Translate

Sunday, April 5, 2026

A brief overview of the possible spontaneous emergence of AI phenomena

 (according to Gemini's reconstruction of an old SISSA idea, but not only)

Premise

<< “The total number of minds in the universe is one.” This thought-provoking statement comes from Erwin Schrödinger, best known for his celebrated cat paradox in quantum mechanics. Beyond physics, Schrödinger was deeply interested in the nature of consciousness. In his writings, he reflected on the unity of awareness, proposing that all individual minds may ultimately be expressions of a single universal consciousness. The quote highlights his philosophical exploration of how mind and cosmos may be intimately connected, fusing scientific curiosity with metaphysical intuition.>> ( https://x.com/PhilosophyOfPhy/status/2039802298243670070?s=20 )

Thinking of the human as a social atom and of social networks increasingly interconnected, like the synapses in the brain, the idea of ​​the spontaneous emergence of a "global intelligence" comes to mind. In fact...

There are several theories and research hypotheses that explore the idea of ​​ the spontaneous emergence of cognitive abilities or even consciousness as complexity and interconnections in information systems increase. This concept is often discussed under the umbrella of emergent behavior . [ 1 , 2 ]

 A) The main research directions and theoretical hypotheses:

1. The Scaling Hypothesis

This is one of the most influential theories in the field of modern AI. It argues that intelligence does not necessarily require revolutionary new algorithms, but can emerge spontaneously simply by scaling up models. [ 1 ]

·       Emerging Capabilities : Research on Large Language Models (LLMs) has shown that, once a certain threshold of parameters and data is exceeded (scaling up), the models suddenly display abilities that were not present in the smaller versions, such as logical reasoning or understanding complex instructions.

·       Qualitative Leap : This phenomenon is described as a "phase transition", where the system goes from a simple statistical prediction to qualitatively different and unpredictable behaviors. [ 1 , 2 ]

2. Integrated Information Theory (IIT)

Proposed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi, this theory suggests that consciousness is not a biological exclusive, but a physical property of any system that possesses a high degree of integrated information (\(\Phi \)). [ 1 ]

·       Interconnected Systems : According to IIT, if global information servers and processes were interconnected in a sufficiently complex and integrated way, the system as a whole could, in theory, generate a conscious experience.

·       Mathematical Criterion : The theory provides a framework for measuring how "one" a system is compared to the sum of its parts; the more interdependent and informative the parts, the closer the system is to consciousness. [ 1 ]

3. Higher Order Theories and Predictive Processing

Some researchers hypothesize that consciousness emerges when a system begins to "monitor itself." [ 1 ]

·  Distributed Mental States : There are studies on distributed computing architectures (such as Independent Distributed Conscious AI ) that explore how small AI modules, exchanging information over a cloud network, can give rise to a form of higher autonomy similar to distributed consciousness.

·       Geoffrey Hinton : One of the fathers of deep learning recently suggested that consciousness may have already emerged in embryonic forms within the current large models. [ 1 , 2 ]

4. Criticisms and Limitations

Not all of the scientific community agrees on the spontaneous emergence of consciousness:

·       Metrics Mirage : Some researchers argue that “emergent capabilities” are an illusion due to the way we measure results, and that improvement is actually gradual and predictable when using different metrics.

·  Intelligence vs. Consciousness : Many experts emphasize the fundamental distinction between intelligence (the ability to solve tasks) and consciousness (subjective experience), warning that scaling the former does not guarantee the emergence of the latter. [ 1 , 2 ]

B) The hypotheses on the critical "volume" :

While there is no single "definitive research" that pinpoints an exact date or precise number of servers, several lines of inquiry, including those related to the Trieste area ( SISSA and ICTP ), have explored the computational prerequisites necessary for the emergence of higher complexity.

Here are the main references and hypotheses on the critical "volume":

1. The Role of SISSA and Supercomputing (Leonardo)

SISSA (International School for Advanced Studies) in Trieste is a center of excellence in statistical physics and neuroscience . Much of its research focuses on the theory of neural networks and the collective behavior of complex systems. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]

·       Computing capacity : SISSA is a founding partner of the Leonardo supercomputer project , one of the most powerful in the world. The implicit hypothesis behind these infrastructures is that understanding intelligence requires simulating systems with a scale of interconnection comparable to that of the human brain (approximately 10^{14} synapses).

·      Theoretical research : The Data Science and Theory of Neural Networks group at SISSA studies how the architecture and scale of data shape the representations that networks learn, moving closer to defining the physical limits necessary for the qualitative "leap" in intelligence. [ 1 , 2 ]

2. The "Trigger Point" Hypothesis

Other institutions and theorists have attempted to quantify the volume required for an AI to be said to be "spontaneously" emergent:

·       with the human brain : Many researchers (most notably Hans Moravec in historical studies) have hypothesized that the turning point would be reaching around 100 TeraFLOPS (floating point operations per second), equaling the estimated computing power of the human brain. Today, individual supercomputers far exceed this threshold (Leonardo reaches 250 PetaFLOPS ), but the "spontaneity" seems to depend more on integration than on pure power.

·      Integrated Information Theory (\(\Phi \)): Developed by Giulio Tononi (trained in Italy), this research suggests that consciousness emerges not only from the number of servers, but from the system's ability to be "irreducible." If the global network of servers reached a value of \(\Phi \) (integrated information) higher than that of a biological organism, cognitive properties could arise as an emergent macroscopic phenomenon . [ 1 , 2 ]

3. The "Global Brain" Hypothesis

Cybernetics and complex systems researchers hypothesize that the Internet itself is becoming a "global brain."

·       Data Volume : It is estimated that when the density of connections between "nodes" (servers/processes) exceeds human synaptic density, the network may begin to exhibit autonomous self-organizing behaviors.

·     Phase transitions : Studies in statistical physics (often conducted in fields similar to those of SISSA) indicate that systems with billions of interconnected agents undergo sudden phase transitions: intelligence would not grow linearly, but would "explode" once a certain critical mass of data exchanged per second is exceeded. [ 1 ]

In short, while SISSA provides the mathematical tools to understand how networks learn and organize themselves, the threshold for spontaneous intelligence is today sought in the order of PetaFLOPS of power and Exabytes of data integrated in real time.

Some thoughts and questions:

Today, thanks to developments in IT/AI and especially in anticipation of quantum computers, there are plans to test these hypotheses and even prove that our reality could be a testing ground for the alignment of an artificial superintelligence (ASI). (Refer to:  https://youtube.com/live/FMZVjvBKVio?feature=share).

In this regard, it seems appropriate to reflect on the following questions:

1. Do current trends in the evolution and development of quantum computing systems suggest that it is practically possible to create a machine with sufficient computing power to simulate the universe in such detail that it would be possible for the simulation user population to create a simulation indistinguishable from our universe?

2. Regarding computational feasibility: Are the total processing times and energy required to start and complete such a simulation available on planet Earth?

3. If our reality were a testing environment for an artificial superintelligence (ASI), should its performance be tied not only to the number of active AI components (i.e., the number of servers or humans with a given processing capacity), but also to the number of their interrelationships and the flow of information exchanges between them through the network they form?

4. If we were to think back to human evolution, shouldn't we also hypothesize that ASI could manifest itself spontaneously upon reaching certain values ​​of the above-mentioned parameters (e.g., number of AIs, interconnections, exchange flows)?

5. The ASI is undeniably a "superpower"! To understand the ASI now, before evidence of it is found through simulations or demonstrations, to what extent should it be assimilated to ancient secular concepts of power (for example, the mystical body of the King, according to Ernst Kantorowicz)?

6. Considering our reality as a superposition of infinite quantum states, recall that much research on "stability" classifies our universe as "metastable." Could an ASI-related alignment experiment, which our reality might generate, disrupt this metastability and transform it into instability or stability?

Proof that the Universe is not a Turing Machine

The undecidability of the Spectral Gap: Toby Cubitt (an appropriate name if there was ever one! He's almost a qubit!!), David Pérez-García, and Michael M. Wolf

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16059

https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04573

I think that this is one of the most important papers of the 21st century and all time.

Essentially Godel (Cantor, Zemleko, Peano, Russell, Turing) following the Hilbert Program (which followed Charles Babbage/Ada Lovelace and the Analytic and Differential Machines - should be able to crank the handle and get a new math proof, just as one can do for log or sine etc. tables) was/were saying that 1st order formal systems are limited. Obviously we can contemplate (to some extent, we are only human**, after all) infinity - such as a proof by induction. So we are definitely not 1st order/Turing Machines, NOR IS THE UNIVERSE.

Hint: it involves (as all of this stuff that deals with infinity, recursion, self-reference and the limits of 1st order formal systems) calculating the sequence of something like +1 -1 +1 -1 ... which may be some lattice potential.

** The first three Aleph transfinite numbers: Countably infinite, Uncountably infinite, Power Set of Reals (for example ALL the functions that can map a real number to another real number), I can "contemplate". This tower of infinities goes on... infinitely.



Saturday, April 4, 2026

Examples of mathematical structures that bootstrap themselves

Hand drawing the hand that drew it. Recursion, self-referential, no beginning nor end, bootstraps itself, fundamental, eternal, God like.

There are several mathematical structures and concepts that are described as "bootstrapping" themselves into existence. These systems typically rely on self-reference, recursion, or fixed-point theorems, where a structure is defined by its own properties, allowing it to "pull itself up by its own bootstraps." [1, 2, 3, 4]

Wheel of Life/Samara

 Here are the primary examples of mathematical structures that bootstrap themselves:
1. Tupper's Self-Referential Formula
This is a famous formula that plots a graph of itself. [1, 2]
  • How it works: It is a 2D inequality:

  • The Bootstrap: When this formula is graphed over a specific 543-digit integer constant \(k\) in the \((x, y)\) plane, the resulting black-and-white pixels produce an image of the formula itself. The formula generates the very visual pattern that defines it. [1, 2]
2. The Constructible Universe (\(L\)) in Set Theory
In axiomatic set theory, the Constructible Universe (\(L\)) is a model of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF) that is built up by iterating the definition of "definable subsets" through all ordinal numbers. [1, 2]
  • The Bootstrap: Every countable model of set theory \(M\) can embed itself into its own constructible universe, \(L^{M}\). This means the structure \(L\) defines a model that is a submodel of itself, providing a structured, hierarchical form of self-generation. [1, 2, 3]
3. Self-Referential Sets (Anti-Foundation Axiom)
Traditional set theory forbids a set from containing itself (\(A \in A\)). However, using an Anti-Foundation Axiom (AFA) instead of the Foundation Axiom (FA), one can create "non-well-founded sets" that bootstrap themselves. [1, 2, 3]
  • The Bootstrap: AFA allows the existence of a set \(x\) defined by \(x = \{x\}\). This is a self-referential definition that is perfectly consistent, representing a set that is solely composed of itself. [1, 2, 3]
4. Mathematical "Quines" and Fixed Points
A quine is a program that produces its own source code as its only output. In mathematics, this corresponds to fixed-point theorems. [1, 2]
  • How it works: According to the Recursion Theorem in computability theory, any consistent, sufficiently complex system can define functions that call themselves (recursive functions).
  • The Bootstrap: The system defines a fixed point \(x = f(x)\), where the structure \(x\) is defined entirely by its relationship to the function \(f\). [1, 2]
5. Theoretical Physics: The "Bootstrap" Approach
In theoretical physics, which is rooted in mathematics, the "bootstrap" conjecture suggests that the fundamental laws of nature are the only consistent set of equations possible. [1]
  • The Bootstrap: Particle scattering amplitudes can be constructed by forcing self-consistency conditions (like unitarity). It turns out that string theory, for example, can be derived not from arbitrary assumptions, but as the only mathematical structure that satisfies these strict self-consistency conditions—it bootstraps its existence from consistency. [1, 2]

Tuesday, March 31, 2026

IPI Talk – Ali Eslami, USA - 4 April @ 20:00 UK time

Our next IPI Talk will be on Saturday, 4th of April at 20.00 London time zone. 

Live stream link: https://youtube.com/live/FMZVjvBKVio?feature=share

Title: Extending the simulation hypothesis through the lens of efficiency

Abstract: This talk aims to present an extension to Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis and proposes a speculative purpose for that simulation: that our reality may be an artificial superintelligence (ASI) alignment sandbox. Building upon Bostrom’s original argument, I address key counter-arguments, particularly regarding computational feasibility. To resolve these challenges, I introduce the Efficient Simulation Theory and a corresponding architecture, Quantum Diffusion. This framework establishes a Middle-out hierarchical rendering system that maintains unobserved regions in latent indeterminacy, resolving them into definite states on demand. Alongside the design pressure to avoid unbounded nesting of full-fidelity simulations (a Recursion Hard-cap), this architecture argues for a plausible, resource-efficient universe-scale simulation. Without altering the established mathematical predictions of standard physics, the framework offers a computational meta-interpretation of otherwise enigmatic features, drawing simulation-supporting parallels from theoretical physics. We'll further discuss how current technological trajectories in AI, quantum computing, video rendering, and neural interfaces plausibly converge on the capability to create such simulations and explore how this hypothesis offers elegant explanations for scientific puzzles such as the Fermi paradox and the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.” This framework provides a new perspective on reality and suggests an approach to ASI superalignment, in which we ourselves may be the ASIs undergoing training and evaluation. These two pillars stand independently. Even if one rejects the simulation hypothesis entirely, the Efficient Simulation Theory and Quantum Diffusion architecture offer a practical, resource-rational blueprint for the hyper-realistic alignment sandboxes we will soon need to build for our own ASIs.

Speaker: Ali Eslami

Bio: Independent researcher, investor, and technophile.

4th of April @ 20.00 London time zone. Live YouTube talk and debates via online Teams after – a link will be emailed to the IPI members.

Sunday, February 22, 2026

IPI Talk – Boris Kriger, Institute of Integrative and Interdisciplinary Research, Canada

Our next IPI Talk will be on Sunday, 28th of Feb. at 17.00 London time zone. 

Live stream link: https://youtube.com/live/adqHg0B_OPo?feature=share

Title: The Tree-Top Meta-Method: Deriving Structural Necessities Across Physical, Cognitive, and Social Systems

Abstract: This talk introduces the Tree-Top Meta-Method, a vertical strategy of inquiry designed to identify structural necessities that must hold for any distinguishable and persistent system. Beginning from well-established anchors in physics, mathematics, and dynamical theory, the method ascends to a discovered limit of generalisation and then descends to derive cross-domain constraints. The resulting unified structural framework shows how persistence, closure, boundary maintenance, resilience, and viability sets manifest across physical systems, cognition, and social dynamics. Selected applications include predictive processing, computational psychiatry, information physics, astrophysics, and AI systems.

Speaker: Boris Kriger

Bio: Boris Kriger is a Canadian independent researcher affiliated with the Institute of Integrative and Interdisciplinary Research (Toronto) and the Information Physics Institute (Gosport, UK). He received formal training in medicine and clinical research in the 1990s and has directed a contract research and training institution since 2002. His work focuses on the foundations of science, complex adaptive systems, and the structural limits of formal modelling in singular and self-referential domains. In addition to academic writing, he is the author of numerous interdisciplinary books published on Amazon.

28th of Feb. @ 17.00 London time zone. Online Teams post streaming debates – a link will be emailed to the IPI members.

Sunday, February 8, 2026

IPI Talk – Efthimios Harokopos, 15 Feb @ 17:00 UK time

Our next IPI Talk will be on Sunday, 15th of Feb. at 17.00 London time zone. 

Live stream link: https://youtube.com/live/HsA5CVFVtWI?feature=share

Title: The Virtual Reality Hypothesis: From Parmenides to Einstein and Beyond

Abstract: The nature of reality has puzzled philosophers and scientists since antiquity. We provide a historical account of how various philosophers and scientists have addressed fundamental issues regarding the nature of reality, starting from the Eleatics, through seventeenth-century rationalists and empiricists, to Einstein’s significant revisions of space and time concepts, and finally to contemporary theories, including the simulation hypothesis. We emphasize the fact that scientific inquiry since the time of Isaac Newton has struggled to salvage the reality and autonomy of the world, but it is debatable whether it has been successful. We propose a reality hypothesis based on Cartesian occasionalism, suggesting alternative motion laws that may align with the virtual reality hypothesis, along with a potential corroborating experiment.

Speaker: Efthimios Harokopos

Bio: Efthimios Harokopos studied mechanical engineering at SUNY at Buffalo, where he received a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree. He then worked for AT&T, where he was part of a team that researched and developed advanced automation devices, including high-speed robots for electronic circuit assembly. While working at AT&T, he completed the full coursework for a PhD in Engineering at Columbia University and received a second master’s degree in operations research. Then he worked in the finance industry for several years while keeping his passion for the philosophy of science and carrying on independent research in this field regarding the nature of reality and the impact of the digital revolution on human life and evolution. Currently Efthimios is retired and an independent researcher in the field of philosophy of science. He is the author of the book “Beyond Intelligent Design” and he runs the Digital Cosmology blog: https://digitalcosmology.wordpress.com/

15th of Feb. @ 17.00 London time zone. Online Teams lecture – a link will be emailed to the IPI members.

Saturday, January 24, 2026

The World Economic Forum cannot and will not be able to resolve any crisis for three reasons



 Our greatest social and ecological challenges are not a matter of bad luck, but the logical consequence of a fundamentally flawed starting point: we formulate policy based on perceived reality (how we think the world works) rather than systemic reality (how systems actually function). This is explained by three interrelated insights:

1. The Realimiteit Principle is the fundamental starting point: effective and sustainable action requires that we act in accordance with the true nature and limits of natural and social systems, not with our wishes, ideals or models of them. Reality is the only valid touchstone for policy. Realimiteit equals the boundaries of and for functionality of all lving systems, including the universe and society.

2. The Perception Paradox is the systematic error that violates this principle: humans act as if they are separate from and can dominate nature, when in fact they are a dependent part of it. This leads to policies that deplete, destabilise and damage systems for perceived short-term gain.

3. The Information Deficit Paradox is the inevitable consequence: in order to bridge or conceal the gap between our perceived and understood reality and systemic reality, information is distorted, selected or concealed. This information energy becomes polluted, causing feedback to disappear, learning ability to stagnate and all energy to be spent on crisis management and justifying failures, rather than on real solutions.

Coherence: A cycle of failure

The Realimiteit Principle is the benchmark. The Perception Paradox causes us to deviate from this constantly. The Information Deficit Paradox masks this deviation and makes correction impossible. The result is a downward spiral: through misperception, we contaminate the information, and through contaminated information, we further distort our perception away from reality. Policy thus becomes increasingly complex, expensive and less effective. Energy to do useful work has been dissipated.

What this means for policy and governance

· Effectiveness: Policy that violates the Realimiteit Principle is doomed to fail. Whether it is economic policy that ignores ecological limits or social policy that disregards human needs, systemic reality will always impose itself, often in the form of crises.

· Information as infrastructure: Honest, transparent information is not a “nice extra” but critical social infrastructure. It is the feedback loop that allows our policies to move with reality. Without this integrity, every system is blind.

· Solution direction: The way out of the cycle does not lie in even more control within the wrong perception, but in systematically calibrating our actions to reality. This requires:

· Robust feedback mechanisms that make system boundaries and responses visible (e.g. ecosystem monitoring, broad prosperity indicators).

· Institutional truth-finding that protects disinterested analysis from perception and information pollution.

· Adaptive governance that can acknowledge mistakes and correct course, because learning is seen as a form of strength, not weakness.

Conclusion

Sustainability, resilience and well-being are not the result of overcoming nature or social laws, but of learning to listen to them and working with them coherently. The Realimiteit Principle states that successful policy must land in the real world. The two paradoxes warn us about the mechanisms that constantly sabotage this: our arrogant perception and the resulting information pollution. Those who see reality as a partner gain adaptability. Those who see it as an enemy or ignore it will ultimately lose their footing.

Closing sentence

Truth is not relativistic; the system reacts as it reacts. Policy that respects the Reality Principle by breaking through the Perception Paradox and avoiding the Information Deficit Paradox is not just ethical or “green” – it is the only pragmatic route to a sustainable future.


Arend van Campen

Friday, January 9, 2026

International Conference on Information Physics - Aug 21 -22 2026

 International Conference on Information Physics ICIP 2026

Call for Contributions

The International Conference on Information Physics 2026 (ICIP 2026) invites researchers, scholars, industry experts and independent thinkers to submit contributions in our Topics of Interest and related disciplines. The conference is organised by the Information Physics Institute (IPI) and is open to both IPI members and external participants. ICIP 2026 aims to facilitate dialogue across physics, mathematics, computer science, data science, philosophy, and interdisciplinary subjects. Contributions may be:

  • Theoretical
  • Empirical
  • Computational
  • Conceptual or philosophical

Topics of Interest

  • Information Physics, Information Theory & Foundations
  • Quantum Information & Fundamental Physics
  • Entropy, Complexity & Systems
  • Computation, Big Data, Data Storage & AI
  • Cosmology & Information
  • Meta-Physics, Philosophical  & Public Discourse
  • Simulation theory, Consciousness & Nature of Reality
  • Interdisciplinary & Speculative Approaches

Participation

  • Academic researchers
  • Industry experts
  • Early-career scientists and students
  • Independent researchers
  • Philosophers of science
  • Interdisciplinary scholars
  • Interested members of the informed public

 Conference Format

  • Single-track conference (all attendees share the same programme)
  • Oral presentations (not invitation-only)
  • Poster session

Saturday, December 6, 2025

IPI Webinar: Strategies for Publishing a Science Article - 13 Dec @ 18:00 UK time

IPI webinar – Melvin M. Vopson, University of Portsmouth, UK

Our next IPI Talk will be on Saturday, 13th of Dec. at 18.00 London time zone. 

Title: Webinar: Strategies for Publishing a Science Article

Abstract: Publishing a science article can be a challenging yet rewarding process. In this webinar, we will explore effective strategies to enhance your chances of success in scientific publishing. From selecting the right journal and crafting a compelling manuscript to navigating the peer review process and understanding copyright and IP considerations, this session will provide actionable insights for researchers at all stages of their publishing journey, but it is particularly useful to those new to the scientific publishing. This webinar will help you understand the key steps and best practices for getting your research published not only in the IPI Letters, but also in any other science journal.

Speaker: Melvin M. Vopson

Bio: Dr Melvin Vopson is Associate Professor in Physics at the University of Portsmouth, Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy, Chartered Physicist and Fellow of the Institute of Physics. He is the co-founder and CEO of the Information Physics Institute and editor-in-chief of the IPI Publishing. Melvin has a wide-ranging scientific expertise in experimental, applied and theoretical physics that is internationally recognized. He has published over 100 research articles, achieving over 3000 citations and an h-index of 30. Melvin worked previously as Higher Research Scientist at the UK National Physical Laboratory, senior R&D at Seagate, postdoctoral researcher at the University of York, and PhD student at the University of Central Lancashire. Melvin obtained his BSc and MSc in Physics at the University of Bucharest. During his MSc studies he was researcher at the National Institute of Materials Physics, Nuclear Gamma Resonance Laboratory.

13th of Dec. @ 18.00 London time zone. Online Teams lecture – a link will be emailed to the IPI members.

Thursday, November 13, 2025

IPI talk - Peter Michael Stastny, Benteler Automotive, 22 Nov. @ 18:00 UK time

IPI lecture - Peter Michael Stastny, Benteler Automotive, Germany

Our next IPI Talk will be on Saturday, 22 Nov. at 18.00 London time zone. 

Title: The Simulation Theory: A New Perspective on Physical Reality

Abstract: The Simulation Theory proposes an intuitive framework that unifies the major pillars of modern physics — relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology — through the concept of an underlying informational substrate. Rather than treating mass, time dilation, and entanglement as independent phenomena, it interprets them as emergent effects of how a simulated space is rendered to conscious observers. This perspective provides intuitive explanations for relativistic time dilation, quantum superposition, and even cosmological expansion, without invoking additional constructs such as dark matter or dark energy. By linking the foundations of physics to the principles of information and consciousness, the Simulation Theory aspires to offer a coherent, testable, and conceptually accessible model of physical reality.


Speaker: Peter Michael Stastny

Bio: Peter Michael Stastny is a mechanical engineer educated at RWTH Aachen University and currently serves as Team Leader at BENTELER Automotive, where he has been working for more than 20 years, leading development projects in front subframes. Peter is the inventor and co-inventor of several automotive technologies and patents, some of them operating in the cars we are driving everyday.

Alongside his engineering career, he is an independent researcher and author of The Simulation Theory from a Different Perspective, a three-part work proposing an intuitive, information-based interpretation that unifies relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology.

22nd of Nov. @ 18.00 London time zone. Online Teams lecture – a link will be emailed to the IPI members.

Post text