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


Previous Contests

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

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.
read/discusswinners

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

Hoang Hai: on 10/5/12 at 3:20am UTC, wrote Many thankyou,Yrvon. The poem of Yrvon makes me feel: I'm probably the...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:21am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Irvon Clear: on 10/3/12 at 16:00pm UTC, wrote Honang Cao Hai, I read your essay and I do not have criticism of your...

Hoang Hai: on 9/27/12 at 9:06am UTC, wrote Dear Irvon Eugene Clear Your essay is too short to see, but your argument...

Georgina Parry: on 9/25/12 at 0:53am UTC, wrote Dear Irvon, Thank you so much for taking a look at it. There is a...

Irvon Clear: on 9/25/12 at 0:10am UTC, wrote Georgina, Thanks for directing me to Diagram.1. I am intrigued with its...

Georgina Parry: on 9/21/12 at 21:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Irvon, as I see it there are two kinds of possibility. One is what...

Irvon Clear: on 9/21/12 at 19:54pm UTC, wrote Wilhelmus, It is difficult to help others to focus on what they are...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "State latency is an explanation for the results of Stern Gerlach experiment..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: A Very Brief Statement by Irvon Eugene Clear [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Irvon Eugene Clear wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 12:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

Our observations are contained within human experience. We create models to express predicatable observations based on our experiences. Why are we pursuing a perfect description and understanding of the universe when we have yet to experience a perfect object, force or relationship within it?

Author Bio

I am a nontraditional student, an MBA graduate, a professional electrical engineer, a University of Phoenix faculty member and a hospital facility manager. I have completed ten plays and self published a novel: "The Game: Part One." I was nominated for Georgia Author of the Year in 2004. Imagine…an erotic novel containing great ideas! I am a member of the Cincinnati Playwrights Initiative (CPI) with staged reading presentations: Court of Priests at the Aronoff Center on 1/11/11 and Generations Passing 10/11/11. Cold salon readings (University of Cincinnati campus) for A Reasonable Person, Universe, Marabout, and Steam.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



James Putnam wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 21:01 GMT
Irvon Eugene Clear,

"Why are we pursuing a perfect description and understanding of the universe when we have yet to experience a perfect object, force or relationship within it?"

I wasn't aware that we were pursuing a description and understanding of perfection, only the imperfect universe by means of our imperfect observations leading to our imperfect models. A physics Theory-of-Everything is definitely not about perfection. It is the limited pursuit for a single model for artificially unifying our theoretical mechanical interpretations for differences in patterns of changes of velocity. That is what I think. I wish you had written a real essay. Something with enough substance to give it a meaningful rating.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Irvon Eugene Clear replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 13:26 GMT
James, there is only one winner in a contest. Same thing in society...most of us seek success and only a few will actually achieve it. But we all support society in order to keep the possibility of success for everyone.

I do not believe that the purpose of this contest is to establish a winner. In this case we are both being encouraged to communicate with each other.

There is a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


James Putnam replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 15:05 GMT
Irvon Eugene Clear,

Thank you for your cordial response. It tells me more about your thoughts. Best wishes for your effort to develop "An Intuitive Explanation for the Existence of Everything". I don't concern myself with winning the contest. I look for becoming known for what I think. So I think a lot about both what others think and what I think and then write down what I think :)

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 21:14 GMT
Dear Irvon E.Clear,

You have expressed some interesting ideas.I understand that simplicity and unexpectedness can work well, focussing attention. However the extreme brevity of your work seems to severely jeopardise its chances in the competition from the outset. Seems a strange deliberate choice, to me, when you are an experienced writer and could no doubt have crafted much more.I don't agree with all of the assumptions in your "very brief statement" but would have happily have gone on a mental journey with you to explore them more deeply.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Irvon Eugene Clear replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 14:00 GMT
Georgina, the journey you are referring to is still a possibility. In fact, it is possible with every human face. As I mentioned previously to James, I am working on a more comprehensive statement. It is becoming a testament of my individuality. I am hinting that it will be a continually changing testament and hopefully it will become more accurate as it includes a more sensitive awareness of the "others" in my environment. I welcome your interest and I extend an invitation to you to assist me in the development of this Intuitive Explanation for the Existence of Everything. As a clue to my intentions: the expression of an idea is in itself an expression of art. It seems that we are not only the observers of the universe but we are also its expressive artists. We are responding to our observations in more ways than formulating explanations. All of our observations may not lead us to more understanding but to an increased awareness that leads us to more observations. A process that adds meaning to human experience in terms of continuing artistic expressions. We can add to but never complete the process.

Best Wishes

Irvon

Bookmark and Share



Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 03:26 GMT
Hi Irvon,

You certainly seem to have a very diverse background. Your first sentence struck me especially because it appears to already contain an assumption, namely that the only alternative to something existing is that it doesn't exist. You may find a different way of conceptualizing this most fundamental question in my essay. If you find the time to look at it and comment, I' be grateful.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Irvon Eugene Clear replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 17:16 GMT
Armin, you asked me to read your essay. I enjoyed it and within your observations, statements and constraints I believe I understand and agree with your point. Given your arguments I agree that there is no reason to expect or require a unification of ignorance (exceptions to theories of anything) to be labeled a Theory of Everything.

But there is an Intuitive Explanation for the Existence of Everything if you start with one basic assumption: what existed, exists, and will exist is allan evolved and survived result of the creation of all possible objects, forces and relationships that are not a part of God. The result of an intentional creation of all things imperfect. This creates individualized forms and potential. What unifys them is the experience of existence and the realization of responsibility, freedom and self realization...the foundational principle of an individualized religion. I would even argue that in spite of what we currently perceive to be organized religions they are in fact collective expressions of individualized experiences. I would also agree that this is not space or time specific. There is no specialidentity to earth in the creation of all things not a part of God.

Thanks for sharing the experience of your essay.

Irvon

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 18:03 GMT
Irvon

"If we have the correct model we do not expect to have to make excuses for observed exceptions."

Absolutely. You may also enjoy my essay as an author, (or not). But the emergent model with no exceptions to excuse is important anyway.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Irvon Eugene Clear replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 13:44 GMT
Peter, I am working on an Intuitive Explanation for the Existence of Everything. It begins with one initial state of being...perfection. It anything existed in the beginning it was perfect. The only other possibility was nothingness. Then perfection created all possible objects, forces, and relationships that are not perfect. A point in nothingness was spherically expanded into a universe of possibility. This was the creation of space. Perhaps a simpler way of expressing it is to describe the universe as filled with imperfect objects, forces and relationships that actually exist. What we conceptualize as empty space is actually the existing potential for all objects, forces and relationships that could exist but do not exist.

If we are only looking for things that exist at the moment of observation we will see a universe that is filled with potential and very sparsely populated with evolved things. I value nothingness as a valuable gift. It is actually the potential to do the impossible. Everything that was impossible in the past and is now real in the present and future comes from the "empty space" in our universe. The dimension of space measures all of the possibilities that are within it. It accommodates what could happen which is a much greater magnitude of possibility than what has actually happened.

I appreciate your work and find it challenging. For me it supports the idea that when we observe with more accuracy we have to accept the possibility that some portion of previously empty space can become real. I am posting this comment on your site as well.

Irvon

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 14:26 GMT
Irvon

"Impossible means only it hasn't been done YET". Not only my favourite axiom but the way I live my life and view science. I can find an analog of your intuitive explanation. It is a real mechanism, as I'm a very 'locally real' guy.

It comes from recycling and re-ionization (an astrophysical anomaly not previously explained) by AGN's (SMBH's). Re-ionization breaks the matter of a galaxy (and other scales) down to it's purest form. More completely fresh matter condenses from the dark energy field by perturbation. That then makes the unique (less 'perfect' collections of evolving mass. The whole universe is then 'potential'.

My work explains how that non zero spatial matter evolves over non zero time on interactions. Present physics does not. It is indeed challenging to those only used to math to visualise the evolving effects of motion.Ken Wharton rationalises why correct maths can't do this. I hope my essay may make the top 35 to be studied more closely and judged and hope you think it worth helping.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 15:55 GMT
Peter, does space have any characteristic that is unique to it? Does it have something that is the initiative energy and mass that evolves existence?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 16:36 GMT
"does space have any characteristic that is unique to it? Does it have something that is the initiative energy and mass that evolves existence?"

Good question. The reason for it 'having no part in the propagation of light' would be removed by my Discrete Field Model of nested kinetics, but it still can't implement the 'changes' we see to transmitted em energy, i.e. it is strictly not a 'carrier' in the same way a matter medium is.

However. The 'quantum fluctuations', ion shocks and and Higgs particle energy must come from somewhere, and the 'dark energy' field is the only candidate. Not only that it contains 73% of the Universes mass/energy so can't now really be denied except by the most belief based of physicists and doddery old professors who can't abandon the old assumptions (and the clones, or is it 'clowns', they've indoctrinated). Unfortunately the aforesaid still hold the keys to the gates so mankind must wait patiently for them to pass them on or pass on.

(who was it said physics only advances when old physicists die off?)

Studying galactic evolution (Look at early open spirals like Hawk for example) matter propagates most where the speed of matter through the field is the greatest, i.e. at the bar ends. So twin vortices by perturbation. Is it that simple?

I've shockingly found the only difference between an asteroid and a comet is velocity through the local field! Nobody can falsify it, or of course publish it!

Bless.

How sensible does that sound to you?

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:37 GMT
Dear Irvon,

What is enduring and true is brief! What can be said about it in essence needs to be very brief. Thus, your very title tells the story. And I agree. Indeed, all we individually know is found in our experience of what we know. All knowledge is self-knowledge! Your essay is very refreshing of this truth ancient Greeks taught! In my essay, “The Metaphysics of Physics”, I make similar arguments. I am sure you will find it interesting and enjoyable. Please read and rate it! In the background buzz of this competition, similar views need to harmonize to make the 'message' resonate in the minds of physicists and other people.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Rajn wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 10:45 GMT
Excellent!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 23:37 GMT
"Until we actually observe perfection there will be no successful model of it."

If something is perfection, wouldn't it be futile to build a model. Models only help to understand that which you can hope to understand or approximate. Perfection is not something we can approximate, I would say.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 00:05 GMT
Irvon Eugene Clear,

Looking back at your non-essay. There is no path to be followed from nothingness to the potential for somethingness. A path to knowledge would require somethingness right from the beginning. Nothingness has no potential. I do not understand your view. I see nothing here.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Irvon Eugene Clear replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 00:09 GMT
In response to both James Lee Hoover and James Putnam:

There is something in human experience that is perfect. It has the following characteristics:

1) It is omnipresent...you can't go anywhere and not be in it.

2) It reflects omniscience...it accommodates all possible events and their

possible results. Its magnitude demonstrates the knowledge of what can

possibly happen...everything that can possibly happen is accommodated.

3) It is not effected by time.

4) Nothing can be added to it and nothing can be removed from it.

5) It is the one thing that could have been created by perfection to create an

imperfect evolving universe.

6) It contains the possibility for the existence of anything that is

imperfect. It is a unit characteristic and as the units are increased the

possibility of existence also increases.

7) It allows the transition from nothingness to the existence of anything that

is imperfect.

8) Human existence is one of the consequences of its creation.

9) Its creation is the initial creation event for everything that is imperfect.

It is Space.

Irvon

Bookmark and Share


James Putnam replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 14:24 GMT
Dear Irvon Eugene Clear,

You have made your view clear. :) Thank you for sharing it. Being low in community ratings does not prove that one is wrong. I am looking through the lowest voted essays in case there are scientific gems that are not receiving attention. Some posts here have been at some level of agreement with you. I am not one of those, but, I am posting messages for the purpose of bringing these essays back into the spotlight for a moment. Maybe longer if they attract additional attention on their own. I will be moving on to other essays. Good luck.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Irvon Eugene Clear replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 21:03 GMT
James, thank you for your consideration.

Bookmark and Share



James Putnam wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 13:12 GMT
Irvon Eugene Clear,

Why don't you consider saying more about this because I do not understand how you connect space as cause for these effects. Is your message kind of a spiritual insight or does it involve specifics of physics?:

7) It allows the transition from nothingness to the existence of anything that

is imperfect.

8) Human existence is one of the consequences of its creation.

9) Its creation is the initial creation event for everything that is imperfect.

It is Space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Irvon Eugene Clear replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 19:25 GMT
James,

Space is potential for existence (not anything specific just anything not perfect). Human experience is within the term not anything specific. Potential is the first thing necessary in order to make the transition from nothingness to existence (within the perception of human experience...imperfect environment).

If perfection created an imperfect environment it would create a process that would evolve the creation of all possible imperfect objects, forces and relationships (explaining current human experience). Perfection would not create an imperfect environment by taking a portion of itself to create it. It would have to create from nothingness. Space would have been created from nothingness. And space would have to then evolve existence.

The only thing that is perfect within human experience is space. Space seems most likely to be the "process" for the creation of all things imperfect. There should be something characteristic of a unit of space that "creates the potential for existence." I do not know what that characateristic is but it would certainly be a fundamental physical property that we have not yet discovered.

Irvon

Bookmark and Share



Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 15:45 GMT
Hi Irvon,

Being he last one in row has some profits, like James I am looking what is missing, but I cannot find it, it is your way of explaining, but I agree with Georgina that you could have given it some more words. We are constructing our own universe !

pls read, comment and eventually rate: "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION"

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Irvon Eugene Clear replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 19:54 GMT
Wilhelmus,

It is difficult to help others to focus on what they are convinced they are already looking at. In this case I am on a journey that begins with the question: why is there so much space in the universe? I am attempting to answer that question with the observation that everything that human experience identifies as exists is a result of many different possibilities. If any of the "possibles" in an event were different there would have to be additional space available to accommodate the resulting change in the event.

Changing anything in an event has to be accommodated with space available for it to become a reality. Space is possibility. Without space nothing could change and we all know that everything in fact is continually changing.

The existence of anything has to first evolve from possibility. This makes space a process for evolving existence. How does this process work? I am suggesting that the process is within some characteristic of space that we are currently not aware of and that this characteristic will in fact be a fundamental physical property.

Irvon

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 21:25 GMT
Dear Irvon,

as I see it there are two kinds of possibility. One is what can possibly become an actualisation, such as a material form or arrangement of such forms. According to the explanatory framework I am using the future is Open, not determined and already in existence at another time. I call that the Unwritten future. It does not exist, it does not contain what will be but allows the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Irvon Eugene Clear replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 00:10 GMT
Georgina,

Thanks for directing me to Diagram.1. I am intrigued with its complexity and the indicated relationships. My immediate problem in trying to bring it into my sensory awareness is that as a human being I assess my immediate environment with "survival" efficiency. I begin by categorizing what I see and recognize as familiar. The unfamiliar is ignored if it doesn't have claws, teeth or injectible poison. What I instinctively look for is the simple origin of the evolved complexity. In this case I see "nothing" in the upper right hand corner. There are no indicated relationships. Why is it in the diagram?

Is nothing the origin of all of the processes in your diagram? If it is then what is the process of transistion from nothing?

Please understand that I am honestly asking these questions from a fundamental point of view. What is the initial state of the awareness that is represented by your diagram? And, are the diagramed relationships also continually changing? I don't mean continually within the indicated relationships but do the relationships themselves continually change? Does something that works in the present or past stop working in the future because of changed fundamental relationships?

Irvon

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 09:06 GMT
Dear Irvon Eugene Clear

Your essay is too short to see, but your argument was so good to know.

I do not have the same opinion with you, so really looking forward to your criticism to reviewers for my essay.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Irvon Eugene Clear wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 16:00 GMT
Honang Cao Hai,

I read your essay and I do not have criticism of your effort in contributing to our understanding of our common condition. I find the essay format to be too confining for an expressive communication and I'm going to include several poems as my further attempt to communicate my understanding of our sensory attachment to a common brain.

There is no language...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 03:20 GMT
Many thankyou,Yrvon.

The poem of Yrvon makes me feel: I'm probably the happiest person in this contest.

Yrvon will certainly have an own website or blog,as well as it is definitely will be interesting and attractive as your personality.

I like poetry, like all art forms, and have the ability to review or comment is very interesting.

Would not be bothered if I want to enjoy your work?

hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:21 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
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.