Last summer, FQxI held a small retreat at Broughton Hall in the Yorkshire Dales of England. The purpose was three-fold: for Information as Fuel grantees to present their results (and you can now watch their talks on the site), for members to contemplate the future of metascience and science communication, and to set FQxI’s own short- and medium-term priorities. In the past, the latter involved developing the next funding round and, sometimes, an accompanying essay competition or two. But the world is rapidly changing and (if the redesigned website and new swag wasn’t enough of a hint) so is FQxI. FQxI will, of course, continue to provide the resources and outreach, including funding through its Fulcrum and Zenith grants, in support of foundational research as always. But assessing its role in the future of science requires assessing the problems it was created to address. What are the deep questions? In particular, what makes a question truly foundational?
At its founding, FQxI’s mission was squarely aimed at addressing problems in physics and cosmology. Early grants were largely won by physicists and others working on problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, and theoretical cosmology. FQxI’s first two international conferences included talks focused almost entirely on these areas. But FQxI’s 3rd International Conference, entitled “Setting Time Aright,” held in 2011, dealt with problems as thorny as memory, life, and existence itself. It began FQxI’s foray into areas as diverse as computer science, complexity, neuroscience, and even–gasp!–biology. In that sense, FQxI was simply reflecting the fact that, in order to really get at the heart of many of the deepest questions in physics and cosmology, a more holistic view of science was needed.
As a simple example, consider the simulation hypothesis which posits that all of human experience is merely a simulation of some kind. The idea is actually not new; Aztec philosophers theorized that the universe was either a painting or a book created by Teotl, which was a kind of “metaphysical omnipresence” often compared with the notion of a monotheistic god. However the argument has had a resurgence, in this century. Since it deals directly with human experience, it relates to both consciousness and free will, traditionally the domains of neuroscientists, biologists, philosophers, and a handful of others. Since it also deals directly with computation, it relates to computing and computer science. And it turns out to have interesting implications for physics and cosmology as well.
The lesson here is that asking truly deep and foundational questions about ourselves and our world, requires stepping outside of the somewhat narrow disciplinary confines that are largely relics of 19th century Western-style university organizational structures. Early scientists felt little compunction to label themselves. The term “physicist” was coined in 1840 by William Whewell in his book The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. In fact, it was Whewell who also coined the term “scientist”. What we now think of as separate sciences had, until then, all been considered to be a part of “natural philosophy.”
In the 21st century we’re rapidly coming to realize that the divides that developed in the 19th century are, to some extent, artificial. Certainly, the amount of information required to master a subject is far greater than it used to be, making it more difficult to cross disciplinary boundaries. And yet the crossing of those boundaries seems more important than ever.
So FQxI’s question to itself, as we find ourselves nearly a quarter of the way through the 21st century, is how does it best support fundamental and foundational science? On the one hand, this requires asking which areas should be the focus of FQxI’s future funding rounds, at least in the near-term. On the other hand, this also requires asking how the funding is best distributed once one or more areas has been identified. Should grants be small-to-medium sized in an effort to distribute the money to the greatest number of possible people or should it be focused on a few large, potentially impactful grants? This is a very real issue in modern science as more and more of the world’s research dollars get concentrated in fewer and fewer hands thanks to a funding model that rewards established researchers and “safe” questions that reliably produce measurable (and often practical) results, or that caters to the whims and interests of private funders (typically individuals).
Of course, FQxI is only a single organization that is, itself, reliant on external funding. In an ideal world, some of what it funds should probably be funded by traditional funding agencies. Likewise it has a very limited capacity to sustain successful existing research programs. Seed grants only work if there is a mechanism for the continued support of the research being funded.
But FQxI is about more than merely funding. FQxI can also serve as a more vocal, front-facing champion of foundational questions. It can demonstrate and argue for the importance and societal benefits of asking these deep, probing questions. That’s not to say that FQxI should get into the lobbying business, but simply to say that it can be a visible champion for these ideas. The better known FQxI is, the better the chances these deep questions will attract interest from other funders and supporters.
While the Yorkshire meeting did not definitively answer all of these questions, it did set the tone for what is to come. As FQxI moves forward the hope is that it will continue to serve as the important driver of foundational research.
Photo depicts FQxI's Pinar Emirdag, Google's Melanie Eusebe, and Quantinuum's Bob Coecke at FQxI's retreat in Yorkshire, UK. Photo taken by Lisa Tse.