- #36
Fra
- 4,177
- 618
Hello Christine, yes please move the discussion if you want. I'll followu p there later. I just got back home from from a trip.
/Fredrik
New FQXi contest: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
In summary: Ultimately, anything is possible, unless we know the final laws of physics. But we can never be sure that the laws of physics we know are the final ones, so we always must admit that anything is ultimately possible, even if very unlikely in most cases.In summary, the FQXi contest titled "What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?" invites essays on the limits of physics and the physics of limits, with a focus on the understanding of the fundamental nature of reality. The last day to submit essays is October 2nd and voting can be done until November 6th. Topics can range from the limits of physics' explanatory and predictive power to the role of impossibility principles in foundational physics and cosmology. The essay "Ultimately, anything
Hello Christine, yes please move the discussion if you want. I'll followu p there later. I just got back home from from a trip.
/Fredrik
- #37
Fra
- 4,177
- 618
ccdantas said:
I'll look at those later. I sensed a possibility that your view could be compliant with a new view of law, even though you may put it differently. I suspect you may come from a different direction because I didn't quite understand the chioce of reasoning part of your text, but I think the conclusion makes sense.
I am not at all fond of multiverses either, that's exactly why I think a single, but evolving universe makes a lot more sense as a scientific abstraction.
About fundamental vs emergent time I am not clear what smolin has in mind. For sure I do not share rovellis idea of observables, smolin has a lot of good to say there, but I am not sure exactly what his ultimate idea is.
His criticts on timeless law I share, but evolving law doesn't necessarily mean that there is a fundamental time in the observer independent sence. This is the point where I might not see what smolin has in mind.
Smolins idea is some evolving law, by means of for example CNS where the "parameters of physical law" vary between bounces somehow. I do not quite like CNS, but the motivation for the attempt is good. Instead I think one can have this implemented by means of evolving observers, and that this evolution is continously going on and not necessarily constrained to black holes spawning new universes.
Instead of picturing a superposition of universes, one can consider only one universe, but where some observers simply has a corrupt or inconsisntent view of physical law, but these observers will be subject to interactions and will be forced to "correct themsleves" - face destruction ; connecting to your conclusion that a viable trait of a system in nature is deadlock avoidance. In my way of putting it, this would mean that deadlocks are not banned per se, however systems that fail to recover from an inconsisntecy, simply doesn't survive, and are thus deselected in the evolutionary process that produces the system population of the universe. I interpreted your paper inthis direction, and if so I agree fully.
This is the process I'm seeking. I personally don't think smolins CNS as I understand it is the full solution.
/Fredrik
Last edited by a moderator:
- #38
weburbia
- 28
- 0
11 essays have appeared at http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31416 including the one by demystifier.
- #39
- 14,342
- 6,825
Thanks for the information!weburbia said:
I was convinced that they will not accept it.
- #40
atyy
Science Advisor
- 15,169
- 3,380
Demystifier said:Thanks for the information!
I was convinced that they will not accept it.
A suggestion: how about expanding upon the notion of probability you are using in "unlikely in most cases"?
- #41
- 14,342
- 6,825
Interesting idea.atyy said:
Do you have some concrete idea how to calculate these probabilities?
- #42
Count Iblis
- 1,863
- 8
Demystifier said:Thanks for the information!
I was convinced that they will not accept it.
Anything is possible, as you wrote in your essay.
- #43
- 14,342
- 6,825
Yes, you are right.Count Iblis said:Anything is possible, as you wrote in your essay.
Now, can someone estimate the possibility (probability) that my essay will take the first prize?
- #44
friend
- 1,452
- 9
In order to know what is ultimately possible, you need to know first what is ultimately physical. You cannot know what is ultimately possible until you're absolutely certain that you have the right physical laws. And you can not have unarguable physics until you know your physics is derived from reason itself. Then there is no arguing with it, you know you have to most fundamental laws, and only from there can you know what is ultimately possible with physics.
- #45
MTd2
Gold Member
- 2,028
- 25
Demystifier said:Yes, you are right.
Now, can someone estimate the possibility (probability) that my essay will take the first prize?
The theme chosen for this year's contest was vague. So, if other people also sees that in the same way, you will be at least the 1st one by public vote.
- #46
atyy
Science Advisor
- 15,169
- 3,380
Demystifier said:Yes, you are right.
Now, can someone estimate the possibility (probability) that my essay will take the first prize?
In MWI, as long as it is allowed by the laws of physics, your essay takes first prize in some universe with probability 1.
We should have MWI over the laws of physics too - or maybe the string theory landscape will do that - but who knows maybe your essay taking first prize is in the swampland.
- #47
- 14,342
- 6,825
It's good to know. Is there a way for me to jump into this universe? For example, by committing suicides until I find myself in such a universe? What is the expected number of suicides I need to commit in order to achieve this goal? If in this universe I decide to follow this strategy, will I remember that I made such a decision when I find myself in a new universe after the suicide?atyy said:In MWI, as long as it is allowed by the laws of physics, your essay takes first prize in some universe with probability 1.
- #48
atyy
Science Advisor
- 15,169
- 3,380
Demystifier said:
Worst case scenario: Bohmian mech is correct.
- #49
- 14,342
- 6,825
Worst for who? Certainly not for me. Namely, if BM is correct, then I have no chances to jump into universe in which my essay wins, but a lot of my other work will become more respected one day.atyy said:
- #50
atyy
Science Advisor
- 15,169
- 3,380
Demystifier said:Worst for who? Certainly not for me. Namely, if BM is correct, then I have no chances to jump into universe in which my essay wins, but a lot of my other work will become more respected one day.
Yeah! So don't commit suicides yet! That would be the worst case scenario - unless you don't mind posthumous fame - like Boltzmann
- #51
Count Iblis
- 1,863
- 8
Suicide may not work, even if the MWI were true. The validity of Tegmark's argument has been disputed.
- #52
- 14,342
- 6,825
OK, I'll take your advise.atyy said:Yeah! So don't commit suicides yet! That would be the worst case scenario - unless you don't mind posthumous fame - like Boltzmann
You just saved one life, I hope you feel good now.