Thank you, but could you tell some of them or to extend your interesting answer?

Developing the methods to engineer the micro organisms for making our desired molecules or materials.

The one most interesting and unsolved problem is the problem of consciousness or the hard problem. In fact it is the hardest nut for science to crack for the coming several millenia at least without thoroughly changing the currently accepted paradigms.

Regards,

Rajat

Theory related to high temperature superconductivity and prediction of room temperature superconductivity.

And i totally agree with opinion of pavel komarov. Life and mind are unsolved with our own life and with our own mind.

I would be very grateful if we could give an explanation or for what reason we think that our chosen problem would be so interesting to solve or other cause for why it was chosen.

There is one (more): we do not have as yet a unified or general theory of biology, that is, about living beings. In order to understand, cope and try to solve many of the scientific and practical problems about life we do need a such a theory. There are some hints and tips, but nothing such as a (general or unified) theory of biology.

The egotism of scientists! It is totally against the main core of 'science' and is preventing its evolution... This is the most interesting unsolved problem in science.

Very interesting topic....i think story behind ancient aliens, question behind paranormal activities are among some unsolved question for me.

Thank you very much to everybody for given just some problems but, as I have said in two previous answers, it would be perhaps even more interesting to know your oppinion about their importance.

Let me to start commenting the mines.

1- Reach quantum gravity for introducing this interaction into the quantum field theory and probably to be unified with the other three interactions:electro-weak-strong.

Besides the short commentary, there are many things to say and I am not an specialist in this subject. But I am going to try it.

The main difficulty with this issue at present is that we know that the last theory of gravity and very well tested is not in agreement with quantum field theory, also very well tested experimentaly and theoreticaly with theories as the Standard Model who has given the Nobel Prize of physics the last year: P.W.Higgs and F.Englert. They were able to explain a physical mechanism to get mass for the fundamental particles.

Curiously it is the interaction associated to masses which is out of working into this physical context of quantum theories. The main problem is that all theories of gravity created are not able to be renormalized, that is to say, they can overcome the singularities involved within their magnitudes. For instance it is well known the renormalization of the electric charge or mass in Quantum Electrodynamics.

The quantization of gravity would be the first step for obtaining a general unified theory or TOE(Theory of Everything) which could perhaps help us to understand how the Universe has arisen or if it is the only one to exists.

Dear Daniel,

Any TOE will fail to be a final one if it does not explain the hard problem of consciousness. A unification of Quantum theory with gravity (general relativity) will unify only what is observed and will leave out the observer. This problem will remain forever unless and until we strive really very very hard to solve it, rather than habitually shoving it away.

The same goes for all the rest of the problems chosen/cited by others on this thread. We happen to concentrate on a tiny tiny area of the whole puzzle that nature has thrown open in front of and within ourselves and each claims that his is the most interesting one !

Regards,

Rajat

Dear Rajat,

The great advance of science was when it was separated from our subjective conciousness. The idea is to find laws which independent of us and therefore belonging to the Nature. I do not need to remember you to Galileo, Kepler or Tycho Brahe in the born of the Physics fighting against people who wanted to be blind to their observations because they had some given rules to their conciousness.

In any case I am quite agree that the conciousness has to be understood as a fantastic product of the brain, but it seems to be a very difficult task to understand how it works for the moment, although perhaps it is going to be one of the most important unsolved problems for the moment.

Let us go to the second:

2- Find an extension of the many-body theory for solving DFT (density functional theory) for excited states and to finite temperatures.

For the moment is pure science fiction to design materials with desired physical properties. For example to have a good superconductor at room temperature or thermoelectrical material with merit factor higher than four. But theories as DFT perhaps are going to design these materials with the help of supercomputers if they can introduce improvements as the temperature dependence or to extend their calculations to excited states.

Please I invite people to describe also their candidates to be the best improvement in Science

My third says:

3- New physical properties for joining materials as topological insulators and thermoelectricity.

The physics of the solid state, or the condensed matter in general, didn't take into account the spin transport except in the magnetism. Nowdays that is a new window open for the spintronics, quantum spin Hall effect and so on. This has open new physics such as the Topological Insulators which can be related with quantum anomalous Hall effect etc. It seems quite strage that the Physics of Materials may discovered quite recently that the electrons carry spin besides electric charge and which is related with a new Physics, yet no fully developped.

Finally I shall explain the interest to solve the fourth.

In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) claimed that Quantum Mechanics (QM) couldn't be a complete theory and even Schrödinger could understand the difficulty involved between the finite velocity of information transmision in QM with the theory of relativity. Despite the interest shown for this issue, the flaw in EPR's argument was not discovered until 1964, when J. S. Bell proved that one of their key assumptions, called the principle of locality because assumes that one object only can be influenced by its neighbors, was in contradiction with the QM which was mantained by the EPR paradox. Certain entangled quantum systems violate, which has the merit to be tested with measurement, his inequalities as it was proven experimentaly.

Entanglement occurs, for instance, when a subatomic particle decays into a pair of other particles. Due to conservation laws, the measurement on one daughter particle must be highly correlated with the measurement on the other particle (so that the total momenta, angular momenta, energy, and so forth remains roughly the same before and after this process). For example, a spin-zero particle could decay into a pair of spin-1/2 particles. Since the total spin is conserved, this decay must be zero, whenever the first particle is measured to be spin up on some axis, the other (when measured on the same axis) is always found to be spin down. And the interesting thing is that the sub-particles can be as far as we want before the measurement is made, that is to say, we can propagate the information as far as we want. Say if we measure later on the spin polarization of one of them, inmediataly the other has to know it. This is the idea behind the transmition of information using the quantum entanglement which is nowdays being developed with great accuracy.

Frankly I cannot understand why nobody wants to defend the importance of their purposes of problems unsolved. I think that it would be poor to let the question as it stands for the moment, therefore with your permision I am going to start to explain the importance of your suggestions.

Dear Pavel,

I have found all your purposes quite interesting although too fashionable or few original, but I am going to comment them assuming your permission.

1) the uniform field theory

I suppose that you have made a language mistake and actually you wanted to say unified instead of uniform.

That question is another face of my problem of quantum gravitation because this is the only fundamental interaction which is out of the scope of quantum field theory. For me its solution wold be very interesting by several reasons:

a) Science in some aspects is economy of thinking and to have only one interaction instead of four is very appealling, but what is more important this could give us new ideas of how this interaction has evolved.

b) Cosmology and Astrophysics have evolved in parallel with the developement of gravitation and obviously this produce new paradigms in such a sense. Notice that objects as dark matter or dark energy are the 95.1 % of our known Universe and they haven't a clear definition (or at least I do not know it).

Dear Pavel,

I do not understand very well this suggestion:

2) how does the Universe works at the Subquark Level?

What do you want to say when you introduce the Universe here? In principle the subquark matter doesn't exists if you include the gluon as a part of QCD.

Do you think that we are going to discover new interactions and new families of particles? Notice that this could be with difficulties of the confinement concept for quarks.

Please, could you explain a little bit more what do you want to say?

hello sir,

sorry for the late reply. as u asked in ur comment that importance of my problem ---superconductivity. i dont know whether particle physicts r going on right or wrong directions based on theoritical assumptions. but i can proudly say that superconductivity is direct proof of quantum mechanics observed in some materials.simple reason why people are crazy about superconductors are save energy they will not waste their energy for simple reasons. when i was kid i learn if u throw a ball in space then it continuosly moving in the space(newtons law) until unless it was hitted by some other object (where simply it changes direction).but what happens the same ball in earth will it continously move like in space? now replace the ball with superconductor inside our earth which will oppose the magnetic field and move against the gravity(levitation). this is why people got surprised every thing in this earth behaving one way and superconductivity is otherway round. i have SUSPICIOUS about this superconductivity theory which is internally related to theories that was framed our universe. i m not expert in superconductivity but i like this subject like any thing. professors who are working in this area might be helpul for ur curiosity in understanding the unsolved problems in science.

Dear Venkat,

Thank you very much for your explanation and let me try to enlarge it for showing only some of the important points, for me, where it has contributed to the general knowledge in physics. Let me to divide the answer in different points for more being more clear:

1. Superconductivity has been the first theory to introduce the bosonization in an explicit form in BCS. The interaction of the electrons close to the Fermi level with the lattice has the property be bound in pairs.

2. Superconductivity was the first are of knowledge that it was introduced the expontaneous breaking of symmetry which was so important in particle physics. In fact the Higgs particle is one product of it.

3. Superconductivity has been the highest diamagnet material thanks to have the Meissner effect.

4. In fact superconductivity develops an effective macroscopic quantum behaviour for the electronic transport.

5. The non metallic superconductivity surely is going to be an important advance in physics due to the difficulties to be solved with the previous theories and also due to involve many interesting materials.

Dear Pavel,

Your third question:

3) the origins of the Universe.

It depends too of what you want to say. From my humble point of view there are some problems that begin with the assumption of the Big Bang theory:

a) The Hubble law is based in the redshifts which are not so obvious to be observed but nowadays we approach with great accuracy and theoretically modes as one of Friedmann explain its physical meaning based in Einstein's gravitation.

b) This allows us to determine the age of the Universe 13.798 (plus or minus) 0.037 per 10^9 years.

c) In 1980 Alan Guth purposed the idea of Inflactionary Universe assuming, i.e., after 10^(-36) s (and finished around 10^(-33) s)of the born of the Universe, there was an expansion of 10^(78) its volume for explaining the uniform distribution of the mass. This year, in march 2014, it was claimed the observation of gravitational waves which could prove it.

There are many details more to explain but this is an interesting question without any kind of view. But I have many difficulties as non expert for understanding this issue:

d) Was the time that we apply the same at those times. Notice that its flow depends strongly of the density of matter.

e) The singularities associated to the black holes are nothing respect to these ones.

Before creating life in the Earth it was necessary to have water in the oceans. Usually people worried with the initial conditions of life do not mention that it is not simple to justify some simple ingredients as water. What do you think about? Is this an important question to solve?

It is scaling, without a doubt. The dream of Physics is to produce the famous Theory of Everything, but there can be no theory of everything that does not scale. Physics today is a patchwork of theories that do not scale. Thermodynamics is the one exception I know [anyone, please? are there any other theories that do scale? I mean naturally, from the ground up]. Scaling has to do with the P=NP problem. Scaling has also to do with the observer. Physics prides itself of being observer-independent. The obvious consequence: no theory of Physics can explain the observer. That's us.

    Dear Sergio,

    I agree with you that scaling is an interesting idea in science or even in physics (renormalization group, etc). But it seems to me that you are speaking in another sense: please could you be more precise?. If you refer to the complexity problems with fractal geometries and with achievements as the Feigenbaum’s constant or the power laws, it seems quite interesting for mathematics or computation sciences but I do not know their actual importance. Could you describe it in few words?. Thank you very much

Dear Sergio Pissanetzky, "Physics prides itself of being observer-independent" can u please explain this sentence with famous Heisenberg uncertainity principle without which quantum mechanics was somehow in trouble( as i suppose). i m bit curious to understand the physics as deep as possible.

Daniel, thank you very much for the fast reply. Of course, I will try. The core problem is P=NP, formerly (starting in the 1900's) known as the binding problem. It is an enormous problem and it can be approached in many ways. I need to find the best way for you and I to communicate so please help me out. Here is a first iteration:

Mathematician Kurt Goedel described P=NP as "the fundamental laws that bind our universe" (and he didn't mean the 4 forces). I also quote Scott Aaronson (MIT): "If P=NP, then the world would be a profoundly different place than we usually assume it to be. There would be no special value in 'creative leaps,' no fundamental gap between solving a problem and recognizing the solution once it’s found. Everyone who could appreciate a symphony would be Mozart; everyone who could follow a step-by-step argument would be Gauss."

P=NP was never solved. Today it affects nearly all areas of science and technology, including Physics, and in all cases the negative effects are devastating. It is considered by many as THE most important open problem in Mathematics. It is, however, a problem of Physics, and Physics is the science that must solve it. This is my core message: Physics has got to deal with it because nobody else can solve it! By ignoring it, Physics is punishing all the other disciplines!

When I was a young student of Physics, my professor drew a system of coordinates and a mass particle moving in a line. The three ingredients, space, time and matter, were there from day 1. Later, they made their way into QM, SR, GR, etc. It all seemed completely natural, indeed. But space, time and matter are perceptions and not at all fundamental (I can expand on this). They enter Physics as a *working hypothesis* only. As such they must be challenged. I am proposing to take information as the most fundamental entity (I can expand on this too) as a different working hypothesis. The gap between information and space, time and matter is, precisely, P=NP.

There are very strong reasons for this: First, information is causal. All physical systems are causal, so this is automatically satisfied. Second, information is naturally scalable, so scaling is also automatically satisfied. Look at the big theories in Physics: we have GR, QM, the Standard Model, Cosmology, and each has its own scale range! Physics is a fragmented discipline! With the information hypothesis, Physics would no longer be fragmented. Physics needs an entirely new, fundamental theory, where information is fundamental and not spacetime and matter.

I can go on and on, and I know what I am talking about. But let's test this initial iteration first, see how it works. Yes, I am talking fractals and power laws and complexity and Feigenbaum constants, but only as tiny manifestations of a huge, fundamental problem that touches the very roots of Theoretical Physics.

   Dear Sergio,

   I am sorry, but it is very difficult to follow you. Kurt Gödel has solved the first two problems proposed by David Hilbert of the twenty-three most interesting mathematical problems at the beginning of the twenty century. But what is the relation with P=NP? What do you mean by P=NP?

Well, the first iteration didn't work. P=NP is one of the open Millennium Problems of

Mathematics (but I am saying it is actually a problem of Physics), with a $1,000,000

prize for solving it. The best known example is the famous Travelling Salesman Problem (clearly a problem of Physics). You can read about it in Wikipedia, look for "Millennium Prize Problems", "P versus NP problem", "Consequences of the resolution of the problem", and "Traveling Salesman Problem".

Let me try a different approach, but please, keep in mind that it is only a very

small part of something much bigger. Can you get Melanie Mitchell's book "Complexity: a guided tour"? Go to chapter 17, "The mystery of scaling", and also check the section "The mystery of fractals and power laws" in the same chapter. Melanie is with the world famous Santa Fe Institute, she knows about complexity. So the question would be: Mystery? Fractals are a most ubiquitous phenomenon in nature! They are everywhere, we can observe them, measure them, predict their properties. And Physics cannot explain them? Here is why: Physics believes it has already dug deep enough into the properties of matter for "other" sciences to do the rest. I am telling you that Physics has not done enough to support the other sciences, because a fundamental theory of Physics is still missing. This is a huge statement. It is not like "well, we cannot explain fractals, so what? Let's just do without them." Do you see a problem?

Daniel,

Actually here is the abstract of a talk I am going to give next week at NASA Gilruth, it explains P=NP at a basic level, see attachment

   Dear Sergio,

   I was reading the beautiful book of Melanie and in spite that she uses a lot of physicists, I couldn't find defined any new physical problem in all the text. The scale problems are very important of course and used in the renormalization theorems of quantum field theories or in condensed matter too but they are only one interesting part of Physics. By the way, I was very surprise that Ilya Prygogine, who is for one of the most important authorities in this field of complexity and caos and nobel prize in 1977, was not mentioned in the book of Melanie.

   Respect to the question of P=NP I still do not know were it is its relationship with the laws of Physics.  

Dear Daniel,

I am very grateful to you for keeping up with this thread. I see things so clearly, yet I cannot explain. You are helping me to detect what I am doing wrong.

That’s precisely the problem, that physicists (and complexity scientists) do not see a problem! I’ll make just three statements and see where we stand on those. Later, I will explain exactly where P=NP enters the picture:

Creating a Theory of Everything is an important goal of Theoretical Physics. A Theory of Everything must include the observer. But Physics so far prides itself of being observer-independent.

    Dear Sergio,

    Physics has many problems not solved and very important for survive in the real world: new superconductivity, superfluidity, thermoelectricity efficiency, fusion energy at low temperature, quantum computation, creation of the universe, sub quark interactions, etc... That is difficult to distinguish what is really the more important one. This is the reason that I have put this question and in fact it was very surprising that so few people were involved. Of course, I am very acknowledged to everybody who has given interesting ideas, but I think that there are a lot of more than these ones. In any case you are welcome if you can also explain yours in a form that I can , at least, to understand it: thank you.

Dear Daniel,

True, but mind the public opinion. I am sorry to say, but the public opinion now favors the brain, I believe both in Europe and US.  The detection of the Higgs particle was hardly even noticed. But the brain is in the news every day, all the time, in newspapers and TV, the New York Times and the BBC, in Science and Physics Today and IMB and Google, even the IEEE. They want autism, dementia, Alzheimer’s addressed and resolved. They are tired of the empty, eternal promises of Artificial Intelligence, they want the Internet of Things, and the Semantic Web, and they want Big Data resolved, they are tired of computers being so stupid and they want machines that talk and recognize things just like humans do, they want robots that behave like humans and can help in the household and the handicapped. There is even a guy selling mattresses that are “good for the brain” because you sleep better on them. Yes, it’s hype, but it tells you something: it tells you where funding is going to go in the coming decades.

Of course the problems in your list are important. But how many people care or even know they exist? Don’t hide in your lab, think big, look at what’s around you. How is Physics going to compete with brain research?

It just so happens that half the problems in your list, and the strongest attractor of them all, the brain, are problems of complexity. Melanie is not the only one admitting that complexity has mysteries. Mathematician and Philosopher of science Barry-Cooper calls complexity “a case that outstrips human ingenuity.” Many authors call it “magic”. The core problem they are all talking about is P=NP (but they don't know it, that's why it's not addressed in Melanie's book ). None of the items in my list, not even understanding the brain, will be resolved without solving P=NP (I can expand on this).

Which makes brain research a problem of Physics! Hard to believe, I know, but Neuroscience cannot solve P=NP because it is a problem of Physics! (I can expand on this too).

Sergio

    The core problem they are all talking about is P=NP (but they don't know it, that's why it's not addressed in Melanie's book ). None of the items in my list, not even understanding the brain, will be resolved without solving P=NP (I can expand on this).

   Please go ahead.

      Which makes brain research a problem of Physics! Hard to believe, I know, but Neuroscience cannot solve P=NP because it is a problem of Physics! (I can expand on this too)

     And please, if you are so kind.

Dear Daniel,

Easy. P=NP is either a problem of Mathematics or one of Physics, or both, perhaps Applied Mathematics. But the mathematics of it is very simple and well known. The role of Physics is to bring nature into the scene and tell the mathematicians which part of their mathematics is relevant to nature. That part is the fundamental principle of causality. They have the categories, the groupoids, the morphisms, all completely general. Causality is only a particular case that’s already covered as far as they are concerned.

Hence, physicists are the ones who ought to care. When we put causality in, i.e. we require groupoids to be causal groupoids, that’s where the magic happens: causal groupoids are recursive - but in general groups and groupoids are not recursive. Recursion follows directly from causality, hence it is a fundamental property of nature that applies to all physical systems. And recursion is what solves P=NP.

It’s a classic hot potato case. Mathematicians and physicists have been throwing it to each other for a very long time. I know this is not going to be easy to follow, but I have expanded all this in full detail and it is published. It is not in Physics, I know, I never heard anyone saying that all systems are recursive.

But you asked about brain research. I must be brief so I’ll use Douglas Hofstadter’s metaphor (BTW, Melanie was a student of Douglas). Suppose you see your mother and in about 0.5 sec you utter “mother”. You didn’t really see your mother. Your retinas got 100 million dots of light, which were sent to your brain as electric impulses. You didn’t really say “mother”, your brain sent hundreds of thousands of precisely calibrated and synchronized impulses to hundreds, perhaps thousands of muscles in you chest, diaphragm, throat, vocal cords, tongue, lips, even facial muscles, the result of all of which was the sound “mother”. There is a function that maps from precisely these 100 million dots of light to precisely those 100 thousand impulses. This function is known as brain function. It is specific to your mother, and to you voice and language, it does not come from evolution, it is not in DNA. It comes plainly and directly from matter, specifically from your brain matter’s ability to learn and to make sense of information. And that function happens to be exactly  P=NP.

I can expand all the way to full detail, but it is all published. Maybe I should attach a reference, it’s just that I don’t want to self promote.

Sergio

    Dear Sergio,

    I am not sure that we understand each other. Perhaps it is better if I put you directly two questions and please try to answer them:

   1- If you solve the so important problem of P=NP, how is going to change the Physics or in what?

   2- If you solve the so important problems of P=NP, how is going to change the Mathematics or what? Do you think that it deserves a Fields Medal? 

Daniel, of course, my pleasure. I think we communicate reasonably well taking into account that I've been working 10 years on this and had to profoundly change my mindset to think the way I do. I don't want to compare myself with anyone but think of Quantum Mechanics. Was it not Fermi who said that nobody could understand QM, but it works, and that's what matters? I know I must offer results, and I have and most are published. But I am limited to causal sets of size ~100, and I need a million to deal with real world applications or get a company interested.

Question 1.

Current status of Theoretical Physics:

* A patchwork of scale-specific theories that work very well in their specific ranges but may be incompatible or overlap when compared.

* No existing theory can explain most observable phenomena in nature. This too is a scale problem. Examples are: scaling, fractals, power laws, perception, brain function, emergence, self-organization, semantics. I am proposing that all these are properties of matter evolving under its own recognizance, obeying it own dynamics and without any external director, hence problems of Physics that Physics has the obligation to deal with rather than throwing the hot potato to Neuroscience, Mathematics, Complexity Science, Computer Science, etc.

* Physics' claim to be a "fundamental" science conflicts with its working hypothesis, that spacetime and matter are fundamental. They are perceptions and not fundamental. They served Physics well for centuries, but now need to be challenged.

* The result: Public interest, after a century of fascination with Physics, is shifting away and re-directing to more practical problems. There is official confirmation: Earlier this year, the APS created the new journal Physical Review Applied.

Changes, long-term goals:

* A scale-free theory will be obtained where information is fundamental and the existing theories are particular cases.

* The theories will not change, but the heuristics and adjustable parameters in them

will be explained in terms of causality and information.

* The new theory will explain the phenomena above, allowing engineers for the first time to engineer practical solutions (ex.: the theory of flight allowed them to engineer flying machines, Solid State Physics allowed them to engineer transistors and computers).

* The constructions of theories directly from experimental data will be automated, but physicists will still have to observe nature and determine cause-effect relations. There is no telling what the results might be.

Question 2.

Mathematics will not change. There is no new mathematics in the causal theory.

P=NP will help with some unsolved questions of Mathematics such as automated theorem proving and computer-generated proofs that are too long for any human to comprehend, and perhaps with the construction of large ontologies such as Category Theory.

The Fields Medal, me? It's for Mathematics, I do not work in Mathematics. And I am not building a career either, I just happened to find treasure buried in the woods. I retired in 1999 and felt free at last to pursue my own interests. In 2005 I noticed the recursion involving causal sets and groupoids. I instantly realized how important it was but didn't know what groupoids or causal sets were. My first step: understand the scope, and whether it was new or had been tried before. Today, I know it is new and useful and I want to share. No Fields Medal, but I could use some help from another physicist or mathematician.

I made a mess, I got into two threads at the same time and can't keep up, this will

be a little slow.

    Dear Sergio,

    Please, read again your last contribution and see if anything is related with challenges of the present Physics or Mathematics. Thank you.

    Dear Sergio,

    Sorry if I explained badly respecto to the Field Medal. I wanted to say if you think that a person who solved the problem of P=NP could deserve this honor. Or in other words, is this a mathematical problem that the mathematical community is going to accept as very important?

No problem, Daniel. The Math community has already accepted P=NP as the most

important open problem, and solving it would carry a great honor. But they didn't.

The most interesting problems :

1. Evolutionary theory of physics and all other phenomenal levels of nature and society

2. The evolution of biological life

3. The evolution of mammalls up to the primates

4. The evolution of  humans from primates

5. The evolution of a planet wide collective human organism

    Thank you Louis,

    What do you mean by evolutionary theory of physics?

Hi Daniel,

I mean a physics that is not a set of fixed eternal laws but which is like everything else in nature evolutionary.  See Peirce or Lee Smolin

http://www.carterphipps.com/2013/06/10/do-the-laws-of-physics-evolve/

or Feynman

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/10/18/feynman-on-initial-conditions-evolving-laws-and-what-we-consider-physics/#.VDygmildXwM

Dear Louis,

I think that the law of gravitation is going to be always the same, although it can be understood within a more general theory. The evolution is within our knowledge and relationship with other interactions more than in the pure physical observables.

Dear Daniel,

The evolution is within our knowledge and the law of gravitation of Newton evolved sometime in our past knowledge evolution and it is now perceived as a limited approximation and we understand what are its limit where the approximation has some validity. GR has wider limits, but it is also part of our evolutionary knowledge and we do not understand yet the limits but at some point we will do when we get a more encompassing theory which we will later better understand the limits, ad infinitum. But we are seeking to know is not a fixed reality but one like our knowledge that had been growing with the cosmos itself. All is alive , our knowledge is produced by our evolving life and the cosmos as a whole is alive and is evolving/growing and some aspects gradually stabilized and can be understood as machine-like law but nothing as such absolutly exist but for technoloogical purpose it is good enough for harnessing nature, like all the biological bodies are themself stabilisation of their interaction , and this is good enough to evolve their life.

Dear Louis,

I understand you, but this concept of evolution is very different to the one that biologist understand: adaptation to the environment. In spite of that that, General Relativity can allow us to understand more things better as the Mercury perihelium, but the Newton's acceleration in the Earth is with the same value (although there is not a force to be associated to it by a curvature of a Riemann spacetime). Notice that for engineers or architets perhaps the evolution of the concept of gravitation in GR is in fact an involution because they can calculate with very accuraccy their mechanics without using so complex mathematical tools involved in non Euclidean geometries.

After 3 years, I made some progress. The problem is binding in complex systems made of many parts. We know the behavior of the parts in full detail, but we still cannot predict the behavior of the whole. Binding creates patterns, but why some parts bind and others don't? As a counter-example, take the Standard Model, a brilliant success for Physics. Great physicists have understood the symmetries, energies and other properties that need to be conserved. They put all that in their brains, and after some time they "discovered" a particle.

This is, precisely, the part that bothers me. Because it does not scale. Today, nearly all our numerical problems far exceed the capacity of the human brain to solve them. And nobody knows how the brain works so nobody can build a computer that does the same and is scalable. But doing so is in fact very easy, and does not require to understand the brain.

Start from the fundamental principle of causality. Murray Gell-Mann states it as follows: "Effects follow their causes." Formalize the principle as a collection of cause-effect pairs - a causal set. Propose the basic metric of causal sets as an action functional, and minimize the functional. You get patterns right away, hierarchies of invariant patterns of behavior that are a property of the causal set.

The principle of causality is proposed as being universal. It governs all systems, including the brain, including the computer we use to run the simulation. Then the patterns the simulation creates are, rigorously, the same that the brain makes. I should know, I did it, I compared with the brain's patterns, and it works. And it all scales indefinitely limited only by resources.

This is a new fundamental theory of ... physics? I see physics at work. Otherwise, what is it? It does solve the three main unsolved problems in computer science: universal information integration, a universal knowledge representation, and universal scalability. It is a logic, I call it causal mathematical logic (CML). I still think my work is science, not computation.

Good luck Sergio,

Although I don't understand you.

Happy New Year 2018 for everybody!!!