May 26, at 1: The content of a theory is usually specified by describing separately the physical states that are possible in the theory, known as its kinematics, and the rules that govern how one state evolves into another, or its dynamics. With the nowadays mathematics, the theoretical physics can describe ilimited everything ilimited more complicated, but the realistic, essential content is just what I said. Of course some essays have well-deserved very low rating. The title of this contest is Wandering Towards a Goal:
If, for example, we limit us to time and one space dimension, then the essential physics is expressed by simplest rules of quantum mechanics and special relativity. Basically I found that almost all of the essays agreed that there was no positive answer to the question. Risks from artificial intelligence. There are lots of questions that would need a reformulation? On a completely different topic…viXra is one submission shy of ! This is probably false and very misleading. This is a bad assumption and flagrantly ignores the clear fractal and conformal properties of nature.
Despite of this, and also I graded 10 the other one 2 in this article, we still have fairly harmful evaluations. The FQXi essay competition entries are available for public viewing and feedback, resulting in lively online discussions between essay contributors and other members of the community.
Retrieved 12 February This amazing figure of the achievements mathematics in science seriously means that an item no-crucial, and remarkable. But most important limitation of quantum mechanics is that it is a stochastic theory providing only a probabilistic prediction of experimental results.
They can evolve, but we can not prove that they do. Instead of the overly simplistic duality of just mind and body or spirit and material, the universal duality of matter and action is true for all observers and sources and even for the mindless mathematical laws of neural memory.
They also need to be the sort of sophisticated, “quality” nonsense able to give idiots the feeling that it constitutes an intelligent, convincing defense of their obscurantist ideology.
What about Carl Brannen and Stephen Wolfram? As for the remarkable role of maths in physics: I would prefer dreaming up pet theories in combination with proposals for doable contset in professional labs.
Robert Spekkens wins first prize in FQXi essay contest
If the purpose of this essay contest was to beat the woods of science and philosophy and find someone out there who was a genius, and had some hidden secret answer, then the contest esswy to find him. Then can also be a clash within the tissues of this Obscurantism column. See my opinions there As I observed there, that document has some things, contesf in addition some defectsas well as in my Page on the topic. His proposition of open peer review, where anyone can bring a review, can be nice, fqxu, for example, my ideas how to better explain maths and physics do not find place in the institutions just because it is not in the usual official jobs of researchers to consider such things as changes in the curriculum, so I would need to find “peers” elsewhere.
Just what actually means that, is just one aspect. May 26, at 3: Open Letter on Artificial Intelligence Ethics of artificial intelligence Controversies and dangers of artificial general intelligence Ccontest intelligence as a global catastrophic risk Superintelligence: The idea behind it being to solve the fqxii known difficulties in the accepted mainstream quantum mechanics.
And space as a fundamental definition does not equal mass. The value of G within an atom or subatomic particle has never been measured; it is purely assumed to be the conventional value. June 11, at 8: Because to be high rated by idiots, it does not suffice for essays to be stupid nonsense. When it comes to extraordinary task of maths in science: The essay contest is funded by relatively small amounts of private money.
On the FQXI math/physics essay contest
Retrieved 14 November Guts force to give up separate conservation of B and L but not a slightest experimental evidence has emerged for the decay of proton. They are hopeless as contributors to the progress of science anyway.
If someone can make interesting and original points along those lines they might get some votes, but I cannot imagine it myself. Also the relationship of QCD- to old-fashioned description based on hadrons relying on the notion of strong isospin is fuzzy: Secondly, this meaningful process is traditionally attributed to have its roots within a greater consciousness god that should have the power to bring such a process at all into existence.