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

Jose Koshy: on 2/23/17 at 9:50am UTC, wrote Basudeva Mishra, You have missed the point. The red shift is due to two...

basudeba mishra: on 2/23/17 at 2:03am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, Do they know WHAT dark matter is? The answer is they are still...

Jose Koshy: on 2/20/17 at 17:35pm UTC, wrote Parameswara Gupta, Anyone can submit a paper to arxive; only that you...

Jose Koshy: on 2/20/17 at 17:13pm UTC, wrote Basudeba Mishra, The present accepted models are the best so far...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/20/17 at 8:47am UTC, wrote ALERT Your post has been added to this topic There was an error attaching...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/20/17 at 8:45am UTC, wrote Attachment not getting uploaded, please give me your mail ID....

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/20/17 at 8:40am UTC, wrote Dear Koshy, Neutrinos travelled faster than light…. See the wiki...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/20/17 at 7:35am UTC, wrote Thank you Jose P Koshy, I also dont have a PhD... I will go through the...


Jose Koshy: "James Putnam, What do you mean by the acceleration of light? Do you mean..." in Alternative Models of...

Jose Koshy: "Steven, Because we are not sitting face to face, I may not be replying..." in Alternative Models of...

Algernon kk: "Steve Agnew is a legend for doing that. A lot of people at online resume..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

Mohan rao: "Voot app free download Flash Recovery" in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Mohan rao: "My partner and I stumbled over here different website and thought I might..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, BTW, it is the community vote that matters ... not the public vote...." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, You statement regarding your score does not make any sense. You..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Algernon kk: "Steve Agnew is a legend for doing that. A lot of people at custom..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

click titles to read articles

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)

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.

February 28, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: An indestructible Cosmos striving to attain self-realization by Jose P. Koshy [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 6.0; Public = 3.7

Author Jose P. Koshy wrote on Jan. 10, 2017 @ 21:51 GMT
Essay Abstract

The seeds of freewill, intelligence and life remain embedded in matter. Under certain conditions, some physical structures attain these emergent properties. Freewill allows goal-oriented action; freewill combined with intelligence allows self-realization. The structure of the cosmos is indestructible. It exerts a strong top-down control and allows only certain actions. Any action has to follow the laws of mathematics (there are no physical laws). Thus at any given time, there is a 'set of allowed actions', and structures having freewill have to select actions from the 'allowed set'. The Cosmos is programmed to attain the goal of self-realization. All physical structures including living organisms are manifestations inside the Cosmos, and cannot exist outside. The Cosmos allows the maximum possible freewill and intelligence to beings like us and thus attains self-realization through us.

Author Bio

Doing research in theoretical physics. Based on an entirely new hypothesis “Motion at speed 'c' is a fundamental property of matter”, I have arrived at a “Theory of Everything”. The theory predicts a “pulsating universe” which exists forever. This is for the first time in the history of modern physics that a “complete Theory of everything” is proposed; till this time, there have been only incomplete “would-be theories”. Being independent of institutions, my papers are kept in the alternate repository More information regarding my theory is available there and also in my site

Download Essay PDF File

Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 15, 2017 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Koshy,

Every real thing has a real surface. This real surface did not emerge from anywhere.

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

Author Jose P. Koshy wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 04:15 GMT
Dear Joy the Realist,

I do agree with you that the world is 'real' and it should be explained as 'simple' as possible. The explanation (story) should start from some assumptions and end explaining everything that the initial assumptions are validated. Can you please tell me where you start from and where you end?

Newton started his story with 5 ingredients: Space, time, matter, motion, energy and force. I call these ingredients because we can know how Newton views these only after the commencement of the story-line. And, we all now know his story-line very well. However, Newton did not complete his story.

I follow Newtonian concepts with some modifications. That is, the story starts with the same 5 ingredients, but the story line slightly differs. Newton connects mass and gravity to matter, but leaves motion, energy and 'force in general' as something imposed on matter. Here, I propose the correction that motion at speed 'c' is a property of matter just like mass, and that energy is motion and force is reaction to motion. Thus in my story, I connect mass, motion, energy and force directly to matter.

Based on the above story-line I have completed the story. The story ends with an indestructible Cosmos, the structure of which remains pulsating. I claim that most of the 'observed facts' can be explained based on this story, and the rest will be explainable, and so it can be regarded as a physical 'theory of everything'.

Jose P Koshy

Author Jose P. Koshy replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 04:23 GMT
Dear Joy,

Please read '5 ingredients' as '6 ingredients'. It was just an error.

Jose P Koshy

Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 24, 2017 @ 13:02 GMT
Dear Jose P. Koshy,

you state that the mathematical laws make the physical world deterministic. Also you state that in this world there is something like a selection action possible among a few different options. I identify this possible selection action with some observer like me, having the choice to leave a comment on your essay page or not.

How can this choice come about at all...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Jose P. Koshy wrote on Jan. 24, 2017 @ 18:41 GMT
Stefan Weckbach,

Thank you for conveying your opinion regarding my essay.

With the given properties of the bodies, mathematical laws allow only a 'set of actions'. Each action in the set is deterministic. Number of actions possible depends on the number of bodies (each having different properties). Even if all possible actions happen, the end result will not be that much varied,...

view entire post

Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 24, 2017 @ 20:34 GMT
Dear Jose, thanks for your anwer. If mathematics does not decide the fundamental properties of matter, what then does? Matter is not a given Ur-stuff, but according to our best theories we have, matter itself emerged from some deeper reality at the point of the big bang. If the properties of matter came about randomly at the point of the big bang, then the cosmos cannot be overall deterministic and governed exclusively always only by the same set of mathematical rules.

You seem to suggest that this set of mathematics is a brute fact without further explanation, together with the known properties of matter being also a brute fact. I would not a priori exclude this to meet reality. But until now, i also cannot see why this view of things should necessarily meet reality other than reassuring it by the brute fact of existent intelligent life which assumes that the Cosmos is programmed to attain the goal of self-realization. If the cosmos was not created some time in the past due to some initial goal to fulfill, what does it then mean that it is 'programmed' to attain the goal of self-realization? Programming something means to choose from a large variety of possibilities whereby each possibility would lead to a different result. Otherwise there would be no need for programming something.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 10:36 GMT
Stefan Weckbach,

Any explanation of the physical world starts from some arbitrary assumptions. If everything can be explained based on those, then the assumption is justified. If matter emerged from a 'deeper reality', then the deeper reality is arbitrary. This arbitrariness regarding the basic can never be removed. We can only reduce the arbitrariness to the minimum.

The so-called...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 13:37 GMT
Dear Jose, thanks again for the answer. I agree with you about basic assumptions necessary to come to a conclusion. But i do not agree that mathematical laws and properties of matter, if they are indeed unchangeable and work like a deterministic clockwork, can enable living creatures to have some kind of free will. The mathematical laws together with the properties of matter alone do then define what happens next and free will would be just an illusion. So i don’t agree with you that you have explained how free will can come into play for the course of events in a cosmos that is already sucessfully determined by mathematics and the properties of matter.

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 26, 2017 @ 03:54 GMT

Thanks for an interesting read.

You seem to imply that the Thermodynamic Law of Entropy is the result of the expansion of the universe. I have sometimes thought this myself. You also seem willing to abandon the "arrow of time". If so, you might find my essay to be of interest.

I am not clear as to why there are emergent properties and why time and a large scale causes them to be. This seems to be a shared line of thinking presented in several of this batch of essays, but it is not clear to me why it should be the case.

I was not aware of the factor of 20 increase in velocity that you mention regarding velocity for each of the cosmic structures. That does place an upper limit on the structures that are available. I definitely agree that "free will" and choice are only meaningful concepts if there are more than a few available options. Therefore, your emphasis upon medium sized structures is correct I think.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Jose P. Koshy replied on Jan. 26, 2017 @ 05:21 GMT
Gary Simpson,

From what you have stated, I think you have carefully gone through my essay, not just a glance. Thank you for the effort taken.

Regarding abandoning the arrow of time, I will go through your essay. It may take a few days. Anyway, in my opinion, time moves forward, but some sets of events happen again and again.

We do not know why matter (if we start from matter) has the basic properties; these are just arbitrary; but the emergent properties can be traced to the basic properties. If you consider matter also as something emerged, then emergent properties are not explainable. Starting from arbitrary assumptions is better than introducing arbitrary assumptions later; so in my opinion, it is better to start from matter.

A nearly 20 times increase in speed is what is observed in solar system; that may indicate that galaxy clusters are the individual units of the universe. Not only that, it may also indicate that motion at speed 'c' is a fundamental property of matter; we are actually moving at nearly one-third the speed of light along with our cluster.

Jose p Koshy

Joseph J. Jean-Claude wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 17:27 GMT
Dear Jose,

A bio is a bio. An ad is an ad. A thesis is a thesis. See, I can write like you! This is to say that a few words about yourself would have been more welcome than the self-promotion you offered for your Author Bio.

A cosmos in self-realization is an interesting idea that has been in the literature ever since Carl Sagan, to whom we owe so much, controversially publicized this view in the 70's I believe. (Not that I disagree.) You pushed it further and expounded a story line about how the internal constraints between the two ends of the spectrum of matter create the conditions for structure, simple and complex, and for life as well. You credit the mathematics with the regency of the Laws and deny such to the physics.

This is all well taken, except that you should agree that your theory pertains instead to the philosophy of physics. It is manifestly not a Physical Theory per se. If you claim primacy of the Laws of mathematics, you at least owe it to the Theory a mathematical formulation of your views, which unfortunately is nowhere to be seen.

We then find ourselves hard-pressed to qualify your theory as the long-sought Theory of Everything per your claim, and have to fall back to the story line of Gauge Theories instead, because they, more reliably and despite incompleteness, offer mathematical discipline at their core. Don't you agree?

Nevertheless, you showed imagination, effort for consistency, offered some interesting points of cosmological data, while giving us a clear and clean presentation.

Good luck!


report post as inappropriate

Author Jose P. Koshy replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 06:16 GMT
Joseph J. Jean-Claude,

Thank you for responding. You started your comment asking 'who are you?'. That may mean 'what is written' is not important , but 'who wrote' is important. The truth is that I have no "author-bio" to promote myself; I have just a "theoretical model" to promote.

You would have noticed the subject selected by FQXI for the essay contest; it has a philosophical tone. So what you said is correct. The overall tone of the essay is meant to be philosophical; 'a reader recognizing that' is something that makes me happy.

What I claim is that I have arrived at 'a complete theory of everything', not the 'long-sought Theory of Everything'. My theory will be subjected to scrutiny by the scientific community, if they feel that it contains at least 'something'.

The essay is not a presentation of the "theoretical model" proposed by me. As pointed out by you, 'mathematical formulation of my views' is absent in it. If you are interested, you can refer to my papers in However, if you think that 'where the papers are' matters rather than 'what the papers contain', then of course, I will be at a loss.

If your concluding senetence represents what you actually felt, and is not just a feel-happy-compliment offered to me, then I am satisfied.

Jose P Koshy

Joseph J. Jean-Claude replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 20:29 GMT
Hello Jose.

You are probably too much on the defensive. On Author Bio, if I see someone with prestigious credentials, yet delivering an essay with many commonplaces in their field of science, with little contribution to the subject at hand, I am not going to be sympathetic in my grading. However, to someone with not many credentials or none, but with an essay that is well structured, well argued, with fresh ideas, and moreover to the point of the essay, I am going to be very generous in my grading.

So I do not at all value "who you are" over the merits of your essay. This is open science here, that is the whole point of this contest. Gathering fresh ideas from the public to perhaps feed the too closed world of academic thinking. This is at least my view of the contest.

I do not disagree that philosophical essays are part of the contest call. However I tend to favor essays that address the gist of the problem at hand: deliver a mathematical approach to cognition.

I tend to see myself as a fair and honest individual. You will see that I have ranked your essay, even with a passing grade, which many if not most authors here do not do (no ranking at all) for reasons that are easy to understand. So I mean what I say, and did not make any comment just "to make you feel good".

On Vixra, that may be another conversation. I would just say it's a mixed plate. It would have been better to include in your essay contest here whatever mathematical support you have in store.

Relax and have fun!


report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 01:21 GMT
Dear Koshy,

Your words that Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are mutually exclusive in first page 3 rd para are very correct. It is nice essay. And the concept ….” there is a 'set of allowed actions', and structures having freewill have to select actions from the 'allowed set'…. Is nice idea, Good essay!

Probably I have to mention here for your information…that “Your motion at speed C “ to be a theory of everything is having a problem, there was recent CERN experiment finding super luminal neutrinos… How will you explain that…?

report post as inappropriate

Author Jose P. Koshy replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 05:51 GMT
Parameswara Gupta,

Thank you for going through my essay.

In 2012, CERN has corrected the initial claim regarding superluminal neutrinos; the finding was due to equipment failures. I am unaware of any other 'more recent' findings. As of now, I think, nothing is found to move faster than light.

Jose P Koshy

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 00:35 GMT
Dear Dr Koshy

Oh Really,

I dont know it , Can you please give some details about it

report post as inappropriate

Author Jose P. Koshy replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 13:59 GMT
Parameswara Gupta,

Please note, I have no doctorate. Regarding superluminal neutrinos, please refer the Wikipedia page here

Jose P Koshy

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 18:20 GMT
Dear Jose

Thank you for your enlightning post on my essay

Of course QM is grainy, it is the essence of the this way of thinking.

A way of thinking is expressed as "idea". Ideas are also constituted of parts because no idea can exist without time, it is the "order" of the parts of the idea that are constituting a new idea through consciousness.

The infinite loop of "pulsations" as you name it, is also a way of thinking, so in my perception an availability, thee reducing is again the result of time, we just cannot perceive a timeless and spaceless infinity of thoughts. But any thought is a part of the TOTAL, without the smallest there is no Total.

best regards


report post as inappropriate

basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 04:36 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your expression is highly absorbing and we have similar ideas on many fronts, though the mainstream scientists, with their superstitious belief on “established theories” and inability to think out of box, will dismiss it. So you had to be content with viXra. However, in one or two cases, you also seem to follow the majority.

Is the universe expanding? Expanding universe concept came from galactic red-shift. But now we have seen blue-shift also. So is the universe expanding in certain regions and contracting at other regions? If the universe is expanding, how do we see galactic mergers? It should never happen. Dark matter concept began with the galaxy rotation curve problem, where the equation contains parameters like H = Hubble’s constant. ρ = matter density of the universe. k = curvature of the Universe. c=Velocity of light G=Gravitational constant. Λ=cosmological constant. R=radius of Universe. Have these parameters been measured precisely? Is it ever possible to measure the mass, radius and curvature of the universe? Dark energy concept assumed homogeneity of the CMB. But it has a direction: the Axis of Evil. You talk of ΛCDM. But what it is?

If we look at the universe, every structure is spinning around its axis. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the universe itself is spinning around its axis. Due to various distances, the galactic clusters seem to move away from each other at times to come close at other times like planets in our solar system.



report post as inappropriate

Author Jose P. Koshy replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 17:13 GMT
Basudeba Mishra,

The present accepted models are the best so far available. When we say that these are incorrect, we have to propose a better model, and not simply point out the possible errors. We have nothing against the present theories, which are still incomplete. We try to complete it by making changes either very fundamental or just marginal; our aim is not deriding them, though sometimes we may use such words for emphasis.

When a galaxy moves towards us, the radiation from it is blue shifted; if it moves away, it is red-shifted. Again, when a radiation gets cooled, it is red-shifted; if it gets heated, it is blue-shifted. Thus there are two causes for blue/red shift. In an expanding universe, the radiations get cooled. So all radiations, including the ones that are initially blue shifted (due to the direction being towards us) are red-shifted. Naturally we observe some blue-shifted galaxies.

ΛCDM model is the present accepted model of the universe; however, I do not accept that model. My model does not require any dark energy or dark matter. In my model, expansion is due to actual motion of galaxy clusters; the clusters move away from a common center along spiraling paths at increasing speeds. The energy required comes from inside the clusters.

You say that the universe may be spinning, an alternate idea. The question is how far have you developed it. Is it just on the idea level or have you at least completed an overall model of that spinning? I just started from such a simple idea. My model from particles to universe is now complete in all respects in an overall way. I can explain most of the prominent phenomena; I expect the rest will also be explainable. Whether it is correct or not, I leave it to the scientific community to decide.

Jose p Koshy

basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 02:03 GMT
Dear Sir,

Do they know WHAT dark matter is? The answer is they are still searching for it, whether it is ΛCDM or WIMPS or MACHO. No one knows what it is and whether it exists at all. These are all presumptions.

How can “all radiations, including the ones that are initially blue shifted (due to the direction being towards us) are red-shifted”? If it is blue shifted because it is moving towards us in an expanding universe, it can never move away from us and be blue-shifted, unless it moves tangentially. And if something moves away tangentially after moving towards us that hints at spinning universe. We see similar things in the Solar system where planets appear to go away from us to come near at other times. So why should we speculate over a probability when there is an alternative option with credible evidence is available?

In our essay here, we have refuted all hypothetical modern notions on extra-dimensions to give a physical description of 10 dimensions. We should look at correspondence between macro and micro principles instead of treating both separately.



report post as inappropriate

Author Jose P. Koshy replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 09:50 GMT
Basudeva Mishra,

You have missed the point. The red shift is due to two factors: One is due to cooling, the other is due to the direction of motion. When light takes more time to reach us, it gets more cooled, and hence more red-shifted. So distant sources are always red-shifted irrespective of direction, because the blue shift due to direction is always less than the red shift due to...

view entire post

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.