See my comments there As I noted there, that article has some points, but also some flaws , and in my Web page on the topic. 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. Singh , Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga ,. To explain how the concepts of “abstraction” and “generality” differ, I need to take a specific example. Such people usually hate mathematics because they cannot understand it, so they need pseudo-arguments to feel proud of their ignorance. They are hopeless as contributors to the progress of science anyway. Not only this, but I also cared to make the most serious, accurate and developed comments to many essays – I did not find anyone else writing such serious and elaborate comments as I did.
Of course some essays have well-deserved very low rating. This equation describes the field of electronic presence as taking values in the space of bispinors of space-time. Namely, having works openly reviewed and criticized by anyone, and knowing who writes each review so as to make it possible to figure out if the reviewer is competent or not, can be an interesting information. Among these oppositions, the biggest clash is between columns: Burov Rare in this contest though they form the overwhelming majority of humans, probably because they like neither math nor physics ;- Elsewhere: Hitterdale , Roger Schlafly , Paul Merriam. Idiots give him high rates, not that they love his essay, but because they love him.
He does not even try to defend any obscurantist position that would please the idiots; as his position mathematical universe hypothesis belongs to the scientism group. But it’s not even that he tries to defend any obscurantist faxi there: They are hopeless as contributors to the progress of science anyway.
This is pure lack of imagination.
Many authors claim to “explain” the remarkable role of maths and physics by the assumption that it does not exist, i. Klingman calls himself “physicalist” here but expressed spiritualism in another essay.
Because average humans who “care” often have a big bias for obscurantism i. He explained his motivations for creating Coontest in his essay, Open Peer Review to Save the World which also had high community and public ratings. For more information, contact: And the only rational explanation for his high rate, has nothing to do with the content of his article.
But where does the problem come from? Local deterministic realism FQXI essays some are included here just based on the authors positively commenting crackpot ones: See my comments there As I noted there, that article has some points, but also some flawsand in my Web page on the topic.
Robert Spekkens wins first prize in FQXi essay contest
I cared to make the best essay, altogether scientifically accurate, clear and very insightful and innovative, including but not restricted to. This remarkable character of the success of mathematics in physics really means fqci non-necessary, and really remarkableas expressed in several essays: Concretely, a big problem with a spinor is that its phase is reversed when you apply to it a rotation with angle 2pi.
Mathematical Universe Hypothesis contset monism QM: There is a venerable history of major open questions in theoretical physics being tackled by essay contests, and they have helped to advance the field in ways that complement the traditional peer-review system and journal publication.
What matters is the opportunity for sane people, able to define the right standards, to get information filtered according to their own standard. In their stead, he proposes that physical theories be described through their causal structure, a promising new approach that is still being developed.
However, he does not seem to realize the difficulty of the task, and how it can fail if it is done in a naive manner.
Robert Spekkens wins first prize in FQXi essay contest | Perimeter Institute
Despite of this, and that I rated 10 the other 2 above, we still have very bad ratings: In fact, the popularity he gets among idiots by his creation of ViXra and his ideas on Open Peer Review, is based on a double misunderstanding: FQXi is a non-profit organization that supports the investigation of fundamental questions in physics and cosmology, through grants and the burgeoning essay contest.
Of course some essays have well-deserved very low rating. On the contrary, scientific quality would be rather a handicap in this rating. SinghTorsten Asselmeyer-Maluga. To explain how the concepts of “abstraction” and “generality” differ, I need to take a specific example. Located in the Region of Waterloo, the not-for-profit Institute is a unique public-private endeavour, including the Governments of Ontario and Canada, rssay enables cutting-edge research, trains the next generation of scientific pioneers, and shares the power of physics through award-winning educational cojtest and public engagement.
About the FQXI essay contest on the math/physics connection
Without my rating, you can figure out how absurdly low their rating would have been. Because naively implemented, such a method will fail in a world with a ratio of 10 idiots for 1 competent reviewer, as long as no system is developed for essya to automatically filter the information depending on the competence of the reviewer.
The independent Institute was founded in to foster breakthroughs in the fundamental understanding of our universe, from the smallest particles to the entire cosmos. Removing the institutional filter, suspected of bias, cannot suffice to remove bias, as the rest of the ckntest outside institutions can still be biased and even worse than the one in institutions. So to be workable, an open peer review system would also need a kind of filter, to let anyone filter the measure of vontest according to his own standards.
Well, these people are Christians