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 forums@fqxi.org 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

read/discusswinners

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
read/discusswinners

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

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
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
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
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Paul Butler: on 2/27/17 at 3:29am UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Thank you for your agreement with the understanding that the...

Paul Butler: on 2/25/17 at 21:48pm UTC, wrote Declan Andrew, Traill’s comment to me on his paper’s page: Paul, ...

Paul Butler: on 2/25/17 at 0:54am UTC, wrote Dear Hector, I have found some who say that they don’t consider time to...

Paul Butler: on 2/24/17 at 20:41pm UTC, wrote Ronald Racicot’s comment to me on his Paper’s page: Dear Paul N....

Peter Jackson: on 2/24/17 at 13:09pm UTC, wrote Paul, A nicely thought out and written essay covering many aspects closely...

Héctor Gianni: on 2/23/17 at 22:45pm UTC, wrote Dear Paul Butler Everybody talks of “space-time” and because I think...

Paul Butler: on 2/23/17 at 20:24pm UTC, wrote Declan Andrew Traill’s comment to me on his paper’s page: Paul, Sure...

Paul Butler: on 2/22/17 at 18:10pm UTC, wrote Hector Daniel Gianni’s comment to me on his paper’s page: Dear Paul...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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...


RECENT ARTICLES
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.


FQXi FORUM
February 28, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Are Mathematical Laws Truly Mindless? by Paul N Butler [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 4.0; Public = 2.5


Author Paul N Butler wrote on Jan. 27, 2017 @ 17:03 GMT
Essay Abstract

The depth of this subject is much greater than can be given adequate coverage in 25,000 characters. I have tried to address several key areas in as much detail as possible given the restrictions. It would take a complete book on each of some of these areas to fully explain all the variables, but I have tried to condense them down the best that I could with the purpose of stimulating thought concerning them and other areas that I just couldn’t directly include. I hope it helps others to better understand the complexities involved. The areas covered are: 1. Comparison of the laws of the universe with man’s attempt to model them. 2. The structure of man’s intelligently designed complex devices. 3. The structure of the universe. 4. A comparison between them. 5. What does the Big Bang theory tell us? 6. Could the universe create life? 7. Is evolution practical? 8. Has God provided us with information about himself, and the universe?

Author Bio

The author has long desired to know how the world works and how it began. As man’s science advanced over time, its great complexity convinced him that it is a device created by an intelligent being. This began the search to fully understand this being, which still continues.

Download Essay PDF File




Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 30, 2017 @ 17:22 GMT
Dear Mr. Butler,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary “laws of the Universe.”

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 23:55 GMT
Dear Joe,

I do not mind comments about my work because there have been times that I have received good useful information that way. At the very least it tells me about the level of understanding of the one making the comments. This helps me to respond to the comments in a way that is most likely to be understandable to the commenter. Whether the response is actually of value to the...

view entire post




Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Paul,

You really ought to have read my essay first. There is nothing complicated about a single celled amoeba’s surface. The whole point of my essay am that the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 19:23 GMT
Dear Joe,

I read your paper and at the beginning you talk about a plethora of surfaces and you then mention several things and say that they have complete surfaces. This leads me to believe that each thing has its own complete surface that is not a part of other surfaces. Later in your paper you seem to be saying that there is only one surface. How can both be true or am I misunderstanding what you are saying in some way? Please clarify what you mean. You say that light is a nonentity, are you saying that it does not exist? You mention invisible radiance causes light to appear on infinite surface. What is the nature of this invisible radiance and how does it make light to appear on surface? If light does not exist, how can I see it on a surface?

An amoeba’s surface is not as simple as you might think. It has sensors or as you would call them eyes that help it to observe obstacles and food and when it finds food it has protein machines that move parts of its surface to enclose it around the food, which is then taken into it and digested. It appears from what you say that to you the base of all things is an infinite dimension. Are there any characteristics of this dimension other than that it is infinite and that it contains an infinite visible physical surface? Is the dimension completely filled by the surface that is contained in it or does it also contain anything else in it or is there any empty part of this dimension? Is this dimension also illuminated by the light or just the surface that is contained within it?

Sincerely,

Paul




Author Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 03:32 GMT
Dear Joe,

I would still like for you to answer my questions and tell me about the nature of the infinite dimension so I can understand how it fits into what I see when I look at the world around me. Part of my work in this world has shown me that people do not always mean the same things when they use the same words. It is apparent to me that you do not accept man’s standard concept of...

view entire post




Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 17:00 GMT
Dear Paul,

Simplicity cannot be simplified. One real observable Universe must only have one infinite dimension. Only infinite surface exists, invisible three dimensional empty space does not. As I explained in the essay, because there am only one dimension, one only sees a disc when one looks at a sphere. One only sees a rectangle when one looks at a cube. One only sees a PLETHORA of seamlessly enmeshed surfaces when one looks in any direction at any time. One’s surface cannot go anywhere without it always touching other surfaces, as the single law of the real observable Universe has to be consistent, there must only be one, single, sole, infinite surface that am occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. I do not know anything about microwaves, or permanent waves, or waving goodbye, but I wish you a respectable adieu.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Author Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 03:10 GMT
Dear Joe,

If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them. In man’s standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point objects or line objects. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional objects. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than...

view entire post




Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 15:14 GMT
Dear Paul,

You do not see “objects” when you look around. You see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed surfaces.

All real visible entities have a real visible surface. Light does not have a surface, therefore, light is indisputably a nonentity. All real visible places have a real visible surface. It would be physically impossible for infinite surface to have any finite gaps.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear anonymous Paul,

You wrote: “If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them” Every real “thing” that you see has a real visible surface. That means that only a single infinite visible surface could possibly exist. Obviously, you can manufacture a finite number of boxes. But each box has to have a real visible surface, Each real tree that produced the wood from which some of the finite number of boxes were made had to have a real visible surface. Each of the nails used to hold a box together must have had a real visible surface. As I explained in my baseball item, the real visible surface of a baseball never travels at a finite speed between two measured points. You can clearly see the real surface of a baseball whether it is purportedly moving at 90 miles an hour, or whether it am stationary. The disc that you actually see merely changes size infinitely throughout the game.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Author Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 5, 2017 @ 01:02 GMT
Dear Joe,

Here is my previous message edited to remove objects. I hope that is more understandable to you.

If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the entities that we see as we see them. In man’s standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point entities or line entities. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two...

view entire post





Author Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 05:27 GMT
Comment added to Carlo Rovelli’s paper page.

To All,

In looking at this page it seems to me that there is some confusion about information structuring concepts. There are two general categories of true information. They are structural information and abstract information.

Internal Structural Information is information that is built into and is, therefore, a part of the...

view entire post




Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 01:54 GMT
Too all,

The above comment that I posted on Carlo Rovelli’s paper’s page showed up on it after I sent it, but was somehow removed by the next day when I checked his page again. It was either removed by him, which is within his right to do or was removed due to some software glitch, etc. It seems that currently there is no way that a commenter is notified as to who and why a comment is removed. I believe this should be corrected. I would just put a quick comment on his page to ask him if he had it taken off, but so far he has not answered any of the comments that are posted on his page, even one from a member of FQXI George F. R. Ellis, so I don’t think that it would do much good. Since I posted the above comment I would like to add some information to it, so I will just add it as another addition to this comment here on my paper’s page for anyone that might be interested.

Sincerely,

Paul



Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 02:00 GMT
To All,

The fact that the universe contains these types of information structures in its makeup suggests that great intelligence was involved in its construction. As man’s understanding of the complexity of the world increases this conclusion only becomes more and more obvious. I have seen that more and more scientists are coming to this conclusion, but many still desire to believe that...

view entire post





Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 15:56 GMT
Dear Buttler,

Thank you for the good discussion and good essay. Your sub-heading and discussion … ‘Could the universe, as it is, have been created by chance happenings?’ is good.

I am also a firm believer of God. But I don’t think he created this universe at one stroke like Bigbang.

I request you to have a look at my essay and Dynamic Universe Model blog. It is singularity free universe model without dark matter and dark energy. And give your valuable comments…

Best wishes…

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 19:24 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,

I looked at your paper as you requested and the greatest problem that I found in it is the concept that the energy photons that are radiated from stars as a byproduct of the fusion of light elements such as hydrogen into helium would be changed back into more matter (presumably hydrogen) as it passes near large masses. It is possible for energy photons that possess a...

view entire post




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 23:53 GMT
Dear Paul,

Thank you very much for such nice discussion...

I made 9 reply posts for your post, I request you to have a look in the thread on Dynamic Universe model

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 00:25 GMT
Dear Paul

Some Important parts I am giving here please...

……… When you say that the central dense mass of a galaxy is getting dried up, where does that dense mass go? If it just moves out from the center of the galaxy what is the source of the motion that causes it to overcome the great gravity attraction that the central mass would possess that would greatly resist the pulling away of any of the matter contained in that mass?…………

Bigbang Physics say it is Blackhole dried up. By definition Blackhole never dries up. It only increases its mass due to accretion. Then the question comes how a Galaxy quenches? It is happening in the universe.

In Dynamic Universe Model, the central Densemass which holds the Galaxy together can dry up. What is dense mass actually? In a Galaxy the distance between stars can vary from say 4 light years to 100 light years or more in bulge and disk areas. But in the central Densemass these inter star distances are less than I light year. This Densemass is not a lump some mass at the center like a Blackhole. It can dry up or in other words, its stars can driftaway due to dynamical forces. See the paper on “Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model” in viXra …

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 18:39 GMT
Paul,

We posit some of the same mysteries, issues and questions but I tend to leave nature in the realm of a process we are left with and God in the realm of faith to embody what we can't seem to fathom. Entropy is a natural process which seems to govern the animate and inanimate -- the tiny and the colossal.

An interesting read.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 22:24 GMT
Dear James,

Your concept of God is common among those who don’t actually believe in the actual existence of God. The general belief is that as science advances all of the things we currently can’t fathom will be explained and then there will be no need for a concept of God. The problem with that concept is that there are two possibilities. One is that God exists and created the...

view entire post




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 00:27 GMT
Dear Paul,

………………The universal gravitational force is a good concept. The actual force experienced by any object would be determined by its present position compared with the positions and masses of all other objects in the universe. This force and its direction would be continually changing on any given object because of the changing positions of all objects in the universe. …………..

Thank you once again for nice and helpful thoughts and blessings…

report post as inappropriate


Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 05:38 GMT
...And so who made God?

God is not a solution, only another question...

Declan T

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 18:31 GMT
Dear Declan,

That is a good question, but it does not mean that God is not the solution as to how the universe and life were created. It would just be the next logical question to ask once you came to the conclusion that he did create them. We know now that the universe did not always exist, but had a beginning, so if God created them it would tell us that he at least was in existence...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 18:39 GMT
Once again even though I checked to see if I was still logged in just before I sent the above post, it somehow logged me off and then sent it as anonymous. I usually read over my post after entering it into the window to check it out to see if it is ok. This can take some time. The log off time needs to be changed to a longer time period and a log off message should be sent back to the page before log off occurs to avoid this problem.

Sincerely,

Paul



Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 04:00 GMT
Declan’s comment to me on his paper’s page:

Wow, I think that comment is another essay!

I do not wish to start a Science v's Religion debate.

I do want to dispute a couple of your points though:

You assert there is not enough time for life to have evolved, but there is an enormous amount of material that is all reacting and undergoing change at the same time - thus...

view entire post





Author Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 00:29 GMT
My comment entered on Daniel Gianni’s paper’s page:

Dear Daniel,

I have not yet looked at all of the papers in this contest, but your paper is by far the best one that I have seen so far. You are right that there is no existence of a time dimension, etc. and time is just a relationship between a motion and the distance that it travels in comparison to some other motion that...

view entire post




Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 18:10 GMT
Hector Daniel Gianni’s comment to me on his paper’s page:

Dear Paul Butler:

You choose my essay as the best you read till now, this show me that at least mine is readable, clear and understandable for you. I thank you for your opinion.

My essay is radical because left aside the prehistoric and unfunded “belief” of “time” physic existence, which has no scientific...

view entire post





Author Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 23:34 GMT
My comment entered on Ronald Racicot’s paper’s page:

Dear Ronald,

I find it good that you understand that most things that many consider to be random chance happenings because they cannot predict the actual outcome that will occur are often the result of unknown variable structural actions that when involved in interactions with other similar entities can yield one of a certain...

view entire post




Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 20:41 GMT
Ronald Racicot’s comment to me on his Paper’s page:

Dear Paul N. Butler;

Thank you for your thoughts and ideas.

I have to admit that it’s difficult for me to fully understand your terminology and how your ideas mesh with current quantum mechanics terminology and theories.

You seem to be suggesting that the internal structure and dynamics of any given quantum...

view entire post





Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 22:45 GMT
Dear Paul Butler

Everybody talks of “space-time” and because I think than most people don’t know what they meant. I thought you would be interested in it’s meaning after we know that the experimental “time” meaning is “movement”

“Movement” on the “space-time” construction

Minkowski “space-time”...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 00:54 GMT
Dear Hector,

I have found some who say that they don’t consider time to be an actual physical dimension, but just a mathematical dimension, but if the math model that incorporates that dimension is supposed to model reality, that dimension must model some part of reality. I have not yet found anyone who can explain what that part is in any reasonable way.

I agree that there is...

view entire post





Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 13:09 GMT
Paul,

A nicely thought out and written essay covering many aspects closely in common with much of mine, including 'design'. You can be assured that I really can't reconcile your 2.6 with it, though maybe we're both saying something upsetting as I too have had a number of anonymous 1's.

I can't disagree with your creationist conclusion though I conclude we can't conclude with certainty, having identified a mechanism to allow rather more of consciousness (and even an RNA mutation model!) from hierarchical levels of interactions than yours. None the less recursion to some 'start point' or action remains none zero.

Questions I would ask of yours are; "Motion" in relation to what?, and; what about the fundamental case of rotation? Perhaps read mine before deeper discussion on these? I look forward to your comments and/or questions.

Nicely done.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 03:29 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for your agreement with the understanding that the concept that the complex structure of the universe demonstrates a pattern of design and not just what would be expected from random natural occurrences. I have found that as people in this world proceed down a path of search for understanding they tend to gain beliefs some of which are likely to be true and some are...

view entire post





Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'X' and 'Z':


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