Search FQXi

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 Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

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
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Charles Weber: on 10/31/12 at 23:15pm UTC, wrote Dear Alan Lowey, In portrayals of the Universe astronomers present...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 7:28am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Georgina Woodward: on 10/4/12 at 5:00am UTC, wrote Have just re-read your essay. The conversation does make it stand out from...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 14:42pm UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Hoang Hai: on 9/28/12 at 3:00am UTC, wrote Dear Daniel Hall Very nicely. You will understand God better when I read...

Sergey Fedosin: on 9/25/12 at 10:21am UTC, wrote Dear Daniel, The Big Band model seems to be wrong conception. All effects...

Yuri Danoyan: on 9/10/12 at 17:07pm UTC, wrote Daniel Do you familiar to next Einstein quote? "What I am really...

Anonymous: on 9/5/12 at 2:20am UTC, wrote Whether you love it or not, it doesn't appear to produce any more problems...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "John, Steve, Like I am not only focused on my own works, I discussed on..." in The Noise of Gravitons

Steve Dufourny: "Steve Agnew told that there is no reason to go beyond the actual standard..." in The Noise of Gravitons

PRASAD DIVATE: "Hi all, I just read that there are 64 dimensions in the universe and God..." in AI, Consciousness,...

Steve Dufourny: "sure, without doubting ,we must doubt :) I make the same for all my model..." in AI, Consciousness,...

RECENT ARTICLES

Time to Think
Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

FQXi FORUM
September 23, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Creation Paradox by Daniel Hall [refresh]

Author Daniel Hall wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 12:15 GMT
Essay Abstract

The first and second laws of thermodynamics, combined with our own existence are among the most widely held pillars of scientific truth. However, a paradox occurs when we consider the notion of creation. If the universe was created, then the Conservation of Energy is violated. If the universe is eternal, then the law of increasing entropy comes into question.

Author Bio

Daniel Hall is a Physics and Computer Science Major at MiraCosta Community College.

Alan Lowey wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 09:38 GMT
Dear Daniel,

I had an immediate answer to your presumed statement "If the universe was created, then the Conservation of Energy is violated." It's detailed in my previous essay contest entry on the subject of 'Is Reality Analog Or Digital?' Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 10:23 GMT
I love it when people bring God into the discussion of the creation (birth) of the universe. It opens doors to new ideas and new creativity. If you're God, then you can dictate the laws of physics. But dictating the laws of physics requires thoughtfulness. How embarrassing would it be to create laws of physics that cause the universe to big bang, and then collapse 5 seconds later. Fortunately, no worshipers would ever observe a badly designed universe.

report post as inappropriate
Bill Miller replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 20:36 GMT
"If you're God, then you can dictate the laws of physics."

Who dictated the laws under which God operates?

Oh, God isn't constrained by any laws? What about logic? If God is not constrained by any laws, including those of logic, then is it not true that he might not have existed while he was setting up the laws of physics? Or that the laws he set up actually pre-existed and set him up instead? Why not, if laws of logic do not apply to God and his actions?

These are the problems introduced when people bring God into the creation of the universe. So, I don't love it.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 02:20 GMT
Whether you love it or not, it doesn't appear to produce any more problems than many of the current essays.

People are seriously discussing getting rid of causality, unitarity, space-time, the continuum, and almost anything else you can think of. The possibility of a self-evolving universe without external laws has been discussed many times on fqxi, and question of logic versus local realism is also being discussed. At what point do we reach the threshold where there is nothing else but God?

George Ellis has come as close as one can get to the ultimate Top-down designer without daring to even mention it as a possible limiting case.

Get over it.

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 07:58 GMT
As the chemical potential density of earth is more than that of anywhere in the rest of the observable universe, that indicates life; I think, earth been created from eternal universe.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 09:27 GMT
Dear Daniel Hall,

I want to let you know I have read your essay. It was unexpected and unusual.

I felt that at the end the choice of options has been too severely limited by your earlier arguments.I would have liked the option to choose non of the above. As there are other possibilities you didn't consider.

Despite that slight annoyance it was an entertaining essay, easy to read and you have highlighted some interesting issues. Thank you for sharing your ideas.

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:00 GMT
Have just re-read your essay. The conversation does make it stand out from the other essays in this contest. I think you have asked some interesting questions and given some interesting possibilities, using the conversation to carry the reader easily through them. Good luck. Kind regards Georgina : )

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 15:53 GMT
Dear Daniel Hall,

I found your erudite essay absolutely fascinating. I was especially impressed by the conclusive mention of the possibilities of “infinite regression, divine intervention and inside vacuum fluctuation” as I had remarked on this type of triadic assessment of eventualities adopted by people in my essay Sequence Consequence. I believe that one real Universe can being eternally occurring one dimensionally once, even if such a belief is grammatically incorrect as written. One real Universe can only be represented by one symbolic number 1 once. There is only 1 of anything real or imagined once in the one real Universe. There is only 1 of everything once real or imagined in the one real Universe. Any measurement of anything that uses more or less of a whole 1 is unrealistically inaccurate.

report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Nicholls wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 21:52 GMT
Hi Daniel,

I like your conversation with God.

1. If potential energy is the algebraic negative of kinetic energy, one may take the view that the energy of the Universe is forever zero.

2. Insofar as entropy is not conserved but tends to increase so information also increases, as the information carried by a point is equal to the entropy of the space in which that point exists.

I have come to the conclusion that we must identify God and the Universe and are in no position to explain why we exist absolutely, only why we exist in this particular form. Science is concerned with documenting the fixed points or invariances in the universal dynamics. Evolution can explain why the system has chosen the particular fixed points that we do observe: they are "fit", that is self sustaining.

I note that on this hypothesis we are "inside" God. Creation in this scenario is equivalent to an increasing number of fixed points in a purely dynamic system, which is equivalent to increasing entropy and information, both being equivalent to a count of the number of states in the Universe.

Jeffrey

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 17:07 GMT
Daniel

Do you familiar to next Einstein quote?

"What I am really interested in is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom."

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 10:21 GMT
Dear Daniel,

The Big Band model seems to be wrong conception. All effects of the model may be explained by other way, see for example Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles.. In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (subject of my essay) there are a lot of different levels of matter, the main force creating bodies and particles is gravitation. At the level of particles is Strong gravitation . Creation of matter take place in such way: relativistic objects of all levels of matter (neutron stars, nucleons) produce gravitons which are neutrinos, photons and cosmic rays; these gravitons are possible to form compact object of high level of matter from the diffuse matter. Then the paradox of creation is disappearing.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 03:00 GMT
Dear Daniel Hall

Very nicely.

You will understand God better when I read about how the teaching of the Lord in my essay.

Based on that I have drafted a proposal for the TOE

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 14:42 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:28 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Charles Weber wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 23:15 GMT
Dear Alan Lowey,

In portrayals of the Universe astronomers present as if the big bang and expanding galaxies were an established fact. But actually there is no evidence that the we are at the center of the Universe and the galaxies are all moving away from us other than the assumption that the cosmological red shift is a Doppler shift. There is a discussion of other possible causes of the red shift in http://charles_w.tripod.com/red.html . My own view is that the red shift is due to an interaction of the photons with masses passed in space. If light actually is degraded by the ether itself, It should prove impossible to establish the cause by experiment, because the affect would be so tiny.

Astronomers speak of a "young Universe". It was, of course, younger than it is now when distant stars shone. However, there is no chance at all that the Universe was as young as astronomers say when the light from those distant stars was created even if the big bang hypothesis were valid. It took the light over 13 billion years to arrive here, so it is obvious that the atoms emitting it took well over 13 billion years to get out there even given a big bang. It does not make any difference if the atoms traveled out there from a spot near here or the ether is expanding, well over 13 billion years would have had to go by, so by now the Universe could be over 30 billion years old even in the unlikely event that there was a big bang.

You may also find interesting a hypothesis that the characteristics of quasars arise because of refractive lensing by gases near a huge mass inside the quasar of the light from an opposite jet in http://charles_w.tripod.com/quasar.html .

Sincerely, Charles Weber

report post as inappropriate