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.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

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

John Hodge: on 2/20/17 at 17:23pm UTC, wrote Basudeba: "What is emerging?" The process of emergence is a discovered...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/20/17 at 7:29am UTC, wrote Dear John Hodge, Thank you very much for your interest in Dynamic Universe...

basudeba mishra: on 2/20/17 at 0:35am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, Thank you very much. We have also submitted an essay where we...

John Hodge: on 2/19/17 at 18:21pm UTC, wrote basudeba: As I started a line by line reply, I found the concepts you are...

basudeba mishra: on 2/19/17 at 2:57am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, We thoroughly enjoyed your essay. When you say: “The...

John Hodge: on 2/16/17 at 17:44pm UTC, wrote Peter: I remember see you paper years ago. I'll reread it. There is no...

Peter Jackson: on 2/16/17 at 13:10pm UTC, wrote John, A very nicely written and organised essay, on topic and with some...

Edwin Klingman: on 2/14/17 at 7:21am UTC, wrote Hodge, I agree with you about the use of terminology in any attempt to...


Jose Koshy: "Steve Agnew, Quoting you, "The wave-particle duality is simply a..." in The Race to Replace the...

James Putnam: "Jose P. Koshy, Your response made it clear that I didn't have anything..." in Alternative Models of...

Jose Koshy: "James Putnam, As you have stated that you have no other reason for..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Agnew: "If you don't believe in theoretical physics, then what do you believe in?..." in The Race to Replace the...

Steve Dufourny: "all converges towards the spherisation :) the relevance with these 3D..." in Universe of...

cathy ch: "The book includes interviews with many FQXi members and other eminent..." in Review of “A Big Bang...

jani jee: "very interesting combination physics. These principles helpful. i always..." in Santa Barbara Gravity...

Steve Dufourny: "possible indeed this TOE :) Jonathan and the complementarity appears above..." in Universe of...

click titles to read articles

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

Rescuing Reality
A "retrocausal" rewrite of physics, in which influences from the future can affect the past, could solve some quantum quandaries—saving Einstein's view of reality along the way.

Untangling Quantum Causation
Figuring out if A causes B should help to write the rulebook for quantum physics.

February 21, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Mathematics and life goals have the same source -- nature by John C Hodge [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 6.2; Public = 1.3

Author John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 10, 2017 @ 21:51 GMT
Essay Abstract

Humanity has created mathematical and physical descriptions of the universe that aid survival. Emergent philosophy can be used to develop better models of universe fundamentals. Mathematics and physics observations confirm models through experiment and measurement. Still outside the deterministic knowledge are consciousness, aims, and intention. These concepts are part of humanity and part of the universe. Currently, these concepts require useable definitions. By applying more useable definitions guided by emergent philosophy, such concepts may yet be described by mathematics. Because a single universe exists, a single Theory of Everything exists involving causal relations from the very small to the very large and involving the cause of society's success and life's consciousness.

Author Bio

I was reared on a farm and blooded as a hunter at 13. After 4 years in the Army, I left as a captain. I have a MS in physics. I sold my electronics company in 1991 (I was 49); retired; retired from retiring; and became an inventor and amateur astronomer. My interest in cosmology developed. I conceived a radical new cosmology model in 2002 and started publishing papers and instructing at Blue Ridge Community College. ( ) see also summary videos

Download Essay PDF File

John Edward LaMuth wrote on Jan. 11, 2017 @ 03:45 GMT
I agree with your initial series of conclusions

John L

report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 17, 2017 @ 03:48 GMT

I suggested studying neural nets and bundels as a possible way to understand consciousness in a deterministic model. You suggested the layering of the brain must be part of understanding deterministic consciousness is very interesting.

The 2 concepts together suggests to me the functioning of PLAs (Programable logic arrays) as a means to explain how bit inputs from light, sound can be turned into action - one big logic array processing bundles (parallel signels) to muscle stimulus in long string of PLAs.

Years ago I studied the idea of using oxides on metal surfaces as bits. An oxide bound to a metal surface is a diode. Place 2metal surfaces togeher with an oxide between. The oxcide can be swithced to one or the othr surfave bu the polarity of a pulse (nerves act by pulses). layers of crossing metal paths (0.1 mil wide, 0.1 mil between). The difficulty was the bond was temporary and required refreshing and constant pulsing. This is starting to sound like a neuron to neuron mechanism.

Thanks for article.


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 11, 2017 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear author,

You concluded: "because a single universe exists, a single Theory

of Everything exists involving causal relations from the very small to the very large and involving the cause of society’s success and life’ consciousness".

May I suggest inserting words like "the dream of" or "the goal to approach" between "exists," and "a single TOE"?


report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 13, 2017 @ 21:13 GMT
Thanks for your view. My intent was to state that the TOE exists in nature whether humans want to find it or not. Whether humans want to dream or attempt to find it is up to the humans. This is getting close to another FQXi : I take math, emergence as in nature. Humans can discover what is in nature. Any human caused creation may not be in nature and, therefore, is probably not real. I didn't stress it but probability arguements suggest the nature's emergent path is modeled incorrectly. Quantum mechanics is such a model. It needs considerable restatement. which I have done in STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction and that replaces QM.


Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 15, 2017 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Instructor Hodge,

Every real thing has a real surface.

One real Universe must have only one reality. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

H Chris Ransford replied on Jan. 18, 2017 @ 17:41 GMT
Dear author,

Just a brief note if I may - there is no smoking gun evidence that 'a single universe' exists. Nor is there evidence that a TOE actually exists (Marcelo Gleiser , for one, makes a book length argument that the assumption of a TOE stems from subconscious cognitive bias), nor is there really that if there in fact is a single universe, then a TOE would be a consequence of it. Purely causal relationships can also be moot, as Delayed Choice Experiments and such may sometimes suggest.

I am not saying that the single universe assumption or the existence of a TOE are necessarily wrong, but that these should not be posited without very extensive argumentation.

Just my 2 cents'

Kind regards,

H Chris

report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 11, 2017 @ 19:48 GMT
NOTE: YouTube address

Upper case C at "/Ucc0" to "/UCc"


Author John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 19, 2017 @ 05:45 GMT

Thanks for commenting.

Look around. You are in a single universe. If you mean 1 and only 1 universe , then you have misinterpreted the phrase. If you mean to postulate miltivers, then you have it backward -there is no unique evidence that more than our universe exists. That would require evidence. (The multiverse is an interpretation of QM. Many interpretations of QM...

view entire post

Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 17:21 GMT
Congrats Mr. Hodge ! Again a great essay from your pen and you have, fortunately, not retired from thinking. TOE and the single universe are indeed fascinating research topics, but you mention very clearly that survival comes first. This seems to be our inter-section, concerning maths, physics and humanity. Best: stephen i. ternyik

report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 02:08 GMT


Joseph J. Jean-Claude wrote on Jan. 24, 2017 @ 01:33 GMT
Dear John,

You offer an interesting chronicle of the development of matter from low-scale agents all the way up to large-scale agents, all thru the construct of "emergence". As I gathered, you attempt to visualize how cognition and intelligence had emerged thru the evolutive journey in a rather descriptive language, instead of an interpretative or demonstrative method as would be expected.

Of course the problem with the "emergence" construct in this context is the question of the death of intelligence past the human agent shell, since one would expect human intelligence to evolve into a grander regime past the human shell. Most would agree that is actually not the case. Your statement "Humanity is the more complex structure" confirms that you assert that view as well.

Left to wonder what is there in the agency of "emergence" that succeeds in constructing higher complexity for certain things and fails to do so for others.

Of course these are all quite difficult questions and there is great merits even in just attempting to tackle them, short of resolving them. Very laudable effort on that count.

Good luck in the contest, John.



report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 24, 2017 @ 19:01 GMT

Math is a very descriptive language. I thought the challenge was to link the poorly defined concepts such as "intelligence", "intent", "mind", "intent", etc. to math. I think humanity has not clearly defined these concepts.

The Greeks in the example assigned these human characteristics to rocks. We and they are part of the universe, so if we have these characteristics, rocks should have them also (or so they reasoned I think). Now math models the rock universe quite well, so we reason these undefined characteristics should have the math character. Well, I suggest we need different concepts about how this can come about.

Your second paragraph is using undefined concepts of death (an ending), Intelligence, construct, intent, plan), etc. An "agent" is the base from which the entity is formed. If a person is an agent, then the entity is family, society, state, nation. These last die (end) though competition which is a subset of "convergence".

Start by redefining the problem.

Start with stimuli input to eyes, ears, and go through some process which is to be mathematically defined (I suggest Boolean is the logic) process through some organization of neurons. End with some stimuli to muscles.


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 27, 2017 @ 20:25 GMT
Dear Mr. Hodge,

I could not agree with some of your attitudes, for example:

"Geometry talks of extended objects"

I remind you that the Ruder Boškovic had predicted much of what is now considered an achievement in physics, just using geometry. I quote him about non-extending:

"The primary elements of matter are in my opinion perfectly indivisible & non-extended points”, ...

You say:

"Mathematics we use that developed out of the physics of the universe. Therefore, mathematics is part of the physics of the universe "

I think it is completely wrong. Mathematics has developed far beyond the framework of contemporary physics as we know it today. Physics need in the future to understand the practical value of some already well-known mathematical principles.

Best Regards,

Branko Zivlak

report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Jan. 29, 2017 @ 00:03 GMT
Branko Zivlak

The discussion about extended or points of objects is at least as old as ancient Greeks. I chose the extended view. Boškovic and Liebniz differed from Newton on these issues. Newton was found to be more useful. Quoting Boškovic or Liebniz is a poor source when the quote differs from Newton. Physics today accepts that objects are divisible (bad word) into subatomic objects...

view entire post

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 23:43 GMT

As you mentioned in your review of my essay, there are many similarities in our thinking. In a different context, I like your 3 scales of cosmological, classical and quantum. I can see the combination of the three regarding TOE but I feel the glue that ties them together is peculiar motion and EM force. According to a "How the Universe Works" video on "forces of Mass Construction" the blueprint is draw with magnetic lines -- emanating from the microscopic and the macro. Dark Matter became an example of a galactic creation. Your you tube presentations seem to relate to this picture as well, maybe not so much in creating dark matter, but mentioning EM forces in a galactic context..

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 05:31 GMT
James Lee Hoover

Thanks for responding.

The "How the Universe works" videos are the currently accepted model. The trouble is these models (GR and QM) are inconsistent and each has many observational anomalies. Some of the anomalies are described in only ad hoc additions. The STOE corresponds to both cosmology and the small of light. It has made 3 predictions about the pioneer anomaly and the theory predicted the result of an experiment in photon diffraction. It has also explained many observation anomalies. Physics philosophy suggest the STOE to be a candidate for a replacement model.


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 21:33 GMT
Good essay Hodge sir, Good discussion....

Slight modification is required....

In Page 3 line 8 you said both attraction and repulsion are required at large scales to explain expansion of Universe. You considered only about 40 percent of Galaxies which are red shifted, You have to consider the remaining 60 percent also for getting a true picture…..

What do you say……?

report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 03:29 GMT
SNP Gupta:

I note your Dynamic Universe Model is oriented toward galaxy and cosmology. The Scalar Theory OF Everything (STOE) seeks to relate the big, small (light), and life. The emergence Principle derived from this quest. So, let me answer your query by example. You can watch various aspects of the STOE on short videos rather than the long detailed calculations of the papers.

The CMB temperature calculation shows the spiral galaxy as adding the constituents (agents) of our universe and the elliptical galaxies as subtracting those constituents (agents). Along the way is discussed the entropy that causes life to emerge (the present paper). The rotation curve and the asymmetric rotation curve videos discuss how the agent plenum repels the matter of the universe and the matter agent attracts (gravity) the stars. Note the almost sideline issue is that NO model explains all rotation curves (rising, falling and flat). Generally the rising rotation curves falsify current models. Also, notice the redshift and discrete redshift videos dispute the idea the universe was born in a Big Bang and is expanding. This allows the galaxies at the edge of our observation to be as old or older (mature) than the Milky Way as you point out in you essay.


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 07:29 GMT
Dear John Hodge,

Thank you very much for your interest in Dynamic Universe Model.

This Dynamic Universe Model is not just oriented toward galaxy and cosmology, but has many applications from Micro particles, Solar system level, Milkyway parts level, Astronomical jets, Galaxies level, Universe Level etc.

Many papers and books were published on Dynamic universe Model by the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 23:40 GMT
Hi John,

I think you and I tend to think alike, but I would argue a few points. A theory is a model, and it's probably more correct to say that since a single universe exists, a single theory of everything should exist.

You suggest the universe is deterministic. This often interpreted to mean that free will is an illusion. Yet, as Stefan Weckbach points out, if an organism...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 16:39 GMT

I bought your book "The automatic theory of physics" a few years ago.

I think "free will" as you are using the term is ill defined as is awareness, consciousness, intent, etc. That is the problem.The terms are too vague to be of use. So, using these vague terms results in talking in circles.

Do you have the free will to not breath? To not eat? Humans and animal can kill themselves. Can you be a mother (be pregnant). That was determined at conception. Emergence is a Principle of the universe in the essay. Emergence includes convergence which includes some selection in complex situations. Sensing the light through your eyes and then mixing all these nerve signals in the brain produced another set of stimuli to the muscles. Is this awareness? Computers can then be aware. Is there more to awareness?

Your 3rd paragraph: You have inserted several concepts beyond current understanding. Let me suggest another view of Planck's constant. Consider "space" as able to support waves. The gradient on the wave pushes matter to the bottom of the wave. This will organize the matter in discrete positions each 1 wavelength apart. This is not probability and is determinate. Yet it looks like probability you invoke. How does a field interact consciously? define conscious? What observation? How do you know its conscious?

Section 5 suggests the assignment of human poorly defined concepts such as intention were unproductive toward a greater understanding of the universe. Therefore, useless.

I don't know general relativity's gravity field is "aware". Descartes suggested thinking was required to be aware - whatever "thinking" is. I have a universal field I call the plenum ("space", ether) as part of my Scalar theory of everything.


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 07:21 GMT

I agree with you about the use of terminology in any attempt to resolve fundamental questions. It's insufficient. That is why my essay claims that all attempts to stretch theory from particles to persons are 1.) too complex, and 2.) too full of errors that mostly snuck in through repetition. Hence these "theories" become "credos" or belief systems, not proof systems. That is why I place ultimate trust in the experience of consciousness rather than the description of consciousness.

My reference to general relativity is to its nonlinearity due to the fact that the gravity field interacts with itself. Can it interact with itself without being 'aware' of itself? Back to the problem with words.

From previous contests I do have the impression that we're not that far apart, and I'm glad that you have a universal field in your ToE. Einstein said there is no space empty of field, and I think he was right.

Thanks for your response,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 13:10 GMT

A very nicely written and organised essay, on topic and with some interesting and novel ideas. Many seem to judge on whether or not their opinions co-inside but that isn't a valid criterion so varying views shouldn't mean a lower mark. Mine is then high.

I agree 'deterministic' and other concepts are very poorly defined, engendering misunderstanding. For instance mine uses determinism yet also the precise 'likelihood' distribution of QM, defined classically. Your invoking fractals effectively agrees that model of ultimately recursive certainty.

You asked about the 'Recycling' Model paper I referred to, which provides an evolutionary sequence of galaxies with evidence suggesting fractal validity (stellar and universe scales). It's alse genuinely the ONLY model from which the ubiquitous central 'bars' emerge. It's both published and archived on

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603 A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars. HJ. Vol.36 No 6. 2013 pp.633-676

Do please critically comment or raise questions.



report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 17:44 GMT

I remember see you paper years ago. I'll reread it.

There is no diffraction pattern after the 1st slit in the Young's Experiment. But the light does become coherent so there is a diffraction pattern after the second slit. This is long recognized. Do the experiment.

The rest of you comments have very little to do with the Hodge Experiment. The wave in the plenum is caused by the photon. The wave thus formed DOES NOT come through the slit , it is reflected off the mask.

You commented that the Huygens model could explain the Hodge Experiment. I don't understand how. Please explain - I'd like to understand.


As I understand, The Huygens model suggest each point in the slit radiates a wave. Therefore, a point on the higher intensity side of the slit should illuminate the entire width ( above and below the center) of the screen. The integration then forms the pattern. This implies both sides of the screen should have an (nearly) constant diffraction pattern.

RE: your cosmic redshift video, I saw lots of hand waving, where is the data calculation. There is lots of redshift, should be able to do the calculations.


basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 02:57 GMT
Dear Sir,

We thoroughly enjoyed your essay.

When you say: “The emergence principle is a general property of the universe”, it needs some clarification. What is emerging? Is it the laws of Nature or their revelation to us? In the present context, the obvious answer is the second. But the first cannot be ignored. We find a set of rules that remain invariant through space and time....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 18:21 GMT

As I started a line by line reply, I found the concepts you are mentioning are subtle in my thought process.

Let me take a little time to think abut both your proposal and a response consistent with the Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE -my thoughts).

Some of your proposal is in areas I've been thinking about.


basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 00:35 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you very much. We have also submitted an essay where we have physically defined ten dimensions.



report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 17:23 GMT

"What is emerging?"

The process of emergence is a discovered property (Character of the universe). Therefore, its value is to ask better question to reveal to action of the universe. I'll offer an example after defining some terms for communication.

"Unification" in this context is undefined (at least for me).

"Emerged from a common source" is a concept of...

view entire post

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'C' and 'E':

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