the prize money in my case is not a factor.



report post as inappropriate H. G.I am not a “top mind”, but I do enjoy being called a top mind. Entering a contest for the “top minds” and being included (perhaps by mistake) in that category makes me feel good. Apparently a monetary reward repels top minds, since I do not revolve in those high circles I must assume you are correct.I do enjoy writing essays, reading other essays; writing comments about essays and having comments written about my essay. My chance of winning is slight, so the prize money in my case is not a factor.

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 7, 2016 @ 15:02 GMT



I quote from your essay: "The speed of light (or Radar) being a constant in a vacuum for all observers is the basis of special relativity".



As a teacher you have to say this. However, I see the issue differently. Constant speed of light was found experimentally and it was also a result of Maxwell's equations.



Einstein in 1905 himself wrote that it "seemingly" contradicts to the (already by Poincaré adopted principle of relativity. He, Einstein claimed having resolved the seeming contradiction by means of Poincaré synchronization.



I prefer writing Relativity, not relativity in order to characterize Einstein's Relativity as something to believe in contradiction with sound reasoning.



A key figure was Michelson who performed for the first time in 1871 in Potsdam near Berlin an experiment that disproved so called aether wind, i.e. the existence of a hypothetical firmly localized in space universal frame to refer to. While Michelson didn't accept what he called a monster, i.e. Einstein's Relativity, he could perhaps not imagine electromagnetic waves propagating without a medium to propagate within. Michelson died as an agnostic.



You might demonstrate being a top thinker by dealing with the neglected by Einstein question how to define speed and in particular the speed of light in empty space. I suggested a simple but plausible definition. Is it wrong?



++++



report post as inappropriate Hi Jeffrey,I quote from your essay: "The speed of light (or Radar) being a constant in a vacuum for all observers is the basis of special relativity".As a teacher you have to say this. However, I see the issue differently. Constant speed of light was found experimentally and it was also a result of Maxwell's equations.Einstein in 1905 himself wrote that it "seemingly" contradicts to the (already by Poincaré adopted principle of relativity. He, Einstein claimed having resolved the seeming contradiction by means of Poincaré synchronization.I prefer writing Relativity, not relativity in order to characterize Einstein's Relativity as something to believe in contradiction with sound reasoning.A key figure was Michelson who performed for the first time in 1871 in Potsdam near Berlin an experiment that disproved so called aether wind, i.e. the existence of a hypothetical firmly localized in space universal frame to refer to. While Michelson didn't accept what he called a monster, i.e. Einstein's Relativity, he could perhaps not imagine electromagnetic waves propagating without a medium to propagate within. Michelson died as an agnostic.You might demonstrate being a top thinker by dealing with the neglected by Einstein question how to define speed and in particular the speed of light in empty space. I suggested a simple but plausible definition. Is it wrong?++++



hide replies I don’t want to be negative but I don’t understand FQXi. Why does they think that “top thinkers in foundational questions” will send in an essay? Because they love competition and want to win and cash? That cannot be serious.Research in the field of the foundations of physics/mathematics is perhaps one of the most earnest human activities. So it is correct to state that an essay have to be technically correct and rigorously argued. Nevertheless, the essay is limited to a stunning 9 pages so this “identification of top thinkers” isn’t serious. Personally I asked the FQXi administrator to delete my essay (bit from it) after a couple of days when I realized myself these inconsequences.

S.E. Grimm wrote on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 15:22 GMT





The contents of the old essay are not important. I only tried to explain that it is – in my opinion - impossible to get “fresh” insights in the foundations of physics/mathematics with the help of a contest (with limitations). I don’t blame FQXi for organizing contests, I only doubt the effectiveness "to find top thinkers in foundational questions”. Anyway, you can find some of the descriptions of the old essay at https://ephys.blogspot.com (post 03 till 12).



report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 15:58 GMT



about the contest, it is short indeed but it is always interesting to see the works of different thinkers in a total transparence.FQXI makes a wonderful jobs in fact.



Regards



report post as inappropriate Thanks for sharing H G I am going to look at your papper ,if I can it is dufourny without e :),about the contest, it is short indeed but it is always interesting to see the works of different thinkers in a total transparence.FQXI makes a wonderful jobs in fact.Regards

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 16:09 GMT



++++



report post as inappropriate Maybe, H. G. stands for Henk Grimm. The latter's blog does neither reveal to me Henk's qualification nor due effort to question work by others including my own.++++

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 3, 2016 @ 17:06 GMT



I have seen several posts you seem to like the sphere ,I am happy.:) They turn so they are these sphères after all.Do you know My humble theory of spherisation with quantum 3D sphères and cosmological 3D sphres Inside an universal 3D sphere in spherisation optimisation of matter energy.Here are my tow correlated équations E=mc²+ml² and mlosV=constant don't hesitate to ask details I will answer with pleasure.



Regards



report post as inappropriate Dear Mr Grimm,I have seen several posts you seem to like the sphere ,I am happy.:) They turn so they are these sphères after all.Do you know My humble theory of spherisation with quantum 3D sphères and cosmological 3D sphres Inside an universal 3D sphere in spherisation optimisation of matter energy.Here are my tow correlated équations E=mc²+ml² and mlosV=constant don't hesitate to ask details I will answer with pleasure.Regards @Steve Dufourney,The contents of the old essay are not important. I only tried to explain that it is – in my opinion - impossible to get “fresh” insights in the foundations of physics/mathematics with the help of a contest (with limitations). I don’t blame FQXi for organizing contests, I only doubt the effectiveness "to find top thinkers in foundational questions”. Anyway, you can find some of the descriptions of the old essay at https://ephys.blogspot.com (post 03 till 12).

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 7, 2016 @ 17:25 GMT

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 8, 2016 @ 16:15 GMT





Sabine Hossenfelder: "Math can do a lot of things for you, but in the end it's merely a device to derive consequences from assumptions."



Yes, deducing consequences from assumptions, or, more precisely, conclusions from premises, is the only reasonable method in theoretical physics. Any theory, if it is truly a theory and not an...



view entire post Deduction: The Only Method in Theoretical PhysicsSabine Hossenfelder: "Math can do a lot of things for you, but in the end it's merely a device to derive consequences from assumptions."Yes, deducing consequences from assumptions, or, more precisely, conclusions from premises, is the only reasonable method in theoretical physics. Any theory, if it is truly a theory and not an...



: "Math can do a lot of things for you, but in the end it's merely a device to derive consequences from assumptions."



Yes, deducing consequences from assumptions, or, more precisely, conclusions from premises, is the only reasonable method in theoretical physics. Any theory, if it is truly a theory and not an empirical concoction, can be presented as a finite set of valid arguments:



it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false."



That is, one can list the arguments - Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3 etc. - and then check the validity of each of them. Invalid arguments do not belong in the theory of course. Consider, for instance, two arguments where the premises are Einstein's 1905 two postulates:



Argument 1 (valid):



Premise: The principle of relativity is correct.



Premise: The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.



Conclusion: I see your clock running slower than mine, and you see mine running slower than yours.



Argument 2 (invalid):



Premise: The principle of relativity is correct.



Premise: The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.



Conclusion: Both of us see your clock running behind my clock, that is, your clock is slow and my clock is FAST. This also means that you can jump, within a minute (of your experienced time), arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead.



Essentially this is the conclusion Einstein drew in 1905:



: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."



: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."



Argument 2 is invalid - accordingly, Einstein's 1905 conclusion does not belong in the theory. Time travel into the future is magic, not science.



Pentcho Valev



view post as summary Deduction: The Only Method in Theoretical Physics Sabine Hossenfelder : "Math can do a lot of things for you, but in the end it's merely a device to derive consequences from assumptions."Yes, deducing consequences from assumptions, or, more precisely, conclusions from premises, is the only reasonable method in theoretical physics. Any theory, if it is truly a theory and not an empirical concoction, can be presented as a finite set of valid arguments: "In logic, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false."That is, one can list the arguments - Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3 etc. - and then check the validity of each of them. Invalid arguments do not belong in the theory of course. Consider, for instance, two arguments where the premises are Einstein's 1905 two postulates:Argument 1 (valid):Premise: The principle of relativity is correct.Premise: The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.Conclusion: I see your clock running slower than mine, and you see mine running slower than yours.Argument 2 (invalid):Premise: The principle of relativity is correct.Premise: The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.Conclusion: Both of us see your clock running behind my clock, that is, your clock is slow and my clock is FAST. This also means that you can jump, within a minute (of your experienced time), arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead.Essentially this is the conclusion Einstein drew in 1905: Albert Einstein, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905 : "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." Thibault Damour : "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."Argument 2 is invalid - accordingly, Einstein's 1905 conclusion does not belong in the theory. Time travel into the future is magic, not science.Pentcho Valev



report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Dec. 8, 2016 @ 20:14 GMT



I'm looking forward to your essay. I've already submitted mine although I will NOT count myself among those "top minds" and "top thinkers" that Anthony Aguirre mentions:-)



Best Regards,



Gary Simpson



report post as inappropriate Pentcho,I'm looking forward to your essay. I've already submitted mine although I will NOT count myself among those "top minds" and "top thinkers" that Anthony Aguirre mentions:-)Best Regards,Gary Simpson

Jose P. Koshy replied on Dec. 10, 2016 @ 06:01 GMT



What Einstein said is correct, if we read it out of context.



"If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."



Any device to measure time uses some kind of inside motion as a standard to which the measured time is compared. This inside motion of the clock, even if it is a 'very accurate atomic clock', is affected by the motion of the clock as a whole. But this phenomenon is now being wrongly explained as time dilation.



In my hypothesis, G is proportional to square of the speed (a body at absolute rest has zero G), and so the lagging of clock depends on its speed.



report post as inappropriate Pentcho,What Einstein said is correct, if we read it out of context."If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."Any device to measure time uses some kind of inside motion as a standard to which the measured time is compared. This inside motion of the clock, even if it is a 'very accurate atomic clock', is affected by the motion of the clock as a whole. But this phenomenon is now being wrongly explained as time dilation.In my hypothesis, G is proportional to square of the speed (a body at absolute rest has zero G), and so the lagging of clock depends on its speed.

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 10, 2016 @ 07:27 GMT



++++



report post as inappropriate Only if absolute rest means no motion of B relative to A then it makes sense to me. Jose, how do you define speed?++++

show all replies (2 not shown)

Jose P. Koshy replied on Dec. 11, 2016 @ 10:22 GMT



My hypothesis is "Absolute motion in absolute space". Speed is scalar; motion at speed 'c' is the fundamental property of matter.



If A alone is there, and we are in A, we can still know whether A is moving or not, by measuring its G. If A revolves around B, then it is the relative speed that decides the G of A. If B is also moving, the speed of B affects G towards B, but G towards A is unaffected; as A will be moving along with B in this case, the G of the system AB towards the common centre depends on the speed of A.



(Incidentally, I claim that the present G is actually the G of Earth for its present speed, and can be deduced from electrostatic constant and 'c'. My paper is available at vixra.org.)



report post as inappropriate Blumschein,My hypothesis is "Absolute motion in absolute space". Speed is scalar; motion at speed 'c' is the fundamental property of matter.If A alone is there, and we are in A, we can still know whether A is moving or not, by measuring its G. If A revolves around B, then it is the relative speed that decides the G of A. If B is also moving, the speed of B affects G towards B, but G towards A is unaffected; as A will be moving along with B in this case, the G of the system AB towards the common centre depends on the speed of A.(Incidentally, I claim that the present G is actually the G of Earth for its present speed, and can be deduced from electrostatic constant and 'c'. My paper is available at vixra.org.)

John S Minkowski replied on Dec. 17, 2016 @ 18:21 GMT



Where is the viewer in the above who determines that the clocks are synchronous? Presumably an observer equidistant from both. (How does the observer know the observation point is equidistant from both clocks simultaneously?) Assuming the observer (who determines the clocks at A and B are synchronous) is equidistant from A and B, wouldn't the observed time of A move in both directions along path AB?



report post as inappropriate "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous..."Where is the viewer in the above who determines that the clocks are synchronous? Presumably an observer equidistant from both. (How does the observer know the observation point is equidistant from both clocks simultaneously?) Assuming the observer (who determines the clocks at A and B are synchronous) is equidistant from A and B, wouldn't the observed time of A move in both directions along path AB?



hide replies

Georgina Woodward wrote on Dec. 10, 2016 @ 03:55 GMT





It will be interesting to ponder and to read other peoples's ideas on the subject.



report post as inappropriate Thank you for this essay topic.It will be interesting to ponder and to read other peoples's ideas on the subject.

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 10, 2016 @ 16:50 GMT





: "Every theory needs assumptions. The problem isn't the existence of assumptions, the problem is the lack of clarity about what exactly is assumed and what follows from what."



Correct. Many problems of theoretical physics will be solved if each theory is obligatorily presented as a list of valid arguments, and each argument in the list as clearly stated premises and a conclusion. For instance:



Argument number 8



Premise 1: ...



Premise 2: ...



Premise 3: ...



Conclusion: ...



Any premise is either an initial assumption (postulate, axiom) or a conclusion already deduced in previous arguments. Arguments in the list are constantly checked for validity.



When the theory is presented in this way, its truthfulness is guaranteed if the initial assumptions (postulates, axioms) are true. If some initial assumption turns out to be false, the conclusions deduced from it are removed from the theory.



Pentcho Valev



report post as inappropriate

Efthimios Harokopos replied on Dec. 14, 2016 @ 18:43 GMT



report post as inappropriate I believe that deduction does not offer any new knowledge. Induction offers a law subject to probability. It is abduction that offer the possibility of new knowledge (a hypothesis) Deduction: The Only Method in Theoretical Physics (2) Sabine Hossenfelder : "Every theory needs assumptions. The problem isn't the existence of assumptions, the problem is the lack of clarity about what exactly is assumed and what follows from what."Correct. Many problems of theoretical physics will be solved if each theory is obligatorily presented as a list of valid arguments, and each argument in the list as clearly stated premises and a conclusion. For instance:Argument number 8Premise 1: ...Premise 2: ...Premise 3: ...Conclusion: ...Any premise is either an initial assumption (postulate, axiom) or a conclusion already deduced in previous arguments. Arguments in the list are constantly checked for validity.When the theory is presented in this way, its truthfulness is guaranteed if the initial assumptions (postulates, axioms) are true. If some initial assumption turns out to be false, the conclusions deduced from it are removed from the theory.Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 12, 2016 @ 18:20 GMT





Zeeya Merali: "LIGO black hole echoes hint at general-relativity breakdown"



Pentcho Valev



report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Dec. 13, 2016 @ 12:15 GMT -18m.



First is that if a line can alternately shorten and lengthen then it is a physical thing, and not merely a relational concept. Einstein in several parts of his theory follows Mach and relies on space as a relational concept and not something real. Although in his 1920 Leiden address he recanted somewhat and said a line can have physical qualities.



Second is that a line containing an infinite number of points cannot be physically lengthened or shortened because infinity cannot be added to or subtracted from. Only in finite geometry can a line be logically added to and subtracted from.



This being so, Einstein himself already hints at general relativity breakdown without travelling to the edge of black holes. He is quoted to have said in 1954, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics".



Regards,



Akinbo



report post as inappropriate Despite the experimental imperfection and some attempt at cooking up data, what the experimenters in the Advanced LIGO experiment claim, i.e. a rhythmic shortening and elongation of two lines, one at Livinston, Louisiana, the other at Hanford, Washington, both in the United States of America already hints that a line has discrete and non-continuos features. The claim is that the two 4km lines lengthened and shortened rhythmically by about 10m.First is that if a line can alternately shorten and lengthen then it is a physical thing, and not merely a relational concept. Einstein in several parts of his theory follows Mach and relies on space as a relational concept and not something real. Although in his 1920 Leiden address he recanted somewhat and said a line can have physical qualities.Second is that a line containing an infinite number of pointsbe physically lengthened or shortened because infinity cannot be added to or subtracted from. Only in finite geometry can a line be logically added to and subtracted from.This being so, Einstein himself already hints at general relativity breakdown without travelling to the edge of black holes. He is quoted to have said in 1954,Regards,Akinbo

Steve Agnew replied on Dec. 14, 2016 @ 04:27 GMT



Gravity waves are not therefore unexpected and it is kind of silly to argue against them. There are many problems with general relativity by gravity waves simply are not an issue...



report post as inappropriate Oh for goodness sake...give them at least a chance. Any reasonable theory of gravity has to have waves since no reasonable theory of graviy supposes that there be instantaneous action.Gravity waves are not therefore unexpected and it is kind of silly to argue against them. There are many problems with general relativity by gravity waves simply are not an issue...

Akinbo Ojo replied on Dec. 14, 2016 @ 11:02 GMT



They were not measuring space-time either. What they put forward as their result is alternate changes in length between (4km + 10-18m) and (4km - 10-18m).



"...a modified Michelson interferometer (see Fig. 3) that measures gravitational-wave strain as a difference in length of its orthogonal arms. Each arm is formed by two mirrors, acting as test masses, separated by (...) 4 km. A passing gravitational wave effectively alters the arm lengths.." - abstracted with a discerning eye from from



All in italics is conjecture. Only what is in bold is primary because difference/ variation in length can arise from many causes. A line that can be subjected to strain by whatever cause is not dead, but very much alive and must therefore have physical qualities and not merely be a relational concept or fiction. This alone contradicts the relationist and supports the substantivalist view of space. Can a fictitious object be subjected to strain?



Akinbo



report post as inappropriate Despite ingenious attempts to use math and words to obscure what Advanced LIGO PRIMARILY purports to measure, what was actually measured is change in the magnitude of a line. Whether this is due to gravity waves or black holes colliding far away is very very SECONDARY and a matter of conjecture. And the chosen method of measuring the changes in length is by how long light takes to traverse the 4km distance.They were not measuring space-time either. What they put forward as their result is alternate changes in length between (4km + 10m) and (4km - 10m)..." - abstracted with a discerning eye from from Physical Review Letters All in italics is conjecture. Only what is in bold is primary because difference/ variation in length can arise from many causes. A line that can be subjected to strain by whatever cause is not dead, but very much alive and must therefore have physical qualities and not merely be a relational concept or fiction. This alone contradicts the relationist and supports the substantivalist view of space. Can a fictitious object be subjected to strain?Akinbo

show all replies (2 not shown)

Efthimios Harokopos replied on Dec. 14, 2016 @ 18:44 GMT



http://www.digitalcosmology.com/Blog/2016/02/24/detecti

on-of-gravitational-waves/



this post has been edited by the author since its original submission



report post as inappropriate Detection of Gravitational Waves and The Abduction of Black Holeshttp://www.digitalcosmology.com/Blog/2016/02/24/detection-of-gravitational-waves/

Steve Agnew replied on Dec. 16, 2016 @ 15:32 GMT



The fact of gravity waves is really tied to the mass-energy equivalence principle and therefore a limit to information transfer that we call the speed of light. However the concepts of speed and motion are limited and do not apply inside of black holes. Black hole mergers must have some kind of quantum effects when their event horizons meet and those effects will be the keys that unlock quantum gravity.



The shrinking entropy associated with quantum gravity complements the increasing entropy of ordinary matter and it is events like black hole mergers that show us the true nature of our universe. Unlike the simple notion of a black hole event horizon, shrinking quantum gravity waves provide a window into the nature of black hole matter.



With gravity waves, science can finally see what the inside of a black hole is like. While space and time have no meaning inside of an event horizon, matter and action do have meaning inside of a black hole. Instead of a universe made up of only the limited notions of space and time provided by GR, matter and action provide complete notions that unite our reality into a duality from which space and time then emerge.



report post as inappropriate Once again, Zeeya Merali has provided an excellent story about the echos reported from the black hole merger seen by Ligo. There is a nice technical paper as well for those who like to deep dive. Echoes from the Abyss: Evidence for Planck-scale structure at black hole horizons The fact of gravity waves is really tied to the mass-energy equivalence principle and therefore a limit to information transfer that we call the speed of light. However the concepts of speed and motion are limited and do not apply inside of black holes. Black hole mergers must have some kind of quantum effects when their event horizons meet and those effects will be the keys that unlock quantum gravity.The shrinking entropy associated with quantum gravity complements the increasing entropy of ordinary matter and it is events like black hole mergers that show us the true nature of our universe. Unlike the simple notion of a black hole event horizon, shrinking quantum gravity waves provide a window into the nature of black hole matter.With gravity waves, science can finally see what the inside of a black hole is like. While space and time have no meaning inside of an event horizon, matter and action do have meaning inside of a black hole. Instead of a universe made up of only the limited notions of space and time provided by GR, matter and action provide complete notions that unite our reality into a duality from which space and time then emerge.



hide replies There is an article in Nature suggesting that LIGO's gravitational waves topple, rather than confirm, general relativity. In my comments on the article I am much more radical - gravitational waves do not exist and general relativity is an empirical concoction, not a deductive theory:Pentcho Valev

Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Dec. 14, 2016 @ 19:17 GMT





read my book



Advanced Relativity.



report post as inappropriate we know all that alreadyread my bookAdvanced Relativity.

John S Minkowski wrote on Dec. 15, 2016 @ 04:31 GMT





The real question is whether we are in a Neo-Ptolemystical age, where most of the models fit, except at the edges (of extremely small or large)!



John S Minkowski



report post as inappropriate

Helmut Hansen replied on Dec. 15, 2016 @ 05:01 GMT



can you explain your last statement, concerning cosmological models that do not fit at the edges of extremely small or extremely large? Can you give an example? Actually there is an empirical fact referring to the edges of the universe which cannot be explained by modern cosmology. It's in a way a sort of anomaly.



H. Hansen



report post as inappropriate Dear John,can you explain your last statement, concerning cosmological models that do not fit at the edges of extremely small or extremely large? Can you give an example? Actually there is an empirical fact referring to the edges of the universe which cannot be explained by modern cosmology. It's in a way a sort of anomaly.H. Hansen

John S Minkowski replied on Dec. 15, 2016 @ 14:04 GMT



report post as inappropriate H.H. Perhaps you could provide your own anomalous example. I am only an amateur, but doesn't the ubiquitous use of the term 'singularity' answer the question? Apparently, we have a singularity at the center of a Schwarzschild diameter and another at the center of the 'Big Bang'. These two singularities appear to be opposites. Crothers and Mersini-Houghton have written about the mathematics of black holes, and each find that the singularity does not exist! Hope that answers your question. J.M.

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 15, 2016 @ 15:08 GMT



It is complex when we consider the main cause,the uniqueness if I can say,quant or cosm.The interprétations of singularities are complex.It dépends of how we consider the singularity.The mathematical universe for example of max Tegmark considers mathematical singularities with mathematical codes.I beleive that these works are relevant for the convergences.Now we can...



view entire post Hello to both of you,It is complex when we consider the main cause,the uniqueness if I can say,quant or cosm.The interprétations of singularities are complex.It dépends of how we consider the singularity.The mathematical universe for example of max Tegmark considers mathematical singularities with mathematical codes.I beleive that these works are relevant for the convergences.Now we can...



It is complex when we consider the main cause,the uniqueness if I can say,quant or cosm.The interprétations of singularities are complex.It dépends of how we consider the singularity.The mathematical universe for example of max Tegmark considers mathematical singularities with mathematical codes.I beleive that these works are relevant for the convergences.Now we can interpret also the physical singularities like you said Mr Minkowski about the begining of the physicality.It exists quantum physical singularities and this physical cosmological singularity.Now these singularities an converge with the maths if wee consider different theories.The strings and Mtheory them say that a main primordial field from a center.The 1d strings are connected with this fied.The loop quantum theory also is an other explaination.Or alo in all humility my 3D sphères,quant and cosm.The importance I beleive is to consider the main gravitational codes.This central physicality, which is a BH in my model of spherisation with these 3D sphères,implies the main codes ,gravitational and all quantum central sphères are connected with this field of gravitation from this singularity, physical cosmological, the biggest BH where all turns around in logic Inside this universal 3D sphere in complexification due to encodings of evolution.We must consider causes to explain the effects.In all case the convergences must appear between all these theories.The mathematical singularities and their codes or the physical singulrities with also physical codes,both can be harmonised when the correct laws ,universal are respected.We do not well what is the dark matter, the gravitation, the Black Holes,we know also that our stabndard model is not complete and that this weakest force, the gravitation is not explained.We search to know these unknowns.We search explainations for these main codes, why they exist ?Why all this universal mechanic exists ? What is this infinite entropy above our understabding creating a physicality?It is not rally approachable if I can say like the singularities,we are far of these main causes.We can that said study and understand the steps before.But we know so few at this moment still.We know just a so small part of the puzzle.The gravitation is more than we can imagine, the aether seems even gravitational and not luminiferous.What a big puzzle :) Best Regards



view post as summary Hello to both of you,It is complex when we consider the main cause,the uniqueness if I can say,quant or cosm.The interprétations of singularities are complex.It dépends of how we consider the singularity.The mathematical universe for example of max Tegmark considers mathematical singularities with mathematical codes.I beleive that these works are relevant for the convergences.Now we can interpret also the physical singularities like you said Mr Minkowski about the begining of the physicality.It exists quantum physical singularities and this physical cosmological singularity.Now these singularities an converge with the maths if wee consider different theories.The strings and Mtheory them say that a main primordial field from a center.The 1d strings are connected with this fied.The loop quantum theory also is an other explaination.Or alo in all humility my 3D sphères,quant and cosm.The importance I beleive is to consider the main gravitational codes.This central physicality, which is a BH in my model of spherisation with these 3D sphères,implies the main codes ,gravitational and all quantum central sphères are connected with this field of gravitation from this singularity, physical cosmological, the biggest BH where all turns around in logic Inside this universal 3D sphere in complexification due to encodings of evolution.We must consider causes to explain the effects.In all case the convergences must appear between all these theories.The mathematical singularities and their codes or the physical singulrities with also physical codes,both can be harmonised when the correct laws ,universal are respected.We do not well what is the dark matter, the gravitation, the Black Holes,we know also that our stabndard model is not complete and that this weakest force, the gravitation is not explained.We search to know these unknowns.We search explainations for these main codes, why they exist ?Why all this universal mechanic exists ? What is this infinite entropy above our understabding creating a physicality?It is not rally approachable if I can say like the singularities,we are far of these main causes.We can that said study and understand the steps before.But we know so few at this moment still.We know just a so small part of the puzzle.The gravitation is more than we can imagine, the aether seems even gravitational and not luminiferous.What a big puzzle :) Best Regards



report post as inappropriate

show all replies (6 not shown)

Steve Agnew replied on Dec. 16, 2016 @ 16:09 GMT



However, quantum forces involve the exchange of third particles and this action of matter does not really depend on space or atomic time. Time becomes just the decay of phase coherence with exchange force and the time of atomic clocks has no meaning. It is instead the time of quantum phase decay that really sets the arrow of time and not really the entropy increase of ordinary matter.



It is the phase decay of the quantum superposition of an unbroken egg with a broken egg that provides the key to a quantum gravity. In quantum gravity, a dropped egg falls to the earth just as the earth rises to meet that egg. The unbroken-broken egg superposition is therefore complemented by the unbroken-broken earth superposition.



Observer and source are therefore complementary in gravity action, which is why gravity is classical and does not depend on the order of measurement. While we tend to focus on the egg and not on the earth when a dropped egg breaks, the earth also breaks when it collides with the egg...just a lot less. Observer and source are not complementary when quantum charge action breaks the egg and the fact of the wandering of phase decay now depends on the order of measurement.



report post as inappropriate The fields of gravity and charge provide very good ways to predict the futures of sources and observers in space and time. However, the singularities at the centers of every particle of matter at the Planck scale as well as the singularities of event horizons have no meaning in the limited notions of space and time.However, quantum forces involve the exchange of third particles and this action of matter does not really depend on space or atomic time. Time becomes just the decay of phase coherence with exchange force and the time of atomic clocks has no meaning. It is instead the time of quantum phase decay that really sets the arrow of time and not really the entropy increase of ordinary matter.It is the phase decay of the quantum superposition of an unbroken egg with a broken egg that provides the key to a quantum gravity. In quantum gravity, a dropped egg falls to the earth just as the earth rises to meet that egg. The unbroken-broken egg superposition is therefore complemented by the unbroken-broken earth superposition.Observer and source are therefore complementary in gravity action, which is why gravity is classical and does not depend on the order of measurement. While we tend to focus on the egg and not on the earth when a dropped egg breaks, the earth alsowhen it collides with the egg...just a lot less. Observer and source are not complementary when quantum charge action breaks the egg and the fact of the wandering of phase decay now depends on the order of measurement.

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 16, 2016 @ 19:44 GMT



report post as inappropriate Hello Mr Agnew,I always like read your lines of reasoning.Have you never thought about the gravitational aethertime? Or make a superimposing of these aethertimes.It coud be interesting.We can even consider the photonic sphere and the luminiferous aether and the crrelated aether time,and we can consider also this gravitationl aether time from the main central BH,the cosmological physical singularity if Ican say.It becomes even intriguing when we consider that gravitation and entropy tend to infinity and that eternity appears at these singularities.How can we consider the electromagnetic death and the gravitational death ....it becomes philosophical we die electromagnetically speaking, not gravitationally :)But of course we cannot approach these quantum singularities nor thiscosmological singuarity.

Steve Agnew replied on Dec. 16, 2016 @ 21:59 GMT



The CMB light of creation is at a very uniform 2.7 K and all matter that exists now came from an emission of a 13.6 eV photon as an electron and proton became bound by the exchange of the complementary photon of 13.6 eV, what science calls the hydrodgen atom.



The photon emitted at creation slowly decays with the universe decay, but remains entangled with the photon that still binds that hydrogen atom today. That biphoton is the quadrupole that we know as gravity, which is the decoherence of those biphotons at the scale of the universe.



In effect, the CMB creation photon wraps around the universe and is present today entangled with its complementary bonding photon. The nice thing about aethertime quantum gravity is that it involves the exchange of the same dipole photons of EM now coupled into quadrupoles and no new particles are needed.



No new constants are needed since gravity force simply determines the size of the universe now and the same two aethertime constants determine both charge and gravity forces. The aethertime constants are the mass of the aether particle mae = 8.7e-69 kg and the action constant hae = h/c^2 = 7.4e-51 kg s.



It is truly amazing both space and time and all of the other constants of the universe emerge from just these two and of course the matter-scaled Schrödinger equation, d psi / dt = -i mae psi / (hae / 2pi). Aethertime might not be the final answer, but it is a very pretty answer that is consistent with the uncertainty of today's science.



report post as inappropriate Quantum gravity is already built into aethertime and while quantum charge force is due to the exchange of single photons, quantum gravity is due to the exchange of photon pairs called biphotons. Ironically, what this means is that while a photon is made up of two aether particles, a biphoton is in effect a single aether particle.The CMB light of creation is at a very uniform 2.7 K and all matter that exists now came from an emission of a 13.6 eV photon as an electron and proton became bound by the exchange of the complementary photon of 13.6 eV, what science calls the hydrodgen atom.The photon emitted at creation slowly decays with the universe decay, but remains entangled with the photon that still binds that hydrogen atom today. That biphoton is the quadrupole that we know as gravity, which is the decoherence of those biphotons at the scale of the universe.In effect, the CMB creation photon wraps around the universe and is present today entangled with its complementary bonding photon. The nice thing about aethertime quantum gravity is that it involves the exchange of the same dipole photons of EM now coupled into quadrupoles and no new particles are needed.No new constants are needed since gravity force simply determines the size of the universe now and the same two aethertime constants determine both charge and gravity forces. The aethertime constants are the mass of the aether particle mae = 8.7e-69 kg and the action constant hae = h/c^2 = 7.4e-51 kg s.It is truly amazing both space and time and all of the other constants of the universe emerge from just these two and of course the matter-scaled Schrödinger equation, d psi / dt = -i mae psi / (hae / 2pi). Aethertime might not be the final answer, but it is a very pretty answer that is consistent with the uncertainty of today's science.

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 17, 2016 @ 10:15 GMT



report post as inappropriate a very beautiful general analyse.But I am insisting :) you can insert new particles not baryonic for example.In all case I liked your matter scaled schrodinger equation and this is consistent with theuminiferous aether.It is there that it could be relevant in inserting the spherical volumes for BHs and particles produced....aethertime is Inside the gravitation aethertime.It is odd and intriguing about matter energy recycling and evolution.Best Regards and thanks for sharing.

Steve Agnew replied on Dec. 17, 2016 @ 15:03 GMT



Somehow, though, a model has to handle the decoherence of quantum phase for both charge and gravity forces. Black holes become just another elementary particle of the universe not unlike the electron is for charge. With quantum gravity, exchange is the key attribute and so the information of a black hole is in its spin state, not really its surface or volume.



There is a very large quantum gravity density of states and that means BH mass and spin store a very large amount of information. In contrast, the electron has well defined mass and spin states and so it takes a large number of electrons to store the equivalent information of BH spin.



The matter-action recycling that you mention is what makes the universe tick and it is what makes time and space as well. Although volume and surface are convenient ways to visualize BH phase memory in space and atomic time allows distant observers to measure a BH, the only way to actually "see" inside of a black hole is with gravity waves. But just like you need another electron to see inside of a spinning electron, you can only see inside of a black hole with another black hole.



That is why the gravity wave signature of the merger of two black holes should be the key to unraveling quantum gravity.



report post as inappropriate Actually, you are right. There are many different essentially equivalent ways to describe reality and you can use other linear combinations of aether as well as aethertime.Somehow, though, a model has to handle the decoherence of quantum phase for both charge and gravity forces. Black holes become just another elementary particle of the universe not unlike the electron is for charge. With quantum gravity, exchange is the key attribute and so the information of a black hole is in its spin state, not really its surface or volume.There is a very large quantum gravity density of states and that means BH mass and spin store a very large amount of information. In contrast, the electron has well defined mass and spin states and so it takes a large number of electrons to store the equivalent information of BH spin.The matter-action recycling that you mention is what makes the universe tick and it is what makes time and space as well. Although volume and surface are convenient ways to visualize BH phase memory in space and atomic time allows distant observers to measure a BH, the only way to actually "see" inside of a black hole is with gravity waves. But just like you need another electron to see inside of a spinning electron, you can only see inside of a black hole with another black hole.That is why the gravity wave signature of the merger of two black holes should be the key to unraveling quantum gravity.

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 17, 2016 @ 18:00 GMT



report post as inappropriate :) you make me more crazy that I am Mr Agnew lol



hide replies The Common Knowledge Game gives the Big Bang and Black Holes credibility. As in investing analysis, 'bracketing' prevents insiders of the mainstream view from going outside the box. That is why WMAP, Planck, and now Ligo are propagated in the Media to perpetuate the Common Knowledge Game, not to mention Higgs, etc.The real question is whether we are in a Neo-Ptolemystical age, where most of the models fit, except at the edges (of extremely small or large)!John S Minkowski

Ted Erikson wrote on Dec. 17, 2016 @ 17:38 GMT





A model that incorporates the use of measured, calculable, or predictable values is needed. The extremes of geometrical "activities" (surface to volume ratios) for spheres and tetrahedrons as used by the ancients suggests a means of attack to define such a premise..



Yes or no?



report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 17, 2016 @ 21:12 GMT



Spinoza d say that after all we were, we are ,we shall be .....bodies and souls....we die eletromagnetically, not gravitationally in logic :) eternally yours so :)



Regards



report post as inappropriate Hello Mr Erikson,Spinoza d say that after all we were, we are ,we shall be .....bodies and souls....we die eletromagnetically, not gravitationally in logic :) eternally yours so :)Regards Perhaps too far off base, but does this essay assignmentsinvoke the possible use of the word, "panpsychism"?A model that incorporates the use of measured, calculable, or predictable values is needed. The extremes of geometrical "activities" (surface to volume ratios) for spheres and tetrahedrons as used by the ancients suggests a means of attack to define such a premise..Yes or no?

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 18, 2016 @ 13:03 GMT





report post as inappropriate Jonh and Tom but where are you Jedis ?

re castel wrote on Dec. 24, 2016 @ 02:02 GMT





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btk-_WuvAAI



this post has been edited by the author since its original submission



report post as inappropriate

sherman loran jenkins replied on Dec. 24, 2016 @ 07:21 GMT



report post as inappropriate Pick up your purple robe at the red castle and straight ahead to Heaven's Gate. I am posting this just in case you are interested in new perspectives.

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Dec. 31, 2016 @ 15:45 GMT





I wish a happy and safe New Year to All.



Best regards,



Gary Simpson



report post as inappropriate Essay topic is very challenging. Seems to be taking a long time to get the first batch of essays posted.I wish a happy and safe New Year to All.Best regards,Gary Simpson

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 31, 2016 @ 16:31 GMT

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jan. 1, 2017 @ 15:17 GMT





report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 9, 2017 @ 19:47 GMT



report post as inappropriate Can you please say a little more to explain what you are thinking? I would like to discuss and to submit an article on this topic, by assuming the nature of inertial fundamental matters in one-dimension. In this regard I invite different standpoints and arguments.

Jose P. Koshy wrote on Jan. 8, 2017 @ 11:26 GMT

Ted Erikson wrote on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 18:20 GMT





report post as inappropriate Is anyone aware of a geometric model or mechanism for "panpsychism"? In particular, the use of the fact that an inscribed sphere in a regular tetrahedron, having equal surface to volume ratios, is an excellent basis for equilibrium at zero entropy production, i.e. any change implies changing "activities" of spherical mass to tetrahedral energy...

Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 22:48 GMT





“There are un-pleasurable, even painful aspects to pursuing most goals, and so we must be clever about what we choose to go after. To go wherever desire and pleasure whisk us is to fall into the trap of chasing things we want in the immediate moment but may care nothing about in the longer term. Zooming out on our lives, it is fascinating to see that both our goals, and the ways in which we set out to achieve them, so often go unexamined. Why do we want what we want?



“…That he ever thought he could achieve perfection, without setbacks, without respites, Franklin admitted, was his gravest error. He had been naïve. And prideful. Only decades later, while writing his autobiography, did he realise that his goals could not be attained just by trying hard, by going at them again and again, without rest or leaving a place for pleasure: ‘the mere speculative conviction that it was our interest to be completely virtuous was not sufficient to prevent our slipping.’ He saw that pursuing his truest goals would take more than pure desire. It would also take reason. It would take a plan.”



From When it’s good to be bad, by Cody Delistraty, https://aeon.co/essays/the-road-to-excellence-is-paved-with-

a-few-lapses-on-the-way



report post as inappropriate Re Goals:“There are un-pleasurable, even painful aspects to pursuing most goals, and so we must be clever about what we choose to go after. To go wherever desire and pleasure whisk us is to fall into the trap of chasing things we want in the immediate moment but may care nothing about in the longer term. Zooming out on our lives, it is fascinating to see that both our goals, and the ways in which we set out to achieve them, so often go unexamined. Why do we want what we want?“…That he ever thought he could achieve perfection, without setbacks, without respites, Franklin admitted, was his gravest error. He had been naïve. And prideful. Only decades later, while writing his autobiography, did he realise that his goals could not be attained just by trying hard, by going at them again and again, without rest or leaving a place for pleasure: ‘the mere speculative conviction that it was our interest to be completely virtuous was not sufficient to prevent our slipping.’ He saw that pursuing his truest goals would take more than pure desire. It would also take reason. It would take a plan.”From, by Cody Delistraty, https://aeon.co/essays/the-road-to-excellence-is-paved-with-a-few-lapses-on-the-way

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 03:06 GMT





The essay contest is roughly half over. I hate to say it, but IMHO this essay contest is not going well thus far. If I were the folks at FQXi, I would be very disappointed. Hopefully, more of those top thinkers will participate soon.



Even if you don't think you are a top thinker (hey, I'm not for sure) it is worth participating. You just never know how your thoughts might affect someone else who might then affect someone else ...



I am hoping for more essays and for more participation by authors ....



Best Regards and Good Luck to All.



Gary Simpson



report post as inappropriate Ladies and Gentlemen,The essay contest is roughly half over. I hate to say it, but IMHO this essay contest is not going well thus far. If I were the folks at FQXi, I would be very disappointed. Hopefully, more of those top thinkers will participate soon.Even if you don't think you are a top thinker (hey, I'm not for sure) it is worth participating. You just never know how your thoughts might affect someone else who might then affect someone else ...I am hoping for more essays and for more participation by authors ....Best Regards and Good Luck to All.Gary Simpson

Ajay Pokhrel wrote on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 13:17 GMT





As I see all here in FQXI are scientist and good researcher.I have read some of the article and essay but gained many knowledge.But since here are all universities student and scientist, Would it be taken good if a high school student(as I am one) submit essays on FQXI and share some ideas, though I am not fully aware of most of the Physics and Maths theories.As I was informed about this platform by Steve Dufourny and I found it quite interesting for learning and sharing views.Can I get some suggestions?



Ajay Pokhrel



this post has been edited by the author since its original submission



report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 23:41 GMT



report post as inappropriate Ajay, you are mistaken if you think that all who post comments and submit essays here are scientists and good researchers. If you are able to put together a coherent, sensible argument, relevant to physics, in English I would be very happy to read what you have written and attempt to offer feedback and constructive criticism if I am able. I like the idea of learning, sharing and developing ideas that is allowed here. It would be great if you have some ideas that fit the current essay competition that you would like to present there. There isn't an age limit as far as I know.

Gary D. Simpson replied on Jan. 26, 2017 @ 01:05 GMT



Welcome. Georgina is absolutely correct. FQXi does have a number of genuine scientists working at the institute, but most of the people on the forum are not truly scientists. The level of skill and knowledge ranges from respectable amateur to absolute crackpot. There is room for all ...



Best Regards,



Gary Simpson



report post as inappropriate Ajay,Welcome. Georgina is absolutely correct. FQXi does have a number of genuine scientists working at the institute, but most of the people on the forum are not truly scientists. The level of skill and knowledge ranges from respectable amateur to absolute crackpot. There is room for all ...Best Regards,Gary Simpson

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 26, 2017 @ 19:31 GMT



I agree also.What I find relevant is this transparence.It is even foundamental for the sharing of ideas. The most important after all is to learn the good works and sort the pseudo sciences.You know Ajay ,in the sciencesz community,even the Professional ,it exists serious thinkers and others who are not relevant.For example me who is a simple nursery man for plants and flowers,I have seen Professional who didn't understand what is really the relativity and the entropical principle.It is ironical even.Sometimes I am surprised by the extrapolations of some thinkers.You know the most important is to be rational.And also make the difference with the hypotheisis in the works of people and the postulates utilised.I have seen also that many scientists were good in engineerings or in computing but they confound the generality.It is odd in fact.The problem is more complex that you can imagine dear Jedis.:)but it is the life.Love sciences, never stop to learn,always search answers.



report post as inappropriate Hi Ajay, Gary,Georgina,I agree also.What I find relevant is this transparence.It is even foundamental for the sharing of ideas. The most important after all is to learn the good works and sort the pseudo sciences.You know Ajay ,in the sciencesz community,even the Professional ,it exists serious thinkers and others who are not relevant.For example me who is a simple nursery man for plants and flowers,I have seen Professional who didn't understand what is really the relativity and the entropical principle.It is ironical even.Sometimes I am surprised by the extrapolations of some thinkers.You know the most important is to be rational.And also make the difference with the hypotheisis in the works of people and the postulates utilised.I have seen also that many scientists were good in engineerings or in computing but they confound the generality.It is odd in fact.The problem is more complex that you can imagine dear Jedis.:)but it is the life.Love sciences, never stop to learn,always search answers. Hello,As I see all here in FQXI are scientist and good researcher.I have read some of the article and essay but gained many knowledge.But since here are all universities student and scientist, Would it be taken good if a high school student(as I am one) submit essays on FQXI and share some ideas, though I am not fully aware of most of the Physics and Maths theories.As I was informed about this platform by Steve Dufourny and I found it quite interesting for learning and sharing views.Can I get some suggestions?Ajay Pokhrel

Harry Hamlin Ricker III wrote on Feb. 2, 2017 @ 23:22 GMT





http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2017/02/02

/fqxi-essay-contest-2017-review/



report post as inappropriate Here is my review of the some of the essayshttp://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2017/02/02/fqxi-essay-contest-2017-review/

Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 12:23 GMT





report post as inappropriate Hi Brendan , I'd like to include a table of information and a diagram with word labels on it in the body of my essay. Can you please tell me if the words in the table and diagram are to be included in the character count limit. I'm hoping they might not as I have a lot that i'd like to say in the rest of the essay and I think the table and diagram add to the arguments. They aren't really technical extras that could be supplemental. Please let me know , as I may have to decide what I must leave out if their characters are included. Thanks, Georgina.

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 14:57 GMT





I just have a little doubt about the rating of some participants.



It seems that there some authors that are spreading the rating 1 without even having read the specific essay. I was warned before by another author, if you have a high rating be prepared to receive a 1 ratings.



Of course everybody is free toas he wants, and it happens to any particpant but after all the positive critics in my thread it was incomprehensible that tha 1 rating was a real one, a three or four if you don't agree is acceptable I think, but a 1 mena that the essay is absolute out of order.



Plus that the rating came without any critisism on the thread.



So I am n advocate that if you give arating give also the reason why.



thank you



Wilhelmus



report post as inappropriate

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 08:12 GMT



view entire post there are a number of rating systems that are more effective than the "popular consensus" which has been demonstrated time and time again to be extremely damaging and at best ineffective. the largest and longest-running system of moderation, which is based on the principle of random selection amongst readers (i.e. you may NOT just choose yourself to be a moderator of comments), includes...



the problem with trying to do "intelligence by consensus" - by means of "rating" - is that the *truly* intelligent comments - the outliers - are shouted down or just plain ignored. "intelligence by consensus" thus *automatically* gets you the LOWEST common denominator intelligence, as opposed to anything *remotely* approaching the highest.



it's called "democracy" and it's touted as "at least giving The People a chance to speak", entirely forgetting that an opportunity to *speak* needs to come with the empowerment of BEING HEARD AND GETTING RESULTS. far from being effective, democracy DISEMPOWERS people, reinforcing a cognitive dissonance which ends with them ABDICATING responsibility for their own lives and decisions.



as you might have guessed by now i'm not a big fan of "democracy" or of the entire concept of "popular voting". fortunately, the intelligence level of the reviewers for this essay contest seem to be extraordinarily high: even i've heard of some of the people behind this site, so have a little bit more faith in the process than the preceding paragraphs would tend to suggest... :)



view post as summary there are a number of rating systems that are more effective than the "popular consensus" which has been demonstrated time and time again to be extremely damaging and at best ineffective. the largest and longest-running system of moderation, which is based on the principle of random selection amongst readers (i.e. you may NOT just choose yourself to be a moderator of comments), includes meta-moderation as well as appeals to the admins, is slashdot. it's not perfect (as even random selection of moderators can result in abuses) but in general has proven highly effective as well as being much less burdensome on its administrators. the other was (is) advogato, which was a research project that was successful for a while but, after being abandoned by its creator's initial efforts instead of being properly maintained with positive feedback towards its intended goal (reduction of spam, increased quality, increased signal/noise ratio), quickly became overwhelmed with "top level" ratings which entirely defeated the purpose of the exercise.the problem with trying to do "intelligence by consensus" - by means of "rating" - is that the *truly* intelligent comments - the outliers - are shouted down or just plain ignored. "intelligence by consensus" thus *automatically* gets you the LOWEST common denominator intelligence, as opposed to anything *remotely* approaching the highest.it's called "democracy" and it's touted as "at least giving The People a chance to speak", entirely forgetting that an opportunity to *speak* needs to come with the empowerment of BEING HEARD AND GETTING RESULTS. far from being effective, democracy DISEMPOWERS people, reinforcing a cognitive dissonance which ends with them ABDICATING responsibility for their own lives and decisions.as you might have guessed by now i'm not a big fan of "democracy" or of the entire concept of "popular voting". fortunately, the intelligence level of the reviewers for this essay contest seem to be extraordinarily high: even i've heard of some of the people behind this site, so have a little bit more faith in the process than the preceding paragraphs would tend to suggest... :)



report post as inappropriate Dear Brendan,I just have a little doubt about the rating of some participants.It seems that there some authors that are spreading the rating 1 without even having read the specific essay. I was warned before by another author, if you have a high rating be prepared to receive a 1 ratings.Of course everybody is free toas he wants, and it happens to any particpant but after all the positive critics in my thread it was incomprehensible that tha 1 rating was a real one, a three or four if you don't agree is acceptable I think, but a 1 mena that the essay is absolute out of order.Plus that the rating came without any critisism on the thread.So I am n advocate that if you give arating give also the reason why.thank youWilhelmus

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 22:27 GMT





I have seen other cases here of "one bombing" that seems to occur in a blanket fashion. There seem to be some who have a desire to blanket attack papers with some hope of bringing theirs up. Sure if a paper is really poor then score it accordingly, but no more of this nonsense of "one-bombing."



cheers LC



report post as inappropriate Somebody is not scoring fairly. I opened Jarmo Makela's paper this morning. I read it again opened up the contest area to score it. His paper had been with score = 6.5 with two votes and was down to 5.3. Somebody gave this a score of 3. Folks, this paper deserves more than that. Even if you disagree with the conclusion of a paper if it is well enough written it deserves a reasonable score, such as at least 5. The arguments in Jarmo's paper are clear, they are crafted in a creative way as a dialogue and this deserves a score of 5 or above.I have seen other cases here of "one bombing" that seems to occur in a blanket fashion. There seem to be some who have a desire to blanket attack papers with some hope of bringing theirs up. Sure if a paper is really poor then score it accordingly, but no more of this nonsense of "one-bombing."cheers LC

Ted Christopher wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 16:44 GMT





Critical scorers should inform their scoring with explanatory comments.



report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 18:08 GMT



You statement regarding your score does not make any sense. You presently have an average of 6.5 with two votes. One of those votes is mine and it was not a 9 or a 3. In fact, since I know the score I gave you, I also know the other score ... and it was not a 9 or a 3 either.



Best Regards and Good Luck,



Gary Simpson



report post as inappropriate Ted,You statement regarding your score does not make any sense. You presently have an average of 6.5 with two votes. One of those votes is mine and it was not a 9 or a 3. In fact, since I know the score I gave you, I also know the other score ... and it was not a 9 or a 3 either.Best Regards and Good Luck,Gary Simpson

Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 18:48 GMT



BTW, it is the community vote that matters ... not the public vote. Looking at your score again, I see that you were probably referencing your public vote rather than your community vote ... my bad.



Regards.



Gary Simpson



report post as inappropriate Ted,BTW, it is the community vote that matters ... not the public vote. Looking at your score again, I see that you were probably referencing your public vote rather than your community vote ... my bad.Regards.Gary Simpson I see some concerns about the scoring here. My essay's score dropped from 9 to 6 overnight apparently due to a 3 score. My essay simply raises basic questions about the current vision of life, and it does it through accepted phenomena and the missing heritability problem. If someone bothers to read the essay they will find minimal speculation and plenty of relevance to the contest goal. I doubt that the 3 scorer bothered to read my essay and moreover think that this kind of score nuking is probably pretty widespread.Critical scorers should inform their scoring with explanatory comments.

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 17:59 GMT





Members of the community continue to attempt to apply game-theory to scoring ... that's fine with me as I really do not care. I only mention this since I have received a score of one and two scores of two. What is notable is that my average score reached a value of 7 and was then hit with a 2 and a 1. This brought the average down to a 5.6. My score then rose to a 6.1 and was PROMPTLY rated with a 2 to push it down to 5.7.



Perhaps this is coincidence or perhaps not ...



Having stated this, I will also state that I have scored two essays with a 1 ... and they both deserved it. I would have given one of them a zero or a negative score if that was possible. I read both essays and interacted with the authors. I have also scored many essays with a 10. There have been several essays that I would have given a 10 except they were already at or near the top of the rankings ... so they got a 7 or an 8. There have been a few cases where I have given a high score knowing that someone else was going to give it a 1.



I would suggest that if scoring is something that truly bothers people, then do not post a running average of peoples' scores. Then people will have to vote on essays without knowing where the essays are ranked at the time of their votes. The votes would then be tabulated AFTER the voting ends.



Best Regards and Good Luck to All,



Gary Simpson



report post as inappropriate

Ajay Pokhrel replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 15:18 GMT



What is the topic of your essay, could you mention it? I am curious to read your essay.



As you have mentioned about scores, for me it's only starting phase and I have my first essay submitted to FQXI which is now in the rating of 4.3 and I guess most of the authors are ignoring my essay "Our Numerical Universe" because I am just a high school kid. But scoring does not matters to me as I want to thank FQXI for providing such opportunity to share my ideas and further I will improve.



Best Regards



Ajay



report post as inappropriate Hello Gary,What is the topic of your essay, could you mention it? I am curious to read your essay.As you have mentioned about scores, for me it's only starting phase and I have my first essay submitted to FQXI which is now in the rating of 4.3 and I guess most of the authors are ignoring my essay "Our Numerical Universe" because I am just a high school kid. But scoring does not matters to me as I want to thank FQXI for providing such opportunity to share my ideas and further I will improve.Best RegardsAjay

Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:18 GMT



The title of my essay is "Five Part Harmony". I would be delighted for you to read it and ask questions. I will answer as clearly as I am able.



Also, I will have a look at your essay "Our Numerical Universe".



Best Regards and Good Luck,



Gary Simpson



report post as inappropriate Hello Ajay,The title of my essay is "Five Part Harmony". I would be delighted for you to read it and ask questions. I will answer as clearly as I am able.Also, I will have a look at your essay "Our Numerical Universe".Best Regards and Good Luck,Gary Simpson All,Members of the community continue to attempt to apply game-theory to scoring ... that's fine with me as I really do not care. I only mention this since I have received a score of one and two scores of two. What is notable is that my average score reached a value of 7 and was then hit with a 2 and a 1. This brought the average down to a 5.6. My score then rose to a 6.1 and was PROMPTLY rated with a 2 to push it down to 5.7.Perhaps this is coincidence or perhaps not ...Having stated this, I will also state that I have scored two essays with a 1 ... and they both deserved it. I would have given one of them a zero or a negative score if that was possible. I read both essays and interacted with the authors. I have also scored many essays with a 10. There have been several essays that I would have given a 10 except they were already at or near the top of the rankings ... so they got a 7 or an 8. There have been a few cases where I have given a high score knowing that someone else was going to give it a 1.I would suggest that if scoring is something that truly bothers people, then do not post a running average of peoples' scores. Then people will have to vote on essays without knowing where the essays are ranked at the time of their votes. The votes would then be tabulated AFTER the voting ends.Best Regards and Good Luck to All,Gary Simpson

Ajay Pokhrel wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 15:57 GMT





I have just submitted my essay on topic "Our Numerical Universe" and as I am a high school student, it might happen that my essay is not as competitive as others. So, what if my essay is rejected? Can anyone tell me about the possibility?



this post has been edited by the author since its original submission



report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 03:09 GMT



report post as inappropriate Just seen it in the list. So that's a good start. I'll have a read. Hello,I have just submitted my essay on topic "Our Numerical Universe" and as I am a high school student, it might happen that my essay is not as competitive as others. So, what if my essay is rejected? Can anyone tell me about the possibility?

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 08:00 GMT





the thing is, i am having extraordinary difficulty identifying submissions that answer the actual question, or a variant thereof, or answers any of the sub-questions such as "what separates intelligent systems from those that are not?"



i've encountered one essay which challenges the contest's validity (as being "too early), which is, at the present time, the only essay yet encountered after reviewing about 10 so far, that seems to clearly acknowledge the questions. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2833



have i missed something important, here? surely i must have made a mistake, and would appreciate some help and clarification.



report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 09:15 GMT



report post as inappropriate Hi Luke, I have tried to answer all of the questions FQXi asked as well as i could in the allotted character limit. I would be very happy if you read it.

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 10:54 GMT



i honestly have to admit to being really very surprised and slightly concerned. once i have thought of a way to make it clear i will post a series of questions (along the lines of, "what definitions of intelligence, mind or consciousness is your essay working from or deriving, and how do you use them to answer the essay's core question") for people to consider responding to.



if anyone has any suggestions as to how to go about doing that in a respectful but clear way i would be most grateful to hear them.



report post as inappropriate ah! thank you georgina. duly noted, and read - some questions raised for you as well. if i may clarify, i am not seeing anyone starting with a pre-existing definition of intelligence, mind or consciousness, nor deriving one during the course of their essay and logically confirming it and that it answers the primary essay's question. apologies but i have to include your essay in that, much as i enjoyed reading it.i honestly have to admit to being really very surprised and slightly concerned. once i have thought of a way to make it clear i will post a series of questions (along the lines of, "what definitions of intelligence, mind or consciousness is your essay working from or deriving, and how do you use them to answer the essay's core question") for people to consider responding to.if anyone has any suggestions as to how to go about doing that in a respectful but clear way i would be most grateful to hear them.

Karl H Coryat replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 21:47 GMT



-Karl Coryat



report post as inappropriate Hi Luke, I agree with you about a lack of focus in a lot of the essays. I invite you to check out mine. It proposes a physical definition of intentionality and applies that definition to various systems, not only advanced biological ones -- many people assume, I think unjustly, that intentionality is limited to them, and I argue why it isn't. Enjoy!-Karl Coryat

show all replies (6 not shown)

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 13:41 GMT



this post has been edited by the author since its original submission



report post as inappropriate thx karl i will.. HA! finally! someone who has an essay that distinguishes intention from desire, and thus allows for the possibility of a mathematically formal way of assessing "aims" (and/or "intentions"). fifteen essay read and yours is *literally* the first (and only) other one found so far that goes some way towards directly answering one of the questions raised. thank you.

Helder Lines Velez replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 16:51 GMT



report post as inappropriate Hi Luke, a friend submitted an article by the end of Mars,2, and I'm not seeing it posted. The rules mention a possible delay of 10 days between submission and post. In the list of articles your submission is the more recent with a very short delay to visibility. Is it so? (I do not know what to think by now).

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 02:11 GMT



Since the cutoff time was midnight on the 3rd, there are probably another 40 to 60 essays still waiting to be qualified for entry. These will be posted in groups of 10-20 at a time, until the whole stack of submitted essays have been cleared, if the pattern from previous years holds true.



I once submitted an essay on the last minute of the last day, and it appeared a few days later, but then there were still another 20 essays posted after that. So I guess a lot of people submit their paper close to the end, and it takes a while for them to review them all for rules compliance. I'd look again Tuesday or Wednesday, because FQXi seldom posts any new material on a Monday.



Regards,



Jonathan



report post as inappropriate Hello Helder Lines Velez,Since the cutoff time was midnight on the 3rd, there are probably another 40 to 60 essays still waiting to be qualified for entry. These will be posted in groups of 10-20 at a time, until the whole stack of submitted essays have been cleared, if the pattern from previous years holds true.I once submitted an essay on the last minute of the last day, and it appeared a few days later, but then there were still another 20 essays posted after that. So I guess a lot of people submit their paper close to the end, and it takes a while for them to review them all for rules compliance. I'd look again Tuesday or Wednesday, because FQXi seldom posts any new material on a Monday.Regards,Jonathan

Philip Gibbs replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 08:37 GMT



report post as inappropriate The essay has a broad theme. The questions in the guidelines are just examples of points the essays may address. The contest is not a questionnaire. It is true that a few of the essays do not address the theme well and can be judged accordingly, but most of them are well enough on topic and look at the theme from a refreshingly diverse range of perspectives according to many different author's points of view. Enjoy it for what it is.

Anonymous replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 20:29 GMT



I have chosen to answer the questions asked because they are all interesting and it was a challenge for me to address them all in the character limit, not because I thought I was answering a questionnaire. I also thought it would be a different approach to essay challenge that others were unlikely to attempt. I think it breaks the essay up nicely; though the question about intelligence, I didn't say much, is a little different from the other questions that I found more related to the overall theme.



report post as inappropriate Hi Philip,I have chosen to answer the questions asked because they are all interesting and it was a challenge for me to address them all in the character limit, not because I thought I was answering a questionnaire. I also thought it would be a different approach to essay challenge that others were unlikely to attempt. I think it breaks the essay up nicely; though the question about intelligence, I didn't say much, is a little different from the other questions that I found more related to the overall theme.

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 20:33 GMT



report post as inappropriate Was me, Georgina



hide replies hi, ok so my essay is submitted, and i am reviewing the various submissions and asking questions and providing feedback.the thing is, i am having extraordinary difficulty identifying submissions that answer the actual question, or a variant thereof, or answers any of the sub-questions such as "what separates intelligent systems from those that are not?"i've encountered one essay which challenges the contest's validity (as being "too early), which is, at the present time, the only essay yet encountered after reviewing about 10 so far, that seems to clearly acknowledge the questions. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2833have i missed something important, here? surely i must have made a mistake, and would appreciate some help and clarification.

Saibal Mitra wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 22:42 GMT





To force compliance, one can impose the rule that all authors must submit the 3 referee reports by some deadline. Failure to do so will mean that their own essay will be removed from the contest.



report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 02:22 GMT



Lots of Physics journals have a hard time finding qualified reviewers for many of the papers they receive. I get more referee requests than I can field personally, and my qualifications are not adequate for some papers I am asked to review. Is every reviewer honest about what they are qualified to weigh in on? And do the really qualified folks have the time for something like an FQXi contest - even with compensation? From what I've seen, most professional scientists have a lot of work already, and they work very hard to make progress happen. This may make your suggestion impractical.



All the Best,



Jonathan



report post as inappropriate This would be tough to implement..Lots of Physics journals have a hard time finding qualified reviewers for many of the papers they receive. I get more referee requests than I can field personally, and my qualifications are not adequate for some papers I am asked to review. Is every reviewer honest about what they are qualified to weigh in on? And do the really qualified folks have the time for something like an FQXi contest - even with compensation? From what I've seen, most professional scientists have a lot of work already, and they work very hard to make progress happen. This may make your suggestion impractical.All the Best,Jonathan

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 02:35 GMT



It would be very difficult to match up all of the essays entered, with reviewers qualified to respond to the content offered fairly. I am seeing a lot of very low scores being given, for essays that are decently well-written. I won't automatically punish an author for views I don't believe in. So while I might give well-written but deficient papers a 4 or 5 at a minimum; I have seen rounds of 1 scores being awarded to large numbers of papers in rapid fashion.



I guess I'm saying I would not want one of the people giving out 1 scores as one of my assigned reviewers. And it would be hard to make it fair, the way you describe it.



All the Best,



Jonathan



report post as inappropriate In the current setting..It would be very difficult to match up all of the essays entered, with reviewers qualified to respond to the content offered fairly. I am seeing a lot of very low scores being given, for essays that are decently well-written. I won't automatically punish an author for views I don't believe in. So while I might give well-written but deficient papers a 4 or 5 at a minimum; I have seen rounds of 1 scores being awarded to large numbers of papers in rapid fashion.I guess I'm saying I would not want one of the people giving out 1 scores as one of my assigned reviewers. And it would be hard to make it fair, the way you describe it.All the Best,Jonathan

Saibal Mitra replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 22:26 GMT



If I vote 10 because I think it should be at 8, I'm effectively casting two votes, one vote is mine and the other is changing the 6 of the previous voter into an 8. So, the current vote average should not be made visible, and perhaps the rating choices should be reduced to only 0 = "poor", 1 = "mediocre", and 2 = "good" at least in the first round. There will be far more consensus about essays rated as good being good, and essays that are rated poor indeed being poor than about ratings like 7 or 9.



report post as inappropriate I agree that it would require some effort, but it would be much better compared to the way things work now. Also, consider the fact that you can see the current score. If I want to rate an essay that I think deserves an 8 and I see that it is currently rated at 6 with one vote, then this puts pressure on me to vote 10 to "set the score right", but this would be an improper thing to do, because the person who voted 6 should have just as influence as I.If I vote 10 because I think it should be at 8, I'm effectively casting two votes, one vote is mine and the other is changing the 6 of the previous voter into an 8. So, the current vote average should not be made visible, and perhaps the rating choices should be reduced to only 0 = "poor", 1 = "mediocre", and 2 = "good" at least in the first round. There will be far more consensus about essays rated as good being good, and essays that are rated poor indeed being poor than about ratings like 7 or 9.

show all replies (3 not shown)

Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 23:49 GMT



report post as inappropriate I agree that there should be no voting to "set the score right", whether this involves giving a vote of 1 or giving a vote of 10. But how can you stop people doing this? - seemingly you can't.

Saibal Mitra replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 01:49 GMT



report post as inappropriate They should not display the current average. Perhaps only the number of votes for each essay so that people will be inclined to read the essays that have so far only got a few votes and give their votes.

Neil Bates replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 12:24 GMT more, a list of all the vote numbers to reveal which essays were controversial with a spread of ratings, versus more alike. In any case I am not going to ding at FQXi about the situation - it would be cool if they make some reforms, if they don't then that's what we've got. I appreciate the opportunity regardless.



report post as inappropriate Hmm. Not displaying the current average, but only the number of votes, sounds like a good idea. Maybe even authors should not know this, to minimize begging for help (understandable as it is.) Even so, perhaps rating options should be allocated to allow say only three "1"s, six "2"s, and nine "3"s. Then low-ballers would at least have to pick and choose. Another option is to require low votes to be accompanied by a comment. Not very important,but perhaps at the end we should see, a list of all the vote numbers to reveal which essays were controversial with a spread of ratings, versus more alike. In any case I am not going to ding at FQXi about the situation - it would be cool if they make some reforms, if they don't then that's what we've got. I appreciate the opportunity regardless.



hide replies Instead of the current rating system, one should implement a referee system where each participant is given a new anonymous referee login and is asked to evaluate a number of assigned essays (say 3 essays). The referee reports will be visible to everyone, so that may then generate discussions. Obviously the author him/herself is likely to respond to the reports. The reports plus all the discussions can then be used to rate the essays much better.To force compliance, one can impose the rule that all authors must submit the 3 referee reports by some deadline. Failure to do so will mean that their own essay will be removed from the contest.

Bishal Banjara wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:07 GMT





anyone help me to take my essay out from this contest but I want to shift it to thread discussion...please!!



report post as inappropriat