Friday, February 27, 2015

Seeking truth using different methods

I submitted an essay to the annual FQXi essay contest.

Most of the material is from this blog in the last few months. If you follow the blog, you will not be surprised. The contest theme is to relate mathematics to physics, and I write mostly about randomness and logical positivism.

A lot of the other essays discuss Eugene Wigner's The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, or Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. I deliberate avoided those topics. I posted many criticisms of Tegmark here. I wanted my essay to be a more positive contribution.

All public visitors can rate my essay and other essays on the FQXi site. By rating mine, you boost my chances of review at the next round of the contest.

In past years I think that I was blackballed by quantum computers, or other such ideas where I expressed skepticism. So I stayed away from that also.

Peter Woit has also submitted a FQXI essay on relations between math and physics. He is looking for hard math to influence. Like string theory was supposed to do, I guess.

He also reports:
On the multiverse mania front, tomorrow Science Friday is hosting Sean Carroll to continue his war against falsifiability and the conventional understanding of science, joined by Seth Lloyd to help promote the multiverse. Perhaps it should be “Pseudo-science Friday”?
I have criticized this Carroll opinion on falsifiability a year ago, and criticized the multiverse many times.

Update: I listened to Sean M. Carroll, and he was just as anti-science as expected. He argued that ideas should be considered scientific even if there is no hope of ever testing them. He also said "space is overrated".


  1. I read Sean Carroll's site for years before calling it quits. I can say with certainty, he is an liberal atheist ideologue...and that's about all he is. He merely uses the concept of 'science' to obscure his actual social activist objectives. Anything that gets in the way of his activist objectives including science, gets bulldozed.

  2. How about a jump to conclusions mat?

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.