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 3/25/17 at 0:56am UTC, wrote Wow! I'd have liked to have seen that and to have talked with Bush. I...

Jonathan Dickau: on 3/25/17 at 0:07am UTC, wrote I responded to your reply above.. I do appreciate the reference to Bush et...

Jonathan Dickau: on 3/25/17 at 0:05am UTC, wrote As it turns out.. I've had some correspondence with professor Bush. And...

John Hodge: on 3/23/17 at 18:29pm UTC, wrote Ojo: Thanks for the reference. I've scanned the site and will send an...

Akinbo Ojo: on 3/23/17 at 14:47pm UTC, wrote Oopps... wonder how it works. Rated 7 but still remained 4.8.

Akinbo Ojo: on 3/23/17 at 14:45pm UTC, wrote Hi John, You touched quite a number of topical areas in your essay and I...

John Hodge: on 3/21/17 at 15:47pm UTC, wrote Willy I put a post in your essay. I think that The principles of the...

Willy K: on 3/19/17 at 5:10am UTC, wrote Dear Hodge Interesting to see you mention ‘cause of society’s...


Eckard Blumschein: "Lorraine, Thank you for addressing basics of mathematics. You refer to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Eckard Blumschein: "Georgina, I apologize. Lorraine, Must "an economic system be found that..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

James Putnam: ""The math time = 1/nu defines time ... " Nu is cycles/second. 1/nu is..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Agnew: "Your work has shown how normal physics like S&Z mass, length, and time have..." in Alternative Models of...

kab: "The word is enternal magic. Hope all secret never has answer will be out..." in Does Quantum Weirdness...

Robert McEachern: ""According to QBism, the wavefunction is no longer to be thought of as an..." in Painting a QBist Picture...

Robert McEachern: ""We’re interested in what distinguishes the behaviour of particles in the..." in Bohemian Reality:...

Steve Agnew: "...oh yeah, I forgot to mention quantum Bayes or QBism, which is another..." in Bohemian Reality:...

click titles to read articles

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

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)

March 27, 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 = 4.8; 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.


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 22:11 GMT

I'm trying to finish some graphics on a solution quantum erasers / delayed choice and it occurred to me there's no logical explanation without wave particle duality. Indeed the most advanced experiments divide and modulate the wave states of a photon (Indeed even the original rotated one of two parts to an orthogonal axis.

Can the photons you employ be 'split' into two in this way? Have you derived an explanation for the methods and findings consistent with your theory? If so is is accessible?

Also are you aware of the experiment which reverses the wavefunction (helical path axis) Chirality on passing through a screen? This was a fundamental proof of my model (though not explained in quantum terms) and I wonder if it can also be consistent with a ballistic solution? (I have a great Figure titled 'Polarisation flip pt.5.7087 figure1' but would have to search for the paper.)

Many thanks


report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 03:12 GMT
I've looked at the "quantum eraser/ delayed choice" type of experiment. If you've seen the video, remember the photon between mask and screen sends waves of plenum (space, gravity) out in all directions including behind it where the mask is. The reflected waves come back with informationabout the mask (slit arrangement). Because the waves travel as van Fandern suggests, Thus, this looks like "delayed choice". A logical model verified by computer simulation. The video references the papers (yes, s many pages and time to develope). Yhis is not wave particle duality, it is more like Bohm.

The simulation as the photon going through only one slit. However, the waves continue to sense the mask by the reverse waves. Note, however, this is NOT the same as the photon sends waves through both slits which then direct the photon in the single photon experiment. Immediately upon passing the mask, the waves are comming from the photon after the mask. The photons are not "split".

A simulation was run for the new experiment (Hodge Experiment) in which the slit is partially illuminated. This result is inconsistent with ALL the experiments I've examined.

The explanation is in the paper including the assumptions . The simulation was derived using the assumptions.

If you want, I could send (email) a copy if the simulation program (in Visual Basic 5, XP platform, with poor annotation).

I have examined some helical axis models. Unless the photon can satisfy the wave generation need for the experiment, the may not work. But it may be possible.


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

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 09:07 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Very interesting, in-depth essay and important findings to research ways to overcome the total crisis of understanding in the fundamental science:

"Roman numerals carved in stone represent unchanging quantities well, but viewing Mathematics in that way is a mistake, because Math is about how unchanging attributes and quantities come to be that way through a process. Seeing Math as dry – as though it was mindless and lifeless – is the real problem, and the mystery of where evolution comes from will disappear when we realize what Math is at its root, a systematic exploration of features characterizing the laws by which form evolves.

The unchanging quantities of Math itself include figures like the Mandelbrot Set, E8 and the other exceptional groups, as well as other mathematical invariants. While one could argue that humans constructed these things; it can also be said they were only discovered or always existed – even before the universe had its birth. So it is with even higher orders and levels of Mathematics we have not discovered yet, which the universe is already putting to use. But we are fortunate, at this juncture, to be equipped to learn how Math gives rise to life, in order to foster the evolution of consciousness."

I believe that the solution to the "hard problem of consciousness" is possible after solving the super hard problem of the foundations of mathematics (knowledge). Mathematicians, physicists and poets should have a single, full of life's meaning, picture of the world. I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas.

Yours faithfully,


report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 10:16 GMT
Dear John,

Very original and compelling ideas and conception. My high score.

Previous comment I posted in error. I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas.

Yours faithfully,


report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 03:20 GMT
I'm surprised no one took aim at the Emergence Principle's idea of the "arrow of time". This was one of the aims of this contest.

Most essays had no comment about the "arrow of time".

Those few who did took it as a postulate or observation rather than a result of the universal postulate.

A universal model that follows from postulates that fail to derive the Equivalence Principle (not a principle) or the "arrow of time" are incomplete.

I was hoping for some insight.


William B Goodwin wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 14:39 GMT

You seem to be saying that nature gave rise to deterministic mathematics and separately nature gave rise to life goals, such as aims and intentions. So, the two are not necessarily related. Then you allow that in the future, life goals may be explained by mathematics. Your future conclusion would then be that life is deterministic?

report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 02:42 GMT

This hinges on the definition of deterministic. Does it mean that I will wake up (good news at my age) at exactly 6:02 AM. I find this hard to accept. However, if it means that humanity will change in a major way - yes. Note the emphasis on large numbers in the emergence principle and the method of convergence. Large numbers of entities bring quality in the class of entities.


Author John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 14:59 GMT
topic started me thinking. The new math may be like Boolean for computers. Neurons work by their frequency of pulsing not by the on-off of Boolean in computers. For example, a pain blocker is a slight current to keep the nerve cell "ON" (no frequency = no information transmittal. This implies there may be multiple levels of frequency which could sum if 2 or more cells send their signals to another cell. This is how the bundles and levels of laMuth work. So, f1 +f2 =f3 culd mean if f1 active, f3 active. if f1 1/2 active f3 is off, f1 and f2 half acive f3 on. if f1 nd f2 acive f3 could be off like the pain blocker.

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 17:15 GMT
An interesting essay John..

I must take issue with the statement that Math treats Geometry and Algebra as mutually exclusive. It is certainly not universally true, and from what I've seen it is more common that they be treated as interchangeable. I like the idea of a fractal universe and I published a paper in Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals on that topic. Much of what you talk about resonates with me personally.

Overall; I like what you are saying a lot, and I think the exposition of your subject is good. It feels like it's almost there, but not quite up to the level of some of the professional scientists in this contest, where both the idea and its exposition are nearly impeccable. If it was a journal submission, I would almost certainly approve it, because it hits the mark - but I might have some suggestions for improvement.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 17:21 GMT
A further comment..

Some of the statements about the value of trig would have been aided by a discussion of measurement protocols and triangulation. Distance and size estimation are a big deal, essential for navigation, and trigonometry is the subject that opens the door to that possibility. So there is more you could have said. Yes it bridges the way Algebra and Geometry are different, but it actually goes farther than that.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 19:23 GMT
If you like fractal cosmology (world of the very large), perhps you could like fractal world of the very small. the "walking drop" experiment look like quantum phenomana. They are on YouTube. I particularily like Fig. 5.(c) in Bush, "The new wave of pilot-wave theory", Physics Today, 68, 8 (2015) as a demonstration of the \Psi* in the classical world.

Remember the size limit of an essay.


Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 00:05 GMT
As it turns out..

I've had some correspondence with professor Bush. And during FFP11, I think I walked right by the lab of Couder and Fort. I remember reading a sign in the hallway of the Physics batiment (where my lecture took place) at Paris Diderot, and thinking it looked rather low-tech when I peered into the room. But I had no idea at the time, what the experiments were about.

As it turns out; there is an exact analogy of the shape in figure 5(c) in the Mandelbrot Set, and that is a point of interest for me. What I see is that the X shape in the tail is a phase inversion that chases the droplet along. The fish's tail drives the fish along, and the droplet is suspended over the fish's body. If you zoom way in on the droplet, you will see a bow-tie shape.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 19:01 GMT
Hi Mr Hodge,

Happy to see your essay on this contest.I liked it.


ps this info about the works of Tom Van F. intrigues me.I beleive the same with this waves of gravitation that many confound with the gravitational waves which are them Under our special relativity.These waves tend to infinity like this quantum gravitation in fact.It is probably this zero absolute the secret balancing this standard model and thermo.This matter not baryonic the dark matter and the BHs have still many secrets to show us in fact.It is facinating because we are at doors of a real revolution in technology due to the checking of this gravitation at quantum scales.We could utilise a new kind of energy.This cold ...


report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 19:28 GMT
Agree we t the door of a revolution - the data exists. Now we need the think of the new model.

Suggest the gravitational aether produces the rotation curves of the Dark matter" models.

Thanks for the note.


Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 18:59 GMT
This is an interesting idea, that the Universe is deterministic and that there exist a “theory of everything” which our science, math and philosophy are just imperfect reflections of this entity. The author shows the utility of the “theory of everything”; all can be explained by starting with the theory of everything and working down to anything: Life, Quantum Mechanics, dark matter and human society. The author even has methods to help reveal more information from the theory of everything. Regrettably, this reviewer does not share the premise. Science cannot assume a perfect theorem exists and base all inquiries using that requirement. All ideas must be part of the debate that is the scientific method.



report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 19:55 GMT
"Science cannot assume a...", Why not. you also say "All ideas must be part of the debate..."- contradictory.

Assuming there is a TOE suggests a line of inquiry into what are the common elements of General Relativity and quantum mechanics. Perhaps add life and societies.The Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) suggests the "space" is a "gravitational aether" of Bohm Interpretation and the \Psi* suggest faster than light waves. The result produces new models that explain quantum entanglement, rejects wave-particle duality with another explanation of photon light. The diffraction experiment rejecting wave nature of light also suggest the cause of entanglement, quantum eraser experiment results.

The STOE is a little rough on life and society, but I have written the papers on life and society from the STOE perspective.


Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 03:08 GMT

Science cannot assume a perfect theorem exists and base all inquiries using that requirement.

If you include the whole quote it is no longer it is no longer contradictory. A perfect theorem might exist, but the existence of the theorem must also be shown using the scientific method.



report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 08:39 GMT
Dear John,

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high praise.

You are one of the few who directly answers the question put by the contest.

You are absolutely right that «Because a single universe exists, a single Theory of Everything exists involving causal relations from the very small to the very large».

You correctly put questions and find answers «This implies applying a deterministic perspective to replace the probability arguments.» «The simple rules need to be identified. Additional concepts such as fractal structures and negative feedback loops from the emergent principal that describe the universe are also helpful.»

In my essay , is shown that if you do not use the mystical properties of matter and fields, then there is every reason to believe that the universe is much simpler than it is thought to be.

There is only one essence and the only universal quantum parametric mechanism in the universe that operates on the principle of the classical heat pump in solitons, and that functions both at the micro- and macro-level of fractal matter. This mechanism allows using a small fraction of the external energy to control in many times big fraction the energy of the system.

This mechanism is also the answer to the questions of this competition.

However, everyone loves their fiction and "magic", built by their "gods", so very few are able to see the rational grain in other people's ideas because of their illusions.

Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded people.

You might also like reading my essay .

Kind regards,


report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 18:01 GMT
Dear John C Hodge

I inform all the participants that use the electronic translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same.


Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 08:16 GMT
Dear John,

I am seriously believe that we are two like-minded people despite we are talking on somewhat different things. You says "Mathematics is a distinctly human endeavor." And I have written "math is our creation that is a special tool - language to make our job easier"! I think these are almost the same. That is why I am thinking as I am saying above. Now I reading your work with good intention to supporting you. Please just open my essay - I think you can find there some interesting points also! It will nice to hearing your some words in my page.

Best wishes,

report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 19:48 GMT
I'll read your paper.

I hold Math as something to be discovered in nature, therefore a part of nature. This is much more than a tool.

George Kirakosyan replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 04:35 GMT
Yes Dear Hodge!

I agree with you - math is much more than only a simple tool!

I says in my work - // b) The mathematical apparatus was formed and developed as a separate, abstractly descriptive - analytical tool, by the way of abstraction and generalization of quantitative properties of material objects, reflecting conservation laws in the nature.// Thus, the conservation laws is acting there, which are the constructive base of natural science!

Now I can finalise the evaluation of your nice essay thanks to your valuable remarks in my page.

My best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Willy K wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 05:10 GMT
Dear Hodge

Interesting to see you mention ‘cause of society’s success’ and ‘life’s consciousness’ with the same thrust and emphasis. I think the two will almost certainly require different models to explain their functioning, but my current attempt to model the social system intelligence does suggest that the two are connected in a limited sense;in that, they both likely have the capacity to ‘nurture’ their root element. Both of them might be working/stable because their ‘intention’ is to stabilize their root element, which would be life in the case of society and neurons in the case of consciousness.

Also, agree with you that the universe is likely deterministic, but I also think it likely that we may never be able to figure out the future despite gaining access to the theory of everything because of inherent limits in computation ability. I think your essay is great and have rated it accordingly.

Warm Regards, Willy

report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 15:47 GMT

I put a post in your essay.

I think that The principles of the universe must also apply to life and societies.Therefore, we can look at life and societies action to help determine the physics of the universe. Likewise we can look to physics to help determine the process of life and societies.

Societies start (birth) , grow, and die (end) often with much life death. The principles once discovered could help create a much longer lived society.

I think we are in the declining stage of the US society. Knowledge of the principles of the universe (nature) might avert the catastrophe and ensuing dark age that followed the bronze age collapse and the Roman collapse.

That is why I found you essay interesting.


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 14:45 GMT
Hi John,

You touched quite a number of topical areas in your essay and I will say I found it interesting.

One such topical area you touched is geometry and the question of extended objects but you shied away from categorically saying whether a point was an extended object or not.

On cosmology, your views are interesting even if we have areas where we disagree. In this regard, see this link for similarities/contrasts with your views. I corresponded with the author and told him I would be pointing a friend in the website's direction (

All the best in the competition,


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 14:47 GMT
Oopps... wonder how it works. Rated 7 but still remained 4.8.

report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 18:29 GMT

Thanks for the reference. I've scanned the site and will send an email to him after I read about his model.

Are you in contact with him? Do you discuss his model? Do you have a site for your model?


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 00:07 GMT
I responded to your reply above..

I do appreciate the reference to Bush et al.

More later, JJD

report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 00:56 GMT
Wow! I'd have liked to have seen that and to have talked with Bush.

I have been thinking of building the aparatus to do a "quantum erase" experiment with drops. But I don't know how to get the entangled pair of drops after a single drop goes through the slit.

That would be something. It would complete the quantum-to-bouncing-drop analogy

Do you have a reference or something to show the Mandelbrot Set image you mentioned?


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'R' and 'T':

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