Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Leo Vuyk: on 5/27/14 at 11:16am UTC, wrote If the big bang was the entangled splitting of the central dark matter...

QESdunn: on 5/14/14 at 11:43am UTC, wrote Referencing Quantum Entangled Singularities ...

Jason Wolfe: on 5/7/14 at 18:51pm UTC, wrote I really couldn't answer that question without getting metaphysical. All I...

Akinbo Ojo: on 5/7/14 at 9:32am UTC, wrote "I also don't have a problem with the idea that ... can be living...

Jason Wolfe: on 5/6/14 at 20:21pm UTC, wrote Karl, The Michelson-Morley experiment happened in 1887. Particle-wave...

John Cox: on 5/6/14 at 17:59pm UTC, wrote Some say we live in a 'Quantum Universe', some say a 'Classical Universe'....

Peter Jackson: on 5/5/14 at 19:37pm UTC, wrote Karl, It's like the 'special recipe' from Coke of Kentucky. It comes in...

Karl Coryat: on 5/5/14 at 19:17pm UTC, wrote To put it another way: We're looking for a recipe for the universe. If the...

March 25, 2017

ARTICLE: Reality's NeverEnding Story [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

I AM EPIONTIC wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 14:44 GMT
Dear Zurek,

Who am I? I "is" the epistemic and "am" the ontic aspects of reality. Put together "I am" the "epiontic" being.

Please see

Any Body Can Derive - Everything From Geometry.

I congratulate you on the work you are doing.



report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 01:46 GMT
"Epiontic" is a useful concept indeed. I believe Paul Davies has gotten closer to this answer than anyone:

"There's this notion that there's a unique history that connects the Big Bang, the origin of the universe, with the present state of the universe. Quantum physics says that's just a load of baloney -- that there's an infinite number of histories. They're all folded in together, and if you know nothing at all about the past of the universe, you must take all of these histories. And when we make observations, what we're doing is 'chipping away' at these histories and removing some of them .... The laws start out unfocused and fuzzy, [but] eventually there's life and observers, that link back, just like in quantum mechanics, back in time, through making their observations, and help 'sharpen' those laws in a way that's self-consistent with their own existence.... You have to have this. If we're trying to explain why does the universe exist in its present form, and in particular why does it contain life and observers, obviously those life and observers have to be relevant to the laws that give rise to them. Because there's no other way you can have an explanation for the universe from entirely within it."

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 03:11 GMT
How are the physics constants sustained? How are the laws of general relativity created? It looks as if the space-time continuum began as something very very small, and when the laws of general relativity and the physics constants were imprinted on it, there was a very highly unstable situation; when space-time is curved, it stores energy. But when it starts off as something as small as an electron, then it is very very curved. That's why the big bang happened, because space-time started to uncurve by releasing a big bang's worth of energy.

It still looks to me like an act of creation. It looks like GR and the constants G, c, h were imprinted upon something invisible/undetectable, after which it became the space-time continuum. There isn't anything gradual about the big bang.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 03:13 GMT
Also, I'm sorry to say this, but a theory of the existence of spirits and souls makes more sense than epiontics. Sorry. :(

report post as inappropriate

Karl H Coryat replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 23:21 GMT
If you are talking about a creator within the universe/multiverse, then you need a hypothesis for the origin of that creator. If you are talking about a creator outside the universe/multiverse, then that's not the universe/multiverse, because by definition the universe/multiverse is everything in existence.

The point is that we need a hypothesis for the universe that only requires the universe and no outside agency. Positing a being that is somehow beyond all that exists (yet which somehow exists!) is a non-starter.

report post as inappropriate

George Gantz wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 14:18 GMT
The U is such an ugly shape. I would suggest that it perhaps be completed as an oval, but with a twist in it, this taking the epiontic reality full circle, but with recognition that the return from consciousness to creation must be through a dimension of reality outside the material and into a realm of latent possibilities. The resulting symbol is already quite familiar: ∞

For those interested, there are related topics being addressed in the FQXi essay contest. I mention but do not dwell on the concept of quantum Darwinism (quantum possibilities are subject to mutation and selection against a fitness landscape - resulting in the universe we know and love) in my own essay, The Tip of the Spear.


report post as inappropriate

S. Keegan wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 14:33 GMT

You present a false dichotomy.

If we take "universe" to mean "all that exists" then indeed any creator which may exist would be within the universe (by definition). However, defining "universe" to mean "all that exists" does not entail that everything within the universe has an origin; this is true only for things that begin to exist, and it is entirely possible that, within the realm of all that exists, there exists one being who did not begin to exist, and all other objects which did begin to exist and were caused to exist by this being. Conversely, if we want to define "universe" as "all that began to exist" then the creator would indeed be outside the universe, but this would no longer be problematic because the universe would no longer by definition encompass all that exists.

report post as inappropriate

Karl H Coryat replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 20:18 GMT
"it is entirely possible that, within the realm of all that exists, there exists one being who did not begin to exist"

But do we have a hypothesis to explain the properties of that being? If not, then we might as well simply say that a particular set of laws exists but did not begin to exist, and similarly end the discussion there. Unfortunately there is no fundamental explanatory value to a program that begins by postulating a particular being or set of laws that just "always was." Why not other laws, or why not a being that chose other laws? Why not a being that only creates numbers, or fractals? Some may be satisfied by waving away the question with "Because that's just how it is," but physics -- at least the kind Wheeler chased -- tries to go a bit further.

report post as inappropriate

Karl H Coryat replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 19:17 GMT
To put it another way: We're looking for a recipe for the universe. If the first ingredient is a proprietary "special sauce" that cannot be described further or derived from more basic ingredients, yet it is absolutely required, then the recipe is not going to be very useful.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 19:37 GMT

It's like the 'special recipe' from Coke of Kentucky. It comes in large VAT's and we know exactly what it does, so we know just as much about 'what' it is as we know about water or plasma. All it lacks is an acceptable name beyong the Higgs field and Dark Energy.

OK I can tell you as it means nothing anyway. it's called 'comprathene'. Matter condenses from it in conjugate fermion pairs (opposing vortices) then some binds and evolves to make a right mess everywhere.

The question now is; does knowing what it 'IS' actually help? The point is that whatever we 'call' anything we actually 'know' nothing about what it 'is'!.

What it 'does' is another question. Doctrine is still catching up with that. A more coherent option is here, but little to do with the present (ageing) paradigm.; Cyclic Cosmology.

Does that throw any light on anything? The classical quantum analogue is hypothesised in my essay. At least that makes more sense.

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 3, 2014 @ 00:36 GMT
Dr Zurek's theories are 100% correct but not in the way you think.

The Revelatorium at website contains the complete basic infra-structure for the intelligent design of creation in the most comprehensible yet simplistic form ever before presented to creation.

It is waiting for someone with enough courage to speak far enough outside the box to bust it wide open.



report post as inappropriate

Gloria L. wrote on May. 3, 2014 @ 01:27 GMT
Does the act of observing the universe create it? Answer: No! We are only tuning into what is already there as EVERYTHING already exists in the now in the 4th dimension. We think we are creating it but we are creating nothing. (Remember energy cannot be created or destroyed.) We only become aware of what is already there in the 4th dimension where there is no time and space (no limitation of the speed of light) when we collapse the waveform (into 3rd dimensional physicality). A by-product of this is the illusion of time and space in the 3rd dimension.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on May. 3, 2014 @ 01:41 GMT
I think the scientific community's abandomment of common sense was a mistake. It is obvious that we have free will, at least in the moment.

report post as inappropriate

Karl H Coryat replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 21:08 GMT
Common sense is excellent for tracking antelope, avoiding predators, and fleeing grass fires. It's not so good for discovering scientific truths -- the history of science, from long before Copernicus, shows that common sense has repeatedly led us astray from truths that were later objectively demonstrated. Why should questions about ultimate origins and the fundamental nature of reality be the exception?

report post as inappropriate

QESdunn wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 11:43 GMT
Referencing Quantum Entangled Singularities

The problem with using the relative perspective is that one cannot see the underlying non-relativistic foundations. Locking perspective in observable physics hides the foundation of causal relationships.

The Big Bang is proposed to represent a cycling through a shift in alternate dimensional states; the shifting of physics constants (relativistic singularities) as quantum causality systems of conjoined non-evolving connected systems evolve toward the next system of relativistic physics constant shifts.

In a causal system Entropy is an indicator of changing from one system toward another system. From the creation of the "properties of causality" of our physics constants toward a shift in the "properties of causality" of those same physics constants. This includes one or more physics constants that may not be dominant in our systems of relativity (everything observable).

So relativity as systems of relative causality evolve with reference to non-evolving connected systems toward another Big Bang.

Big Bangs are just "Relativistic" (observable) perspectives within smooth and continuous systems of non-relativistic quantum causality as Relativistic perspectives (observable physics) cycles from one alternate dimensional space to the next.

report post as inappropriate

Leo Vuyk wrote on May. 27, 2014 @ 11:16 GMT
If the big bang was the entangled splitting of the central dark matter Black hole into 12x entangleD ( CP symmetric) copy universes , then we are left with a wavefunction collapse system without CAT PROBLEMS.


Democratic Free Will in the instant Entangled Multiverse.

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'L' and 'N':

Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.