The Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) was mentioned in the comments of Mark’s post about John Barrow’s Templeton Prize. This is a new organization that is devoted to supporting innovative ideas at the frontiers of physics and cosmology. It is led by Max Tegmark of MIT and Anthony Aguirre of UCSC, two leading young cosmologists, backed up by an extremely prestigious Scientific Advisory Panel.
Sounds like a great idea, but some of us have questions, primarily concerning the source of funding for FQXi — currently the John Templeton Foundation. The Templeton Foundation is devoted to bringing together science and religion, which may or may not be your cup of tea. I’m already on the record as turning down money from them (see also this Business Week article) — and believe me, turning down money is not part of my usual repertoire. But Max and Anthony and the rest are good scientists, so we here at Cosmic Variance thought it would be good to hear the story behind FQXi in their own words. We invited Anthony to contribute a guest post about the goals and procedures of the new institute, and he was kind enough to agree. Feel free to ask questions and be politely skeptical (or for that matter enthusiastically supportive), and we can all learn more about what’s going on.
———-
I (Anthony Aguirre) have been invited by Sean to write a guest blog entry discussing an exciting new project that Max Tegmark and I have been leading: Foundational Questions in Physics and Cosmology (“FQX”). This program was publicly announced in October, and the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) was formally launched as a legal entity in February, as was its first call for proposals. There is a plethora of information on FQXi at www.fqxi.org, but the kind invitation by Cosmic Variance provides a good opportunity to outline informally what FQXi is, why we think it is important, to address some reservations voiced in this forum, and to generate some discussion in the physics and cosmology community.
What is FQXi all about? Its stated mission is “To catalyze, support, and disseminate research on questions at the foundations of physics and cosmology, particularly new frontiers and innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of reality, but unlikely to be supported by conventional funding sources.” Less formally, the aim of FQXi is to allow researchers in physics, cosmology, and related fields who like to think about and do real research about really big, deep, foundational or even “ultimate” questions, to actually do so — when otherwise they could not. We boiled this type of research down into two defining terms: the research should be foundational (with potentially significant and broad implications for our understanding of the deep or “ultimate” nature of reality) and it should be unconventional (consisting of rigorous research which, because of its speculative, non-mainstream, or high-risk nature, would otherwise go unperformed due to lack of funding.) The particular types of research FQXi will support are detailed in the FQXi Charter and in the first call for proposals, which also features a handy (but by no means whatsoever comprehensive) list of example projects, and their likelihood of being suitable for FQXi funding. In addition to straightforward grants, FQXi will run various other programs — “mini”-grants, conferences, essay contests, a web forum, etc. — focused on the same sort of science.
Why is FQXi important? There are a number of foundational questions that are of deep interest to humanity at large — and are the (often hidden) passion of and inspiration for researchers — but which various financial and “social” pressures make it very difficult for researchers to actually pursue. National funding sources, for example, tend to shy aware from research that is high-risk/high- reward, or speculative, or very fundamental, or unconventional, or “too philosophical”, and instead support research using fairly proven methods with a high probability of advancing science along known routes. There is nothing wrong with this, and it creates a large amount of excellent science. But it leaves some really interesting questions on the sidelines. We go on at length about this in the FQXi Charter — but the researchers FQXi aims to support will know all too well what the problems are. Our goal is to fund the research into foundational questions in physics and cosmology that would otherwise go unfunded.
More money to support really exciting, interesting, and, yes, fun research seems like an unreservedly good thing. Nonetheless, a couple of significant reservations have been voiced to us, both by writers on this blog and others. These are:
1) Some feel research that is very speculative or “borderline philosophical” is just a waste of time and resources — if the research was worth doing, conventional agencies would fund it. We won’t accept this criticism from anyone who has worked on either time machines or the arrow of time (so Sean is out) :), but from others we acknowledge that they feel this way, we respectfully disagree, and we think that many of the giants of 20th century physics (Einstein, Bohr, Schroedinger, Pauli, etc.) would also disagree. Ultimately, those who feel this way are free not to participate in FQXi. We also note that we think it would by great if some private donors were also to support more conventional research in a way that complemented or supplemented federal funding (as they do in, e.g., the Sloan and Packard fellowships); that, however, is not the case here: the donation supporting FQXi is expressely for the purpose of supporting foundational research. Which brings us to…
2) The second major reservation concerns FQXi’s current sole source of funding: the John Templeton Foundation (JTF), an organization that espouses and supports the “constructive dialogue between science and religion.” It is understandable that some people may be suspicious of JTF’s involvement with FQXi, and in today’s political climate in which Intelligent Design and other movements seek to undermine science in order to promote a religious and political agenda, such suspicion is especially understandable. But it is as important as ever to also be open-minded and objective. The salient points, we think, regarding JTF and FQXi are:
- FQXi is a non-profit scientific grant-awarding organization fully independent from its donors (we are actively seeking other donors beyond JTF, see below) and operated in accordance with its Charter. Proposal funding is determined via a standard and rigorous peer-review process, and an expert panel appointed by FQXi. The structure of FQXi is such that donors — including JTF — have no control or influence over individual proposal selection or renewal. Specifically, scientific decisions are made (as enshrined in the FQXi corporate Bylaws) by the Scientific Directorate (Max & I), on the basis of advice from review panels and the Scientific Advisory Panel. The only condition of the JTF grant to FQXi is that FQXi’s grantmaking be consistent with the FQXi Charter, which, as stated previously, can be viewed in its entirity at fqxi.org.
- JTF’s stated interest in FQXi is captured in the FQXi Charter: the questions being tackled by researchers funded by FQXi intimately connect with and inform not just scientific fields, but also philosophy, theology and religious belief systems. Answers to these questions will have profound intellectual, practical, and spiritual implications for anyone with deep curiosity about the world’s true nature.
- While FQXi’s funding is currently all from JTF, we have been strongly encouraged by JTF to seek (and are actively working on finding) additional donors; furthermore, there is no guarantee of JTF funding beyond the first four years — though we certainly hope FQXi will go on long past the initial four-year phase.
- As for JTF benefiting “by association” with FQXi and the great research we hope that it will support, well, we feel that JTF has been extremely generous not just in giving a large sum of money to science, without strings attached, and with a great deal of support through the complex process of setting up FQXi as an independent institute of just the sort that Max & I wanted. If all this reflects well on JTF, I would submit that they deserve it.
We’ve tried hard to make FQXi’s operation and goals as transparent as possible, so those in the community can make informed decisions on whether they would like to participate in what we are hoping to do. We are very excited by the proposals that are coming in so far, and invite interested scientists to take a look at the call for proposals before it is too late (April 2). For those who are not actively researching foundational questions, we hope to have a very active public discussion and outreach program for both scientists and the interested public; we invite you to periodically check the FQXi website.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss FQXi at Cosmic Variance.
Belizean,
One could think of ”accepting people”, but putting the payment on hold until an article is published. So, if you don’t perform or are a crackpot in disguise, you don’t get anything. But if you are an Einstein and know that you will produce results after a few months of work, then you could go ahead without facing much financial problems.
Belizean,
You are right, the pendulum certainly swings both ways. However, the FQXi proposal process already eliminates those extremes you refer to, since an aspiring amateur investigator has to be associated with a tax-exempt research organization (or a work around arranged), and submit a 500 word proposal summary that makes enough sense to intrigue seasoned researchers.
At best, it would be a long shot that any insane “crackpot” would make it past the initial stage of this process. A good 500-word summary of a specific proposal is difficult to prepare, since it needs to be a concise description of a difficult challenge, which succinctly identifies key issues in a convincing manner, not an easy task.
It doesn’t take long to read these short summaries to screen out the specious ones, but, like panning for gold, chances are a precious nugget or two can be found in the grains of sand, making it worthwhile to go through the process. However, to expect that the gold can only be found in certain designated rivers, or man-made canals, is a mistake. “God moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform,” we might say. Amateurs have traditionally been the best source for revolutionary ideas in many fields.
Again, this is probably due in large part to their intense interest and lack of preconceived constraints. However, these people by definition will not have a history of being in the box. Because they are out of the box, they can think out of the box, but requiring them to produce a list of “in the box” publications automatically excludes them.
It’s a difficult challenge to be sure, but then so is coming up with “innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of reality.”
I just have to laugh. Doug et al going on and on and on about finding an “out of the box” thinker and then complaining about the “rules”.
“badges…we don’t need no stinking badges…”
Elliot
Doug,
If we had a few examples of Mongolian yak herders or Nebraskan proctologists making big contributions to physics, it might be worth the effort to find such people. But we don’t. We do have cases such as Einstein and Deutsch were doctorates where present, but relevant publications weren’t.
It’s not absurd to imagine someone in condensed matter theory making a significant contribution to astrophysics, or a recent doctorate in cosmology making a contribution in that specialty despite being employed as a financial analyst.
But someone without at least a doctorate in physics (or mathematics) is exceedingly unlikely to contribute, the Freeman Dyson example not withstanding. The miniscule chance of finding such a person would not justify the substantial resources the task would require. Those resources would be better invested in funding more proposals.
FQXi’s approach to screening applicants is fundamentally correct. Given their stated objective, their approach just requires a slight tuning in the liberal direction in my view. I think, however, that they are right to err on the conservative side for their debut. They can always adjust their procedures in either direction based on their initial results.
Belizean,
I guess Elliot is still laughing, because this is so much like a tempest in a teapot now. However, I want to point out, for arguments sake, that your point of view assumes that the product, which the schools produce, the philosophical doctors, gain a knowledge of reality that is not accessible any other way. Yet, Lee Smolin just wrote an article regarding the lamentable, but not subtle, built-in disincentive, which exists in those very schools vis-à-vis contemplation of foundational questions. Smolin laments that the famous words of Feynman, just “shut up and calculate” have become the “mantra” of the schoolmen.
Mastering the practice of science might be a prerequisite for understanding the issues of science, but not for understanding reality. The discovery of “innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of reality” requires only one thing — thought. The title of PhD is not an authorization to think, issued by those who are in charge of thought. I’m sorry. The greatest minds the world has to offer in the last couple of generations have been working feverishly day and night to understand the structure of the physical universe, based on some fundamental assumptions that the schoolmen try their best to avoid, and what’s the result?
Turmoil and confusion. “Something’s wrong!” exclaims Gross. “Many physicists feel stuck”, says Baez. They “continue to make predictions but they are usually wrong or not yet testable. This has led to a feeling of malaise. Why are they failing?” he wants to know. Well, in the meantime let’s keep on churning them out of the grad schools anyway, because we can’t just stop the enterprise now can we? Of course not. Let’s throw some more money at them. Maybe we can get them to stop calculating and to start thinking, if we pay them. Just tell them, “shut up [take this money] and think!”
What a joke this is, huh Elliot? Pass the cheese and turn on the jazz. Let’s Jam!
Doug,
When I review your position on this issue I find the fundamental flaw is that you assume some negative correlation between being “in the system” and “being able to think in an unencumbered fashion”. I don’t think that’s a fair statement for a couple of reasons. 1) I think you will have to admit (howeve grudgingly) that knowing the physics and mathematics itself can not be considered a negative attribute since I think many of us believe that the the “foundational” description of reality will be done in the language of physics and math. 2) Sabbatacals compared to the non-academic world, tenured professors are given extended periods to “think” about things which the rest of us working stiffs don’t have. Certainly these periods provide an opportunity to think. and 3) Some of the most radical and non-intuitive ideas are already being generated by those very insiders. Look at Lee Smolin (CNS) Jakob Bekenstien (Bekenstein Bound) Lenny Susskind and others (Holographic Principle) Roger Penrose (Twistors and concepts of gravitational entropy) These are all insiders who are see things in a very different way.
I further disagree with your pessimistic attitude about progress. I think that the recent WMAP results are a good example of solid progress and that given the enormous experimental issues of trying to reconcile low energy standard model physics with planck scale theory we need to realize we are aiming high.
Elliot,
I didn’t say physicists and mathematicians can’t think, I said Smolin laments that the schoolmen discourage them from thinking about foundational issues, something, which he himself experienced. However, I can understand why they do this, since thinking about these issues is so impractical, and can be so distracting to students, that it can put their education in jeopardy.
I recall the story Weinberg tells of a promising grad student that he realized he hadn’t seen around campus for a while. One day he asked a colleague in an elevator if he knew what had happened to this bright fellow. The answer was that he had dropped out of school, because he couldn’t stop thinking about the meaning of quantum mechanics, so I’m sure this is why “shut up and calculate” has become the mantra of the schoolmen that it has.
However, the issue of the value of science education, the training of physicists and mathematicians to think in terms of “the language of physics and math,” is not so straightforward. Certainly, it is absolutely indispensable to the practice of normal science within the current paradigm of thought. Nevertheless, the very process is predicated upon the assumption that one can take the validity of the paradigm for granted, but, while this works for a while, eventually it is self-defeating, because the half-life of any paradigm is relatively short. When the paradigm has decayed sufficiently, we get the undesirable results we are seeing today — a revolutionary spirit is growing. We are more and more prepared to accept anything that promises a way out of the fundamental crisis, even to the point that schoolmen are prepared to suggest that the traditional understanding of science itself should be sacrificed — that we need not assume that there exists a paradigm that will work any better than the one we have.
I find it so ironic that Weinberg is at the forefront of this movement to abandon the almost sacred definition of science in order to save the current paradigm, because he was so insistent that Kuhn’s conclusion, that normal science does not necessarily take us closer and closer to the truth, was, as he put it, “wormwood to scientists like myself.” Now that the predicted revolution is upon us, however, Weinberg wants to change the definition of science; apparently, this is a new position, a compromise with his adamant defense of the ultimate nobility of mankind’s scientific quest to understand nature: our struggle has meaning not because there is one truth out there to be discovered, but because we have discovered that there is no meaning to the idea that truth can be circumscribed into one great, comprehensible, whole that mankind can master. Truth is whatever works for us, but it can be anything else as well, something that we can never know.
Personally, I reject both Kuhn’s position and Weinberg’s new position. I believe that truth IS something that can be circumscribed into one large whole and understood by man, and that the progress of science toward it is real and worth the effort, precisely because of that fact, as Weinberg apparently once believed.
Hence, while we must view the progress of science as substantial in one respect, given the magnificent feats of modern science and technology, in another important respect, we’ve lost something rather significant that the Greeks possessed centuries ago, the simple and elegant view of a harmonious universe. The reason that the string theorists like Gross are expecting that the coming revolutionary idea predicted by them will redefine the nature of space and time, and that the non-string theorists like Smolin believe that the new definition of space and time needs to eliminate the background structure of space and time in physical theory, and that the mathematicians like Atiyah think that the new paradigm will exhibit mathematical simplicity and elegance and reveal the origins of mathematics in the fundamental structure of nature, is that these conclusions are those that they have reached in the context of seeking that view of nature, which the ancients possessed: a unified and harmonious understanding of the structure of the physical universe.
Achieving such an understanding IS possible — we must believe that, but it’s clear that what has to change is fundamental, that the paradigm under which we now labor has to change, and consequently, while such a change will be wrenching, it will also be immensely impowering and liberating. In the meantime, it’s important to recognize that the numerous ad hoc inventions, crafted in terms of the dying paradigm, such as those you mention and describe as “radical and non-intuitive,” can never have such power to change things, because they do not provide the basis for a new round of inductive science — a new paradigm that provides for a new, more powerful, view of the structure of the physical universe.
I find it so ironic that Weinberg is at the forefront of this movement to abandon the almost sacred definition of science in order to save the current paradigm
This is ahistorical. Weinberg was writing about an anthropic explanation for the cosmological constant long before the landscape was even a glimmer in Lenny’s eye.
(Shamit’s eye? Joe’s eye? Steve’s eye? Nah. Lenny scans better.)
True, historically he entertained the anthropic principle early-on, but this didn’t lead him to suggest a change in the meaning of science, until after the advent of the landscape. Remember the recent discussion on Peter’s blog? Very interesting.
“Interesting” isn’t the word I’d use for that discussion. More along the lines of “distasteful” and “tacky” with a few forays into “beyond the pale”.
You know, there are really some times when it seems like the universe is playing a joke on you.
For instance, this happened to me yesterday.
Let me give a little bit of context.
For various reasons, I wasn’t real fond of classroom education, finished high school in 3 years motivated solely by the desire to be out of it (i.e., not out of intellectual ambition), never took math past Algebra II, never took physics. I got a vague-ish, English composition-centric Liberal Arts BA right after that because I knew if I ever found something that I really wanted to pursue I might as well have it out of the way so I could start Graduate studies.
Now I work as a financial/business analyst for Agilent Technologies. I wanted to work for the company because the innovative history of the company and what we produce intrigued me. The way I explained it to my mom, “There’s just something neat about working for the company that invented the atomic clock.” Even though my educational background doesn’t support it, I fell into a job that allowed me to realize that I what I really love thinking about is statistical modeling, computational finance, relational databases, and theoretical concepts. Especially theoretical concepts that have to do with absolute, subjective, and relativistic thinking.
So, yesterday. I spent probably too much time “contemplating the foundational questions”.
I exhausted my husband’s knowledge on the fun bits of physics I had gleaned from reading some of Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos, which was given to me by my father-in-law. I had also exhausted his curiosity in talking about theoretical subjects (whether Zen Buddhism sees time as linear, and what the are parallels in thinking about absolute vs. subjective morality in theology and the cosmological constant, and has someone figured out if light is actually stationary and matter and dimensions are intersecting it in such a way that we only perceive that it’s moving?).
I get to the point where I’m saying things like, “I mean, I can’t tell if I’m sounding like Art Bell and should go make myself a tin foil hat and go searching for crop circles, or if I should just go do some research to find out if there’s some just-for-the-fun-of-it forum where actual well-respected scientists post so I can read up on it, because these are really absorbing ideas to me,”
My husband says that I should talk to his dad, who is an Engineer who also worked for HP/Agilent for 30 years, and is also intensely into multiverses and thinking about the nature of the cosmos. And, he understands all the math to back it up. However, it’s late. I make a mental note to call him the next day, but, being curious, I do a Google search to see if the sort of forum/venue I have in mind exists, and I stumble across this thread, and the Foundational Questions Institute.
Just what I was looking for.
Great.
But that’s not the joke part.
The joke part is that Anthony A. and I already know each other. I asked him to the school dance in 6th grade, in fact.
Synchronicity, coincidence, alien/illuminati conspiracy, some one playing dice with the universe? Ah, who knows. Boggles the mind, though, at least mine.
I hope this is as amusing to those of you who stuck with me this far as it is to me.
I believe the answer to the question of whether you can find people who aren’t crackpots and are also capable of out-of-the-box-thinking on topics such as these, and who have the time & motivation to do so and the aplomb to present it in such a manner that it is taken seriously, is an unequivocal YES. My father-in-law, for one. Recently retired, math/science savant, disciplined, and already does ponder these subjects many hours a day, unfunded.
I’ll give him the link, so you just might hear from him. I am sure you will hear from like-minded individuals around the globe.
In any event, I’m very glad you’re all out there. I think this is a fantastic and exciting way of getting the creative juices going and moving science forward. At the very least, you’ve motivated me to go get more education about cosmology and physics so I can find out what fun puzzles I’ve been missing all these years….
I’m very much looking forward to seeing what comes out of this project. I do so love limitless possibilities.
Take care,
Tara
Tara,
That is so cool! I wish I knew you.
Would the FQXi support hidden variable theories?
Thomas, thanks for posting the link to ‘t Hooft’s paper! Somehow I missed that one.
The only reason why they might not support this is because it has become too conventional by now 🙂
So, Tara, did Anthony say “yes” or “no” back in the 6th grade?
Tara:
Hi! That is extremely amusing and it is nice to hear from/about you! Please drop me an email anytime, if you like.
Sean:
My precise recollection of these events is foggy, but I’m pretty sure that there was another girl involved and that, characteristically, I badly mishandled the whole situation… 🙂
All:
FYI, the first round of proposals was a great success and we are very excited about the proposals we got. While these are being processed, a goal over the next couple of months will be to develop the FQXi forum, which many here will hopefully find of interest.
Also, thanks to Doug, Belizean, Elliot, et al., for lots of interesting food-for-thought in connection with the support of ‘outsiders’ that have a real potential contribution to make to FQXy research.
🙂
Anthony,
Oh, it wasn’t even close to badly mishandled–he was very diplomatic and logical about the whole thing.
I think wrote him a note:
Do you want to go to the dance with me?
And then I had check boxes (SNORT. yes, check boxes…if we had had email then I imagine I would have had embedded radio buttons…) for “yes”, “no”, and “maybe”.
I believe he checked “maybe”, and added a disclaimer, “I have already asked Michelle, so if she says yes, I will go with her, but I will still dance with you there.”
Hey, even in 6th grade we knew to keep our options open…
It has been fun to reconnect. I’ll be in touch.
Hope you & yours are well.
Tara
Pingback: Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » The Templeton Foundation: A Skeptic’s Take
Templeton Supported
I knew the importance that Anthony would play, and Sean for the introduction of this article above. Why? Because of the “connection” Peter has made in the past.
That Sean might have held about taking a stance, on the templeton issue. So Peter and Sean would have been in agreement as far as I could tell, until, the answers about the role this funding might play, and who was backing it?
Had Anthony maintain some distance from such an association? I bet him and others were sleeping quite comfortably, while the work was yet to come:)
No money, and I continue to endeavor from a personal motivation of interest about science. If I had a proposal such as Sean’s about atheistic valuation, would it now seem important(?) with the dynamics being changed by one of their own( Peter)?
Not surprisingly my ‘independent” proposal did not qualify for the second round of review. However I was very impressed with the professionalism, and courtesy with which I was treated throughout the process. I would like to add that although there was significant discussion in this thread on the requirement of institutional affiliation, I do not belief my proposal was rejected on that criteria alone. It would have been very easy for the FQXi to simply issue a rejection based on this but that was not the outcome. I suspect that my proposal (as strong as it was 😉 ) did not meet the criteria or other proposals were just better.
In any case, I’m glad I did it, and look forward to seeing what emerges from this process both in terms of what projects are funded and what the results of those projects are. I would not be reluctant to give this another shot in the future with the same groundrules.
Elliot
Elliot,
That makes two of us in the rejected column so far, but the only process I was included in was as a recipient of the standard rejection notice sent to all the rejectees. Did they actually ask you questions about your proposal or something?
I hope others here who submitted proposals will share results. It would be interesting to see who else did, or did not, receive the dreaded message:
Doug,
My letter is very similar. However as I stated in my note if the criteria was lack of institutional affiliation, and the intent was to strictly limit participation based on that, I can only assume they would have communicated that to us.
In any case hey…..only two more years before we get another whack at it 🙂
Of course by then we will both be famous for solving the fundamental mysteries of the universe without academic or foundational support 🙂
(let me see where is that Baez crackpot index again. It was right here a minute ago.)
Cheers,
Elliot
Pingback: Foundational Questioners Announced | Cosmic Variance
Pingback: Guide to Foundational Questions about Templeton at Milinda’s Questions